Who would you be without your knowledge? Options

[Joesus]

What is "to be"?

You can be many things at once. Which one do you chose and why? The politician chooses his ambition, the soldier chooses his courage, and the yogi chooses his mysticism. They all are based on their views and knowledge. Knowledge is relative and only a quality.

To have knowledge of what it is "to be" would also be relative, but to what? Belief, age, location, experience, awareness or states of consciousness?
What is the limit to the human experience and to knowledge?
Is the awareness limited to relative levels of time and space or can it be aware of awareness as itself beyond time and space?
Do you think it is possible to know (something or anything) before you were born, and before you began experiencing what you have experienced in birth, and up to the present moment?

If there was knowledge would you have forgotten it or would you still retain it somewhere inside of you unaffected by transient experiences of the relative identification you maintain with the hydrated meat sack you call home to self?
Is the meat sack the beginning and end to your relative intelligence and all capabilities to know something or anything, and does it limit you? If so in what way?

Time and space.. to be in the..NOW

Unfortunately the video leaves out the prospective idea of free will, and possible or probable realities. It sort of hints that within time, the past present and future is already set.
I don't think this is a theory that could remain stable any more than the earth could have remained flat within the ideas of early history.
Within a multidimensional universe, and with all possible and probable realities that are created within the free will of choices that we can and will make, there is a reflection of multiple identities within the universe. Yet no single one being real or more real within the illusions or slices created by any angle of vision and knowledge. Since there is no end to the possibilities, it would suggest that awareness when focused on a single angle or view only creates one thought/idea and experience.

Some questions.

Could awareness take an objective viewpoint where it might witness multiple viewpoints thru a number of choices at once?
IF we were no less than a conglomeration of multiple viewpoints as the ego, choosing to identify with our particular slice of space time, wouldn't it be possible to see backward or forward, or to see the entire scope and range of a timeline (any possible timeline)?

Could it be possible to see yourself before you were born if your consciousness is not locked into a relative slice or identity with a physical moment within space and time?

Would each slice determine who you are and your destiny and do you believe you have no choice? If so what is choice?

Cells in the human body communicate and are aware of each other at the cellular level of consciousness. What prevents human consciousness from being aware of each other and their thoughts and experiences?

What prevents an individual from sharing or seeing and experiencing alternate viewpoints other than personally identifying with a chosen experience resulting from a single viewpoint?

Who are YOU?

[PANCHO]

Awareness, thoughts, beliefs and knowledge are transitory, giving form to the formless, begetting experience. Experience begets essence. Thus in my ‘book’ awareness, thoughts, beliefs and knowledge are important to beget conscious movement. They in themselves are not important, but abstract ideation is. Using the word important may not be the best way to describe this, necessity seems to be more apt.

What makes it a necessity, and for who? Isn't that "who" an abstract thought itself? Maybe, without that abstract thought, awareness would never appear. Awareness would be a thought aware of itself, but only a thought. Why is that important or a necessity for you?

[PANCHO]

To have knowledge of what it is "to be" would also be relative, but to what? Belief, age, location, experience, awareness or states of consciousness?

It would be relative to your way of understanding. Not everybody understands the same way. But these identifications happen virtually the mind. There is no I am X. It can help if you want to be identified with an image of some type but it is not something real, only an idea, your idea. If you took a picture of yourself, wouldn't it be relative to the camera you use?

[Joesus]

It can help if you want to be identified with an image of some type but it is not something real, only an idea, your idea.

How is that helpful if it isn't real?

If you took a picture of yourself, wouldn't it be relative to the camera you use?

Not a very good analogy. Any camera is going to capture an image, but the person using the camera sees the image that they want to capture. The camera never sees the same thing as the human eye because there is no consciousness in the camera that agrees or disagrees with the person using it or the image it is pointed toward.
Then there is the difference in the captured image of light on film, and the full sensory input of the image and its surroundings in awareness, that differentiates the experience of it from the experience of the captured image recorded on film. The human nervous system assimilates a wide range of sensory input that is far superior to the image recorded on film. It (the nervous system) is much more diverse than a camera.

What do you think is possible or can be achieved in understanding when you say:

It would be relative to your way of understanding. Not everybody understands the same way.

