Things within Themselves

Discussion in 'Perceptions & Experiences' started by nivek, Aug 4, 2017.

  1. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    9,731
    Occupying no volume an infinite quantity arose, ‘the mild and the fierce’, energy within a particle. A systematic way to generate a quick ambition and taste of liberation, yet from one perspective its the same as pretending the prison is just fine.

    Characteristics that make up a certain essence are partially determined by the manifestation yet the manifestation are known through the attributes. When not in constraint from any preceding conditions then the intensity expands and grows because of this relationship between the manifestation and particular attributes realized through sense and experience.

    Rather than of looking at the components separately, which obviously indicates the existential nature and origin, the essential characteristics do have cohesion, do have more than one attribute, an insistent momentum of infinite quantity.

    In the physical world it reveals itself as ready at hand.


    A thing within itself.
    An appearance of an appearance.
    An essence of an essence.
    A shadow of a shadow.


    Something unique yet universal at the same time.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. iwant2believe2

    iwant2believe2 Honorable

    Messages:
    378
    What is the thing within itself?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. Merle

    Merle Honorable

    Messages:
    240
    Kantian philosphy - Immanual Kant.

    A thing within itself is spposedly unknowable through human awareness and sensation and I figure, from my perspective anyway, something to spend the rest of your life pondering about in order to send your mind crazier than it already is...
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. iwant2believe2

    iwant2believe2 Honorable

    Messages:
    378
    I am. -22

    Or if you prefer an actual philosopher...

    Cogito ergo sum. ~Descartes. I think, therefore I am.

    The thing within itself that ponders itself thereby ascertaining its own existence.
    :)
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Merle

    Merle Honorable

    Messages:
    240
    Another way to look at it maybe:

    The thing within itself that ponders about the thing within itself...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. baleeber

    baleeber Adept

    Messages:
    15
    I've always preferred: Dubito, ergo Cogito, ergo Sum: I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.

    BUT ... with a caveat. To me, "dubito" does not mean "THAT ISN'T TRUE!" It means "Is that true?" To me, there is an important difference between doubt, which is the beginning of wisdom and clarity, and denial, which is the end (or death) of wisdom and clarity.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Merle

    Merle Honorable

    Messages:
    240
    ..... stepping it all up a level.....

    'The Thing within Itself' or as Kant says, 'The Thing In Itself' (is there are difference?) isn't about the self or about self awareness or doubt (The Thing has no labels)...

    It's supposedly about the notion that there exists a world independant of the mind thus why it's unknowable to our human awareness and sensations...

    On the other hand, any name given to a thing is not the thing itself, it's just a name and thus we become fooled when we perceive the thing as being the name given to it...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Toroid

    Toroid Founding Member

    Messages:
    3,719
    Could that be the physical mind pondering the existence of the soul?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. iwant2believe2

    iwant2believe2 Honorable

    Messages:
    378
    That would be the Thing without the thing within itself. Aristotle postulated a Prime (Unmoved Mover or First Mover). Light-years ahead of Kant.

    The doubt in this case is evidence of thinking...whereas thinking itself is evidence of existence. The thing knows it exists only because its thinks (is sentient) and knows it thinks (is sapient) because it doubts (reasons).

    This is what distinguishes a skeptic from a debunker.

    "thing within itself that ponders about the thing within itself"

    That would be Aristotle's Prime considering the existence of itself. Since there exists nothing beyond or without the Prime, the Prime can only know itself by considering that which exists within itself. And it follows that anything that exists without (outside of) the thing within itself can not be known by the thing within itself.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    9,731
    An alternate perspective could be, from the many 'I's within itself, itself being the consciousness that arises and realizes the many 'I's, in essence becoming self-aware and dissolving and merging the things within itself...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. iwant2believe2

    iwant2believe2 Honorable

    Messages:
    378
    I experienced just that during an REM intrusion (narcolepsy...not the band) once. I've never been able to accurately put the experience into word but you just nailed it! :)
     
