I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs then they are welcome to do so...

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

I am just trying to get an understanding of the definition of 'know'.

I understand that, Frank...and I think we both appreciate how difficult it is to come up with a satisfactory definition.

But I am also sure you can see the difference between the use of the word "know" in these few sentences:

I know my mother's middle name was Loretta.

I know there are no gods involved in REALITY.

I know my computer is an HP.

I know there is a GOD...and that the GOD loves me.

I know the car I drive is a Taurus.

I know there is no self...no soul...and knowing that is key to ridding one's self of suffering.

An appreciation of the differences helps to understand where I am coming from with my part of this discussion.

Quote:

How you can know something and we cannot.

What is it that you think I am saying that I know...in the context of a philosophical discussion?

Nobody on this forum says "I do not know" more than I...and every time I say it, I mean it.

Quote:

I think the real issue here may be an epistemological one. That's probably a longer thread than this one.

Ben Franklin once said, "There are only two things certain, death and taxes".

What would be on your list?

An interesting and quaint observation about the human condition...that most likely does not hold up in all cases.

4 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

There's a saying I once heard :

"They don't care how much you know until they know how much you care"

As a general rule, it's one of the more valuable I've come across.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Another question :

In regards to their beliefs where you've said 'you cannot know that'

Do you know that they cannot know that?

Ie. Do you know that everything you've claimed is unknowable, is in fact, unknowable?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

There's a saying I once heard :

"They don't care how much you know until they know how much you care"

As a general rule, it's one of the more valuable I've come across.

I don't understand that one, Vikorr.

Can you explain what it means to you...and how it should apply to what I have been saying?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I am assuming the odd statements are true and even are not. I know that my truck is a Toyota. I know that when driving down the road I will get hurt if I open the door and get out. I know these things because my senses indicate these realities to me, from experience.. By definition, these are not illusions. But by your definitions, they could be. Correct?

How come when I try to define 'know' it is trivial and when you make a statement it is fact?

I truly do not understand where you draw the line. I accept what is front of me, my experiences, as reality. Yes, a naive realist. You say it can be an illusion.

If your senses can be an illusion, why can't your Taurus be an illusion?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Another question :

In regards to their beliefs where you've said 'you cannot know that'

Show me any place where I have said "you cannot know that"...and I will immediately withdraw it. But I don't think you will find any place where I have said that, because I cannot possibly know what you can or cannot know. I certainly have said that I suspect "you" do not "know" that...but that is quite different from the assertion, "you cannot know that."

Quote:

Do you know that they cannot know that?

Absolutely not...which is why I seriously doubt that I have ever writtten those words. I may have gotten careless, though, and if you show any instance where I did say that...I will retract it immediately.

Quote:

Ie. Do you know that everything you've claimed is unknowable, is in fact, unknowable?

There is absolutely nothing that I have ever said is unknowable...except for the strong atheistic assertion, "There are no gods." I can think of no way for that information to be known to anyone no matter what the circumstances.

Other than that...I never say that anything is "unknowable."

I think, Vikorr, that you simply read stuff into what I write...that is not what I actually write. That is the reason I ask so often for you (for anyone) to actually quote what I have said...rather than to characterize it.

I really want you to address what I have written here...and unless you can show a specific instance where I did say what you are claiming, to acknowledge that your characterization of what I have said is defective.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

I am assuming the odd statements are true and even are not. I know that my truck is a Toyota. I know that when driving down the road I will get hurt if I open the door and get out. I know these things because my senses indicate these realities to me, from experience.. By definition, these are not illusions. But by your definitions, they could be. Correct?

Not even close, Frank. Take another look. It is one thing to say you know the make of your car...and quite another to say you know there is a GOD (or that there are no gods.)

Quote:

How come when I try to define 'know' it is trivial and when you make a statement it is fact?

Where the hell does that come from????

Quote what prompted that comment.

Quote:

I truly do not understand where you draw the line. I accept what is front of me, my experiences, as reality. Yes, a naive realist. You say it can be an illusion.

If your senses can be an illusion, why can't your Taurus be an illusion?

It can, Frank. Did you actually read my response to you????

Anything and everything can be an illusion.

I certainly do not know what is...and what isn't.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Ummm...Frank, I just took a look at my bio information...and I found that I had used the term "unanswerable questions." That leaves the impression that I was saying "cannot be answered." I should have used the term, "what I consider to be unanswerable"...and will change it to that. (I plan to do some revisions to this old bio anyway.) But I wanted to leave it as is...so you can see it the way it is now.

The term "unanswerable questions" is not appropriate...and does not comport with other comments I have made in the past about the use of that kind of designation...particularly in dictionary definitions of "agnostic." To say that the existence of a GOD is unknowable is, in my opinion, inappropriate. If there is a GOD...that GOD could certainly make ITS presence and existence known.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . . . . If there is a GOD...that GOD could certainly make ITS presence and existence known.

Actually, Frank, you are probably too intellectual: "At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes." (Matthew 11:25) But, perhaps you can look a little deeper.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
. . . . . If there is a GOD...that GOD could certainly make ITS presence and existence known.
Actually, Frank, you are probably too intellectual: "At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes." (Matthew 11:25) But, perhaps you can look a little deeper.