What are the limits to understanding, or are there any?

[PANCHO]

It can help if you want to be identified with an image of some type but it is not something real, only an idea, your idea.

How is that helpful if it isn't real?

Not sure why it needs to be helpful. But for example, ideas are not real and yet they can offer a competitive advantage (helpful).

If you took a picture of yourself, wouldn't it be relative to the camera you use?

Not a very good analogy.

Not sure again. Have you ever use a thermoimager camera? different spectrum (not visible light). So would you say that only visible light is real? Inside, the cameras are completely different and work very different (different light properties), yet they create a different picture than a visible light camera. Your eyes are adjusted to the peak electromagnetic radiation of the sun (visible light) but that does not mean your eyes are the absolute reference to everything. They just happen to take advantage of that frequency range. What you see is relative to the way you see. What you call real is only an adaptation effort to your mind. What you understand is relative to the way you understand.

[Joesus]

Not sure why it needs to be helpful.

You're the one who said it was, and you don't know why?:

It can help if you want to be identified with an image of some type but it is not something real,

Are you quoting from someone else's words and not your own experience?

But for example, ideas are not real and yet they can offer a competitive advantage (helpful).

How is there an advantage when something is not real? You seem to be speaking of illusions having qualities of advantage and use. explain please.

Not sure again. What you understand is relative to the way you understand.

How do you understand, and is there a limit to understanding? Is everything understood not real?

The camera idea is purely mechanical and any camera is built to standards that are designed within the comprehensive range of what one understands exists. If the human senses can perceive the idea or reality of varying light spectrums even if his eye does not see them, he understands they exist and has (with the camera) built an aid to reveal its existence. Is that also not real?

[PANCHO]

Not sure why it needs to be helpful.

You're the one who said it was, and you don't know why?:

It can or it can't. My point is that it does not matter

It can help if you want to be identified with an image of some type but it is not something real,

Are you quoting from someone else's words and not your own experience?

hmm..all mine.

But for example, ideas are not real and yet they can offer a competitive advantage (helpful).

How is there an advantage when something is not real? You seem to be speaking of illusions having qualities of advantage and use. explain please.

Math, imaginary numbers, science using math, etc. They use abstract ideas that don't exists (only on thought) yet they present a clear competitive advantage.

How do you understand, and is there a limit to understanding? Is everything understood not real?

Yes. Understanding is unreal. Nothing is absolutely real but relatively real (appears real). Not everything is black and white (unless you see it that way). You and me have discussed this topic before in several occasions and it seems to be the center of everything.

The camera idea is purely mechanical and any camera is built to standards that are designed within the comprehensive range of what one understands exists. If the human senses can perceive the idea or reality of varying light spectrums even if his eye does not see them, he understands they exist and has (with the camera) built an aid to reveal its existence. Is that also not real?

I was metaphorically speaking. Do you want to go back and discuss the topic of reality?

[Joesus]

It can or it can't. My point is that it does not matter

Your point, then is irrelevant.

hmm..all mine.

Then I gather that you say your life is without any relevant meaning.

Math, imaginary numbers, science using math, etc. They use abstract ideas that don't exists (only on thought) yet they present a clear competitive advantage.

What advantage?

Yes. Understanding is unreal.

I'll disregard anything you said earlier about how one understands anything, and accept that what you say is without any understanding. I will assume then you are rambling without a direction or intent to convey something worth giving any attention to.

Then it wouldn't matter Nothing is absolutely real but relatively real (appears real). Not everything is black and white (unless you see it that way). You and me have discussed this topic before in several occasions and it seems to be the center of everything.

It would seem to be where your analogies are without meanings or merit, by your own measure.

I was metaphorically speaking. Do you want to go back and discuss the topic of reality?

Nothing you would say would have any meaning without understanding having any value. What would be the point in discussing something with you, when you have determined there is no value for what either of us says?

[PANCHO]

accept that what you say is without any understanding. I will assume then you are rambling without a direction or intent to convey something worth giving any attention to

je je.

looks like you are back to the familiar autopilot mode. What ever I say, you say it is the opposite. At first I thought you recovered but that must have been a trick. Oh well...