    • Like Like x 3
  12. Merle

    Merle Honorable

    Messages:
    240
    Maybe... regardless, you are labelling the Thing as in giving it a name, the name being "I" and then perceiving the Thing as being the "I" and no longer as a 'Thing'.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. iwant2believe2

    iwant2believe2 Honorable

    Messages:
    378
    But the I is drawing a distinction between the Thing and Not-the-Thing. The I arises out of the distinction. The I becomes as the distinction is made by the thinking Thing.
    o_O
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Merle

    Merle Honorable

    Messages:
    240
    The Thing is just the Thing... though we as humans may need to make a distinction and give it a name, like "I" the Thing doesn't need that and thus the Thing keeps on sitting within Itself keeping on being unknowable to our human awareness and sensations... lol... (You can kill me now)....
     
  15. iwant2believe2

    iwant2believe2 Honorable

    Messages:
    378
    When the Thing distinguishes itself from all other things...that being self-awareness...it ceases to be just a thing. It is now some thing. It has become.

    (noose, firing squad, gas or chair? lol)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Merle

    Merle Honorable

    Messages:
    240
    Once you put a name to it and call the Thing Something, it's then only in your mind and perception that the Thing ceases to be a Thing. ... But try telling the Thing that it is now Something because as far as the Thing is concerned, it's still a Thing within Itself and doesn't need a name....

    (I think a slow dragged out drowing in a river might be the way to go... lol)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. iwant2believe2

    iwant2believe2 Honorable

    Messages:
    378
    I'm not telling the Thing anything. I am the Thing. When I refer to my self, I must refer to my self as 'I' to distinguish my self from all other things...which I am not. Because I am aware that I am this and not that, I must have a symbol of reference when I contemplate my self. I can not consider my self without it because I would cease to 'be'. I would have no self-awareness. It is in distinguishing my self as 'I' that am self-aware. Try to consider your self without using 'I' as a reference. You can't. Its the first principle of thought which can not be reduced. All thoughts you think arise from 'I'. Hence, I think therefore I am.

    (Congo, Amazon, Nile? lol)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Merle

    Merle Honorable

    Messages:
    240
    Regardless, you have relabelled the Thing for yourself to fit the Thing into your own personal World by trying to make the Thing be you.... But the Thing within Itself is not you, it is in a World of it's own from which it won't budge because as far as the Thing is concerned, it is still the Thing within Itself living in it's own World not in your World....

    (Come here to Australia and not far from me is a fairly decent inland river called the Colo River. It's tidal and swift when the tide goes in and out and assures a pretty decent slow drowning. Then you can go to my place, have a coffee and rummage through my Things.... pun intended.... lol)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. iwant2believe2

    iwant2believe2 Honorable

    Messages:
    378
    You misunderstand. Again, I am the Thing in as much as you are the Thing. We are things unto ourselves. We are not one thing, we are not the same thing...it is I and you alone that distinguishes each from the other. How do I know that I am not you? How do you know that you are not me? We are distinct. What evidence do you have beyond 'I think therefore, I am' that you exist?

    (Before I make the voyage across sea to drown you, I will need some certainty that you indeed exist and are not a figment of my imagination...sincerely Thing 2...lol Thing1-and-thing2.jpg )
     
  20. Merle

    Merle Honorable

    Messages:
    240
    Oh... I don't think I misunderstand you... I'm just saying that the Thing within Itself is not any of us - it is in it's own World same like you and I are in our own Worlds...

    .... no different than you are, 'You within Yourself' and I am, 'I within Myself' thus we all exist in our own World unknowable to other humans....

    Something like that, other than the Thing within Itself possibly has one advantage over us.. That being that the Thing within Itself is unknowable to Humans, however the 'You within Yourself' and the 'I within Myself' are each attainable by at least one human, namely you and me....

    I see no reason why you or I or anyone would have a need to want to be the Thing when we already have Ourselves within Ourselves....

    (ok... sounds good to me... sometimes I feel like I'm my own imagination too so it would be good to know who exists and whose doesn't... seems like we haven't lost it yet... lol)
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page