As has happened before, I’m not sure if we are not getting our wires crossed somewhere? All I’ve been concerned with looking at so far in this thread is something you yourself have already mentioned:
As I understand it, a fact has no opposite; and so any opposite must be a form of imposition extraneous to the fact, and so non-factual.
A fact like suffering is a fact. There is no ‘other shore’ in the moment of suffering, but just the fact we call ‘suffering’ (the word is not the thing).
The fact is free to reveal its whole content if we are able to remain with it without escaping from it. But generally the brain does not do this. Generally the brain finds a way of moving away from the thing we call ‘suffering’. That’s all that is being said.
I actually don’t know if remaining with suffering (by which I mean being aware of suffering, seeing or observing suffering directly) will end suffering. K has said that ‘total contact’ with the thing called ‘sorrow’, ends sorrow (and by ‘total contact’ he means there is absolutely no separation between oneself and sorrow: there is only sorrow).
But what K has said about the ending of suffering is not a present fact for me; it isn’t actual. So I cannot say that it is a fact (that suffering ends by remaining with it completely), even though it sounds reasonable when K talks about it.
As I understand it, if one uses the “ending” of suffering (that K has pointed out) as a means of observing one’s own suffering, then one is not actually observing one’s own suffering. There is a contradiction between the idea that suffering can end, and the suffering itself. So such a contradiction - such an opposite - is not factual. This is all I think I have stated.
You are introducing this topic of thought’s relationship to knowledge, and the limits of knowledge - perhaps because we discussed it on another thread a few weeks ago? - but I don’t see its immediate relevance here (not that it is irrelevant, only that it isn’t the exact topic of the OP).
We can explore the nature of knowledge if you really want to, but for my present purposes I am interested in becoming aware that the present fact has no opposite (the present fact being, for instance, the vague feeling of background unhappiness, cool touch of the breeze on my forehead, the evening light on the unripened corn field, the book on the wicker chair, the sound of the birds preparing for sleep, the sound of the keyboard clacking as I write, the people talking in the room below, etc).
There is a beauty in dropping the ‘what should be’ of a farther shore, and I am not yet finished with exploring this terrain. This may not interest you - I’m not saying it should - but this is all I have been discussing so far. I am not objecting to what you say about knowledge, but this is not what I am looking at this instant.
What I hear you to be saying is that all this seeing, looking, awareness (of what is) is fragmentary, partial, incomplete. You say, for example,
Ok. But I am not denying that the contents of consciousness are limited. I am simply saying that if a content is present (as hurt, as pleasure, as frustration, etc), then that is the fact.
And so unless it is a fact for me that the mind is seeing the whole contents of consciousness this second - this very instant (which it is not) - then it is an idea, and so is extraneous to what presently is. Do you see what I am saying?
If one saw the total limitation of consciousness, then for sure I would call that a total insight. But either that total insight is a fact - and so all the contents of consciousness are completely emptied in that flash (of insight) - or it is an idea that interferes in my observation of what is. Do you see what I am saying?
So I am not objecting to the possibility of total insight - K has talked about insight a lot - I just do not see its immediate relevancy to what has already been said here, or the OP topic, which I take to be the importance of being