Nothing you would say would have any meaning without understanding having any value. What would be the point in discussing something with you, when you have determined there is no value for what either of us says?

jeje... Or you just don't want to hear what I say

[Joesus]

looks like you are back to the familiar autopilot mode. What ever I say, you say it is the opposite. At first I thought you recovered but that must have been a trick. Oh well...

Without understanding there is no meaning. Obviously we cannot understand each other.

jeje... Or you just don't want to hear what I say

I would have to be able to understand what you are saying, and that would also necessitate, that what you say would have to be understandable.

You aren't giving me any values that are supposed to have any meaning.

[PANCHO]

can you understand a movie or a fairy tale?

not sure if I understand you. Are you confusing communication and reality?

Reality is an abstract concept

[Joesus]

can you understand a movie or a fairy tale?

Does the movie or fairy tale have a meaning that can be understood, or is it meaningless because understanding is not real?

not sure if I understand you.

Could be because you say:

Understanding is unreal.

You don't seem to allow for competent comprehension of any kind of value, because you say nothing matters.

Are you confusing communication and reality?

Isn't understanding of reality part and parcel to communication? Communication would seem to necessitate a familiarity with understanding of communication within, and as a reality.

Reality is an abstract concept

Says who? If it is you who says this (with unreal understanding), then what is abstract?

[PANCHO]

can you understand a movie or a fairy tale?

Does the movie or fairy tale have a meaning that can be understood, or is it meaningless because understanding is not real?

Yes. It has a meaning that can be understood. The physical part of understanding happens. The neurons fire and a projection emerges. But the content of a fairy tale is not real because it is artificial and fictional. At tv is real but are the movies real?

It seems that your whole purpose is to prove you are right to project your fictional image on to others. Why so much contention? Look, if you don't succeed, you'll feel bad as you'll think you are that image. Does this contention make you happy?

[Joesus]

Yes. It has a meaning that can be understood. The physical part of understanding happens. The neurons fire and a projection emerges. But the content of a fairy tale is not real because it is artificial and fictional. At tv is real but are the movies real?

Your language is contradictory. You said understanding is not real, and then you say something that is not real (the fairy tale) can be understood, while understanding is not real. You need to get clear about what it is that is unreal about understanding, and get real.

It seems that your whole purpose is to prove you are right to project your fictional image on to others.

If what you keep saying about understanding being, not real, then your understanding of why I do what I do, is Not Real. Right?
So why would you want to see my purpose with the idea that it ( in your words and your understanding) is not real, yet still make comparisons and accusations?

Why so much contention?

Why do you see and understand what comes to you as contention? Why do you want to see it that way? Does that make you happy?

Look, if you don't succeed, you'll feel bad as you'll think you are that image. Does this contention make you happy?

Whether I succeed or not within your idea of contention would be relative to your opinions/(unreal understandings) of what I am doing.
You are the one who says I am doing what I am doing. So for you in your reality, whether I succeed or fail, will have to be determined by you. Correct?
So you must make a determination of whether I am happy or not thru your understanding.
I'm just following what You said, "understanding is not real", so it would make sense by your descriptions that my understanding will not be real.
You will have to rely on your understanding (being personally not real), to decide within your reality, what is less of an illusion for you.

You can then agree with your firing neurons... or not.

Or maybe it doesn't matter...You did say nothing matters!
So why are you here?

[PANCHO]

Yes. It has a meaning that can be understood. The physical part of understanding happens. The neurons fire and a projection emerges. But the content of a fairy tale is not real because it is artificial and fictional. At tv is real but are the movies real?

Your language is contradictory. You said understanding is not real, and then you say something that is not real (the fairy tale) can be understood, while understanding is not real. You need to get clear about what it is that is unreal about understanding, and get real.

Understanding and real are two different things. Do you agree? When you understand, you fill the blanks, you imagine things. Is imagination real?

I understand 1+1=2 but the numbers are not real.

[Joesus]

If understanding is not real.. What can you understand to be real, that is real?

[PANCHO]

If understanding is not real.. What can you understand to be real, that is real?

If not understanding is real.. What can you not understand to be unreal, that is not unreal? Does that make sense? Then, how could I answer your question if it doesn't make sense to me?

