Matt Dillahunty has discovered the best analogy for this. If there is a jar of jelly beans, does the fact that we do not believe there is an even number of jelly beans mean that we believe there is an odd number of jelly beans? Conviction that there are either even or odd numbers of jelly beans has not manifested and that’s how we know that we don’t know.
How could they be sure.
Set up experiments. Guess the evenness of jelly beans in lots of jars and then count them. If we’re right as much as we are wrong, then it means we could not have known and what we thought we knew was merely a random guess. But if we were correct too often, then it means we must have known and mistakenly believed that we didn’t.
and if they say, they don’t know, but it seems like they are not convinced, how do they know it seems that way.
Lack of manifestation. 1+1 appears as a question, then 2 manifests. If 564^367.6545675 is the question, then nothing manifests. Deer in headlights. If I’m drawing a blank, it means I don’t know.
Seeming is still part of the universe and to claim something seems X, is making a claim about reality. If you want to argue it is about internal reality or experienced reality- well how the hell do you know that some things are internal or merely experienced (a certain way) rather than something else.
Subject is made a certain way and object is made a certain way and the interaction between them is a reality that is unique to that combination. Your world is not the same as my world because my world has you in the external world and your world has me in the external world.
Most non-objectivists are, in terms of presentation, clear about not believe in X, 100 per cent, but when it comes to their epistemology or their interpretation of the own internal states and beliefs, they are objectivists. And this isn’t even getting into the superiority they give off in relation to objectivists, which is also based on some level in some kind of objectivism. It may be possible to be a consistant a objectivist, but my guess is those guys are not getting into any discussions or debates about stuff. They just eating when hungry, tending their gardens and patting the dog out in the woods somewhere.
Right, those who say, don’t know; those who know, don’t say. The Vanaprastha has resigned from the game and has nothing to teach.
I think we also have to not confuse people with what they say they are.
Usually people say what they wish they were, but aren’t. Like me, hypocritus magnanimous, serendipity is how I wish I were, but am not. Sure I stumble into good fortune on occasion, but happy-go-lucky I am not. I’m trying to be humble as best I can and didn’t want a self-flattering username as if I deserve some congratulations for the ideas I fell into of no power of my own, but I realize that humility is just another way of flattering myself. There is no escape from the game, even by resigning and petting the dog, and presumably that’s why most who obtain satori then renounce it and dive into the game more than ever.
People reek their metaphysics and their epistemologies. They reek of it and they act in the world, objectively, from their metaphysics and epistemologies. They can add on disclaimers that they are sure of nothing, and still they affect others and themselves and the world with their certainties. And if they engage in philosophical discussions, well they seem to have little concern about presenting claims all over the place.
If there is no way to escape, then what does that mean?