Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 17, 2021 23:25:00 GMT
It seems that "The Sun rises in the East" equals to "The Sun doesn't rise in the East" by its logical valence. And it doesn't matter that verbally two phrases are different. There's something interesting that might be notified just under using some spare thoughts.
The talk is about 'beyondness', a thing that always stays unrecognisable. There's no need to insure anyone that some questions, and among of them the question about the outer life, belong to this category.
But as soon as we admire the previous thesis there's no need to doubt anything about our awareness of those things. We don't know what is out there. And asking questions about it means to keep it in mind.
So, why can't we be just shells: muscles wrapped in skin? Even Dawkins recognises falsehood of it claiming that we're just canisters for genes-transportation. And here's something funny about that: we can imagine ourselves as we wish. There's no limits except for that 'beyondness'.
That's right we can disprove we're only shells; but we have solid evidence we're not only these shells. This is the shell of ours; no matter to which side it put, the shell is being leaned through that 'beyondness'. Just like we're subliminally willing to push it outside.
But by pushing our own and native muscled skins to some unknown areas we confirm and sign the claim (that automatically appears) of our own unawareness of the nature of us – those who are not the shells only.
And in no case it will happen – we cannot accept anything else from the outside as our inside inner world. This is linguistically impossible: to break it up one has to be object not being a subject.
So, our own activity proves the fact of what our outer 'self' is not self at all: we're working on anything that dissolute something 'beyond', but access to this process is the one who is charge, i.e. the master of the current process.
The talk is about 'beyondness', a thing that always stays unrecognisable. There's no need to insure anyone that some questions, and among of them the question about the outer life, belong to this category.
But as soon as we admire the previous thesis there's no need to doubt anything about our awareness of those things. We don't know what is out there. And asking questions about it means to keep it in mind.
So, why can't we be just shells: muscles wrapped in skin? Even Dawkins recognises falsehood of it claiming that we're just canisters for genes-transportation. And here's something funny about that: we can imagine ourselves as we wish. There's no limits except for that 'beyondness'.
That's right we can disprove we're only shells; but we have solid evidence we're not only these shells. This is the shell of ours; no matter to which side it put, the shell is being leaned through that 'beyondness'. Just like we're subliminally willing to push it outside.
But by pushing our own and native muscled skins to some unknown areas we confirm and sign the claim (that automatically appears) of our own unawareness of the nature of us – those who are not the shells only.
And in no case it will happen – we cannot accept anything else from the outside as our inside inner world. This is linguistically impossible: to break it up one has to be object not being a subject.
So, our own activity proves the fact of what our outer 'self' is not self at all: we're working on anything that dissolute something 'beyond', but access to this process is the one who is charge, i.e. the master of the current process.