I think you a locking yourself in defining things your own way (and with a purpose).

objects exist but your understanding of them depends on you. reality is more like a relationship between you and objects hat happens through understanding. Understanding happens but its content is relative. Thus reality does not exists in absolute form. it is not an object but an artificial concept, an idea of the obejects. It is not something fixed but has infinite faces relative to the observer. The observer can make reality "real" if he/she wants to define it his/her own way, but then other observer can make it unreal. It is an idea subject to interpretation (interpretation is relationship).

[Joesus]

If understanding is not real.. What can you understand to be real, that is real?

If not understanding is real.. What can you not understand to be unreal, that is not unreal? Does that make sense? Then, how could I answer your question if it doesn't make sense to me?

Hey I'm just using your own words.
And by the way, you said "understanding is not real", not "if not understanding is real", but I think you are finding the first leads to the other in determination. Perhaps you need to come up with another analogy that doesn't defeat sensibility when using words. Unless you intentionally want to insist all sensibility is useless and meaningless for everyone including yourself.

I think you a locking yourself in defining things your own way (and with a purpose).

I'm just using your own words. I think you should think about whether you have locked yourself into a conflict of meanings using language. Or simply using words in a way that can be understood without prefacing what you want to be understood, by saying understanding is not real. Capisci?

objects exist but your understanding of them depends on you. reality is more like a relationship between you and objects hat happens through understanding. Understanding happens but its content is relative. Thus reality does not exists in absolute form. it is not an object but an artificial concept, an idea of the obejects. It is not something fixed but has infinite faces relative to the observer. The observer can make reality "real" if he/she wants to define it his/her own way, but then other observer can make it unreal.

No, one cannot make something that is real for another, unreal. If one observer does not see or experience what the other does, it does not mean it is unreal, it simply means the observer is not seeing it (whatever it is), (within the same time and space point of reference) as the other observer sees it.

It is an idea subject to interpretation (interpretation is relationship).

Then relationships are just that, relationships between the observer and the observed. This is not an unreal thing within realities. It just means there are multiple realities, rather than unreal realities and unreal understandings.
Try to go up to someone who is having a relationship with someone and tell them because it is not your relationship, that it is not real to you, and see if they really care or want to care whether it is or not.
If you were to insist they take your point of view, you may not be standing for very long.

[PANCHO]

Hey I was just also using your own words.

unreal = not real
is not = is + not
not understanding = not + understanding

But how come your logic only works whenever you want to? Convenience?

[Joesus]

Hey I was just also using your own words.

unreal = not real
is not = is + not
not understanding = not + understanding

But how come your logic only works whenever you want to? Convenience?

I don't remember saying anything in this thread about understanding being unreal. That was your logic.
My logic sees your unreal, and raises your unreal, with a not real...your call.

[PANCHO]

I don't remember saying anything in this thread about understanding being real. That was your logic.
My logic sees your real, and raises your real, with a fiction...your call.

[Joesus]

I don't remember saying anything in this thread about understanding being real. That was your logic.

Then our logic is on the same page. You never said anything real about understanding.

[PANCHO]

I don't remember saying anything in this thread about understanding being real. That was your logic.

Then our logic is on the same page. You never said anything real about understanding.

I was trying to help you understand by using your own way of thinking. Maybe you see yourself in the mirror. By finding my mistakes you find your mistakes.

Lets see.

Is understanding correctly the same as understanding incorrectly? What is correctly and who says that?
Is understanding the same as thinking, and whats the difference?

Thinking is real as it happens. Objects exists and things move. But understanding would not be real because it presupposes that what you think is fixed, absolute, and correct. Animals think they know everything as they don't have the capability to doubt. They understand!

[Joesus]

I was trying to help you understand by using your own way of thinking.

Perhaps it's because you have the belief that understanding is unreal, that your assumptions of how I think, cause you to try and make an adjustment to my understanding.

Maybe you see yourself in the mirror. By finding my mistakes you find your mistakes.

You would have to have an understanding of your self before you could understand another. If understanding is unreal (as you have prefaced all of these attempts to change my understanding), then that might be where you need to begin a self correct in thoughts regarding understanding.

Lets see.

