Rick,
So, where is everyone, now? I have a question, because of the above statement:
Can one know that which is "Unknown"?
1 Like
Is it necessary for thought to be partially hidden from itself to function optimally? Can one answer this question without being partial?
This reminds me of a description of the brain where normal function necessitates that the more holistic view of the right hemisphere must not be available to the left hemisphere - whereas the left hemisphere’s analytical view of the world as separate things manipulated over time was available to the right hemisphere.
If thought is exposed to itself, it will think about itself, because that’s what it does: grabs onto a mental object and acts on it, judges it, identifies with it, rejects it. So you have two parallel(ish) thought streams, the second acting on and impeding the flow of the first.
For optimal flow, thought needs free rein.
You might know sometime in the future that which you do not know now. But, logically, you cannot know now that which you don’t know now. Or do I need to take the red pill to fathom?
Correct me if I’m mistaken @charleycannuck - but I think the question being asked may be similar to mine above :
Is my known just my personal/conditioned interpretation of someone else’s known?
Which I don’t think has been answered by the idea that “I’ll know more stuff in the future”
Rick,
if only (ya, I know this is speculation), lol
You see, one wonders, because from what one “knows” (better word is understand, but in keeping with the words others are using…), one can only think that one is moving from what one knows to the known, or else, how on earth would one be able to recognize it? Actually, is one actually moving, when there is recognition?
It is now twice this past month, that one has been approached by people, and one didn’t recognize either of them.
btw, I discovered also that I really do not like the taste of beer at all! I know what the taste of beer is like, having drunk it when very much younger when going out to clubs, and had a taste recently. So, one wonders whether one is aware of whether one really likes beer? Is one really aware of whether or not one’s likes and dislikes are for real?
Mac,
Aha!, would that mean that all that one knows is second-hand? (apart from knowing my name, how to get from A to B… etc.) But, then again, all that I have learned in uni comes from what others have stated - which is called knowledge.
Even if “I” do manage to resurrect some memory from what is “Unknown” in the “Unconscious”, and then say: “I know what happened - or better even, I know that memory”, having translated that knowledge into more memory, doesn’t that imply that there is some part of me, that is separate from what didn’t or doesn’t know, and now knows?
You see, one may think that one is separate from what one doesn’t know, but were one to have that memory now in the region of the known, is not that knowledge still separated from oneself?
Right. Dammit! What fun is the Mystery if it might not be real?
We are all in it for enlightenment, right? Call it what you will: intelligence, bliss, realization. We want to feel good, to see our existence as noble and purposeful, to be in with the in crowd. To get IT. Some are willing to go further than others, into the realm of self-delusion in some cases.
“Mental activity is one aspect of what makes the I the I” seems an undeniable fact.
Fact: What is unconscious can become conscious.
For example, say you are driven by an urge to control whatever situation you’re in. You might spend 50 years believing most people just aren’t good at navigating life, that they’re slow or dumb or disorganized or lazy. Then one day something happens and you realize what’s really going on: You’re a control freak! The unconscious has become conscious.
The ‘wanting’ is a constant source of conflict: our desire to change ‘what is’ for something else. Seeing that creates a desire to no longer wish for that and that wishing to ‘not-wish’ , keeps the source of conflict active. The desire for change is a trap.
1 Like
You still seem to be equating the unconscious/subconscious with the unknown? Whereas we seemed to have agreed that the unconscious was just conditioning/knowledge/presuppositions etc that we were not aware of?
In this moment I might not be conscious that I don’t trust my neighbour because he reminds me of my fascist brother in law - I just know that I don’t trust him, and I wish he’d stop burning leaves in his garden. But just because I am not aware of the real reasons, doesn’t mean that they are separate from my conditioning/the known (they are not part of the mystery/unknown) - I am just not aware of all that I know right now.
In your example : “control freak” is a concept that I have always held, it was always part of my conditioned world view aka the known.
The illusion of “free rein” is achieved by hiding, censoring certain thoughts, the exposure of which would bring thought to a sudden stop
Thought as we know it is incoherent because it includes false notions, biases, prejudices, unexamined assumptions and beliefs, and to escape awareness and scrutiny of this content, implements self-censorship, thereby facilitating constant forward movement via the illusion of coherence. Thus, the train of conditioned thought never stops as it goes through many dark tunnels on its obliviously incoherent way.
But if these tunnels were illuminated, revealing thought’s heretofore hidden content, thought would stop in its tracks.
Wanting can be a source of energy. Conflict too. You can learn to channel the energy from a negative mind state into a positive creative act. It’s a way of ‘hacking the system.’
Yes, seems we’re talking past each other. (Wouldn’t be the first time! 
) “To be aware (conscious) of” something was my 2nd definition of ‘to know’ (above). In this sense, to be aware of conditioning, knowledge, presuppositions is to know them.
I don’t know if thought having free rein is an illusion. And I don’t know the details of the mechanism that enables thought to flow.
But what I do know is thought can flow like water, unimpeded. If it hits a wall, it just flows around it. For this to happen, the censor/commentator needs to be absent or at least not in control.
Wanting, desire, in the psychological realm is wastage of energy. It’s a moving away from what is happening because what is happening is deemed to be undesirable. It is putting on a ‘mask’ over the actual to hide the raw truth of what I am. “Channeling”, changing, transforming, etc are all movements to get away from the truth.
I guess you would say we don’t see eye to eye on this? 
Is my view as ‘right’ from my pov as yours is from your pov?
Is either view mo’ right?
If your “pov” ends the struggle , conflict , loneliness and suffering in you then yes it’s the ‘right’ pov.
So the proof is in the pudding?