No matter what Jesus said...or what Neologist said...

...IF there is a GOD...and that GOD wanted to make ITS existence known in an unambiguous way...

...I see no reason to suppose IT couldn't.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

AWW. Shucks, Frank

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, your statement "I know there is no self...no soul...and knowing that is key to ridding one's self of suffering" does not apply to the Buddhist thesis. It has nothing to do with such an intellectual "knowing." The successful mystic (which is what the Buddhist strives to be) has rid herself of the suffering resulting from the sense/feeling of having a constant ego-self (as stressed above by Fresco). This freedom from the existential suffering (dukkha) reflecting an attachment to the "sense of self" results from a hard won realization of the ephemeral, contextual, and purely functional value of this useful fiction (the self).

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Show me any place where I have said "you cannot know that"

Implicit in your writing throughout this thread is your belief that 'you cannot know that'

Quote:

And you know you are not deluding yourself...HOW????

------------------------------------------------------------
At some point, Fresco...if you are even close to as intelligent and insightful as you would have the forum members think you are...

...you will finally recognize and acknowledge that what you think about "self" and non-dualism...

...may be completely wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------------
C'mon, igm...and the rest of you guys. It is okay to acknowledge that you MAY BE wrong.

These are just from the last 2 pages, and these types of statements are right throughout your postings in this thread. It is very obvious that when you say 'you may be wrong' that many times, you also must also mean 'you cannot know'.
------------------------------------------------------------
From another angle - if they do know something, to which you say 'admit it, it's just a guess'...you are directly implying that they cannot know what they know.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Or some of the clearer posts :

Frank Apisa wrote:

You are saying you "know" things about the REALITY...which I view as rather close-minded.

http://able2know.org/topic/220485-14#post-5424418ie. You cannot know, for if you knew - in Franks sentence, you wouldn't be close-minded, you would just be knowledgeable.

JLNobody wrote:

It's neither guesswork nor belief

Frank Apisa wrote:

Non-dualism....IS A BELIEF...which is to say, it is a guess about the true nature of REALITY.

http://able2know.org/topic/220485-16#post-5427978ie. You are saying 'You cannot know'.

Quote:

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT REALITY is...and I am acknowledging that I do not know.

You are suggesting that you do know. You are even telling me (and RL)...what it is.

You may be wrong. Your "explanation" IS A GUESS.

The guess may be correct...but it may be wrong.

ie. You are saying 'you cannot know'.
http://able2know.org/topic/220485-16#post-5428837

There is of course, pretty much a whole thread filled with such sentiment about other peoples beliefs.

In a way, I agree with you (few things are certain) - but I look at beliefs from a 'is it useful' viewpoint, so whether it's guesswork or not isn't the most important thing in the world to me...but just as I apply tests to my beliefs, and to what Buddhists tell me, I also do the same with you.

How do you know they cannot know?

4 Replies

@vikorr,

a good definition of education is " tuning ones mind to reality" , and a big part of getting there is constantly testing your beliefs. another is being open to the liklihood that you are wrong. moderns usually fail on both points.what we have now are some of the most ignorant humans to walk this earth in awhile, but they watch movies, have a piece of paper from a university,and have Google so good luck on waking them up....they are sure that they are the bestest brightest EVAR.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

The sainted Wittgenstein ( Wink

) would probably argue that the perpetual "Frank Circus" is generated by Frank's failure to understand the nuances of usage of the verb "to know" and the noun "reality". Specific usages imply specific cohesive groups of respondents who have no requirement to negotiate appropriateness of usage. Thus for "true believers" the "reality of God" is axiomatic and has no further requirement involving "evidence". Similarly, for many meditators " a transient self" is axiomatic irrespective of the general social functionality of a concept of "self integrity". A confusion between general and specific respondents is equivalent to the assumption that all games can be played with the same type of ball.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

...And anticipating Frank's consequent rejoinder that "transient selves" and "gods" are merely different "belief systems", I should have made clear that in the language game of nuances there is no clear line on the continuum between knowledge and belief since what we call "knowledge" always involves inductive expectancies of outcomes which serve our particular worries and activitities.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

IF there is a GOD...and that GOD wanted to make ITS existence known in an unambiguous way......I see no reason to suppose IT couldn't

That'd make it too easy for us!
The earth is a "testing ground" to sort the chaff from the wheat so we have to WORK at connecting with God-
Jesus said - "The work God requires is to believe in the one he has sent" (John 6:28 )
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philip 2:12 KJV)
"Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life.." (James 1:12)

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

To guess, is to for example, to guess what color card will appear when one turns over the top card of a shuffled deck of cards. To meditate is like simply turning over the card without any expectations i.e. it is just the absence of a guess. To say that state of mind or the result of it, 'is' a state of guessing, is to fail to understand the obvious... the absence of a guess is not a guess and the result of that, is not by extension, a guess either.

3 Replies

@igm,

I've decided to slightly amend my post above... as usual.

0 Replies

I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs then they are welcome to do so...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know