Is understanding correctly the same as understanding incorrectly?

If you got stuck here, then you're going to have trouble with the rest.

What is correctly and who says that?

That would require an understanding of reality, and again we are back to your statement that understanding is unreal

Is understanding the same as thinking, and whats the difference?

You are not going to get a comprehensive thought without understanding. Thoughts would have no relationship to anything. Perhaps your foundation in thought, (understanding is unreal) is where you continue to perpetuate a disconnect with reality.

Thinking is real as it happens. Objects exists and things move. But understanding would not be real because it presupposes that what you think is fixed, absolute, and correct.

Says you in the way you perceive reality, which you say is unreal. I often wonder why you continue to presuppose an understanding when you continue to preach the unreality of what it is you make statements toward as your understanding.

Animals think they know everything as they don't have the capability to doubt. They understand!

Animals don't follow your prescription for rationalization where thoughts are fixed and absolute. And they don't measure their thoughts, or their idea of identity against measured levels of what is correct and incorrect within self created systems of measure. That is an illusion of the human ego to presuppose that animals live within a conditioned human reality.

[PANCHO]

Your answers are quite superficial and stuck in circles, short of like a dog biting its tail. A person cannot see further than what the brain allows. But in your case, while I believe you are capable of more, you only see as far as you want to see. Animals understand in their own way and so do you (and me too).

Instead of hopelessly trying to match the world to your idea of reality, you can question the idea and experience freedom and joy. You can come out of the rut but first you need to want it. It depends on you. Nobody can do it for you.

[Joesus]

Your answers are quite superficial and stuck in circles, short of like a dog biting its tail.

If this is your understanding then I accept that is the best you can do.

A person cannot see further than what the brain allows.

I agree and it's probably why you insist understanding is unreal. Its a sweeping statement and one that runs deep into your expressions within this thread.

But in your case, while I believe you are capable of more,

The only thing that would inhibit you from the experience would be you. Not me, I do nothing to prevent your experiences.

you only see as far as you want to see.

But unfortunately you want me to show you how far that is, and you have indicated that you are making that choice in measurement.

Animals understand in their own way and so do you (and me too).

Yes we discussed the animal thing but you wanted to impose the human quality of self measure into their system. I would agree however that animals have their own understanding, unless you preface this word understanding with the idea that understanding is unreal.

Instead of hopelessly trying to match the world to your idea of reality, you can question the idea and experience freedom and joy.

I might not need to question but rather accept with understanding, however if understanding is unreal then you would see me as hopeless.

You can come out of the rut but first you need to want it. It depends on you. Nobody can do it for you.

You've put me in this rut. So in this case it would be up to you to take me out of the rut you have placed me in.

[PANCHO]

You've put me in this rut. So in this case it would be up to you to take me out of the rut you have placed me in.

I am not responsible for your reality. Neither I can control what you want to believe. As I said, if you don't want to come out, then you'll stay there...realities at rest...stay at rest...frozen

[Dinesh]

Who would you be without your knowledge? Do you identify your self with the knowledge about you (knowledge includes awareness) ? Does your knowledge about you change?

Who would you be without your knowledge?
I am the universe.
Do you identify yourself with the knowledge about you (knowledge includes awareness) ?
Yes I exist because universe exists.
Does your knowledge about you change?
If we move with time frame, expressed form changes., but ultimate wisdom never change.
Need any clarification? beloved pls . ask

Dinesh

[PANCHO]

Hey Dinesh. The atoms in your body were made inside a star. How cool is that?

People think they live how their thoughts tell them they live.
People think they are what their thoughts tell them they are.
People think reality is what their thoughts tell them it is.

[Joesus]

I am not responsible for your reality.

Yes you are. As you see me and accuse me of being frozen, so it is of your choice and responsibility in understanding. Which by the way, you say is unreal...

Neither I can control what you want to believe.

No only what you want to believe about what I believe from your understanding. Which by the way you say is unreal...

As I said, if you don't want to come out, then you'll stay there...realities at rest...stay at rest...frozen

As I said before, you are the one who put me where you put me. Wherever that may be..frozen in your perceptions of realities at rest, according to your understanding. Which by the way you say is unreal...
In the house that PANCHO built...