RE: Is the self all that can be known to exist?
November 18, 2016 at 4:16 pm
(This post was last modified: November 18, 2016 at 4:17 pm by Excited Penguin.)
(November 18, 2016 at 3:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Based upon what? That you experience it? You experience many other things as well....things which you are about to deny. I asked this at the very begining. If experience stands as testament to the existence of the self, why does it not stand testament to the existence of the other stuff?
I do experience other things. And they do certainly exist. The question is not whether they exist or not. The question is how they exist. Do they exist as concepts in my own mind, or do they exist independently of me? I think the latter is a necessarily illogic way of putting it.
In a sense, we could argue, we don't know that our brains exist either. There I would agree with you. Every atom we experience, we can never tell for sure whether it exists or not. We can only ever tell that -something- exists. Call it whatever you like. Call it a process rather than an object. Not the self, but awareness. That is what is meant by the self, anyway, but I'm trying to walk you through it here.
Awareness is real. Wouldn't you say? Even if you are a -zombie- with no conscience, R, you have to aknowledge awareness. If you don't, then we delve into utter nonsense. How are you typing right now if you're not aware? How do you respond to me if you're not there? Or is it that none of us is aware? What does it mean to be aware then, why do we have this idea? What does the concept describe? Does it describe it?
I can't quantify it, Rhythm. But it is there. You have to aknowledge that. Language can only go so far. I can't show you what is hiding behind the symbol of language. I can only refer to it and hope you're going to play this language game with me in the interest of ... it. Once again.
It comes up again and again.
Are you with me?
