Ryan – 9 March 2020
Hello Sage, congratulations on your work. Let’s talk though first of course and with respect, I will gift you a question and show my respects with some expose.
Question: Why evoke question knowing question revocation (i.e. answer) is why? (no paradox intended) Expose: … perhaps it’s like a song with its undulations about the ‘divine golden mean’ if you will, small courageous quests temp-orarily venturing outwards, a-way where ‘the way’ is known and thus directions inwards/outwards denominate from…Or perhaps it chooses one, it ‘overstands’ one; its tantalizing nature compels one into temp-tation like bee to honey, beaver to dam, human to question/answer…? Perhaps that to which precedes Idealism lies in Idealism’s proceeds, that is, the quintessence of “why one chooses the song of question/answer”? …
Kind regards, Ryan
Sage – 17 March 2020
“Why evoke question knowing question revocation is why?” I think you need to rephrase the question more succinctly.
Ryan – 17 March 2020
…ok more succinct…let’s assume an Omniscient (or even to a lesser extent of Omniscience, one that accepts Solipsism). Why would an Omniscient ask a question (knowing of coarse) that question revocation (i.e. answer) is the cause of this why?
You see once one knows that Knowledge is dead knowing, why does one invite a question, that is, an ack-knowledgement or declaration of an ab-solute that is Knowledge in this case, when one knows Knowledge revocation (answer) is inevitable? That Knowledge is solute and will inevitably solute via knowing…
Sage – 1 April 2020
Knowledge seeking is sometimes a necessary stage for a journeyman. Understanding that knowledge is extraneous and expendable only comes after considerable progress in lucidity. After such progress, there is very little need to ask and answer questions.
Ryan – 1 April 2020
Ok. Why is “Knowledge seeking sometimes necessary” proceeding extraneous and expendable Knowledge acknowledgement?
Sage – 18 April 2020
Because we begin on the path as knowledge seekers, which means it precedes discarding knowledge.
Ryan – 18 April 2020
I unequivocally concur that the destiny of knowledge seeking is necessary to reach the destination of expendable/extraneous knowledge acknowledgement. Verily, as a decreed Solipsist you have, under the doctrine of Solipsism, reached this destination (i.e. expendable/extraneous knowledge acknowledgement).
The question remains, succinctly put plus exhibited in other ways: Proceeding expendable/extraneous knowledge acknowledgement, why evoke question knowing question revocation (i.e. answer) is why? Knowing that knowledge is expendable/extraneous, why summon it via question? Knowing 1 + 1 = 2, why does one seek it as a question?
Ryan – 18 April 2020
Here is another for you Sage – i hope you enjoy.
By the doctrine of Solipsism, only self can be known, that is, only self is Knowledge. My question is: how does the constitution of Solipsism know its constituents without Knowledge of what it’s constituents are not? Pointedly, knowledge of what is not Solipsism is Knowledge that is – point-in-fact – an addition to Solipsisms single knowledge doctrinal of Knowledge of self?
Sage – 6 May 2020
Are you seeing many examples of proceeding the acknowledgment of expendable knowledge with further evoking of question asking?
Not sure why you are asking why it’s so, when I’m not sure it’s even so. Can you list an example?
Ryan – 3 May 2020
Sage – 6 May 2020
I get that part, that you are asking me as question.
Give me an example of proceeding the acknowledgment of expendable knowledge with further evoking of question asking.
Ryan – 6 May 2020
Sage (with due respect) you are the example per se. Do you see?
Sage – 9 May 2020
Oh. Lol. You mean, why do I have the “ask me anything” feature enabled on Tumbler?
Questions are inevitable. I’m going to be asked them, whether I like it or not. So I open the door for them.
When people come to me seeking truth, I can’t snap my fingers and make them lucid. So lucidity has to first be introduced to the subject intellectually.
Ryan – 11 May 2020
agree. Now here is the next question. i hope you enjoy.
By the doctrine of Solipsism, only Self can be known, that is, only Self is Knowledge. My question is: how does the constitution of Solipsism have Knowledge its constituents without Knowledge of what its constituents are not? Pointedly, Knowledge of what is not Self, not Solipsism is Knowledge that is – point-in-fact – an addition to Solipsisms Constitutional single constituent of Knowledge of Self…
Sage – 11 May 2020
It may not be the best to call the knowledge a matter of “self”, because then it seems that the task is to find identifications to attribute to a self. It may be better to just call it awareness.
After all, your true identity cannot be found represented in a form that can be processed by the five senses.