Does knowledge need to be quantified into an amount? In kindergarten we learned how to count to 10. I would say I have at least 10 knowledge's now

For me the question becomes who is the know er? Who is this structure that I assume is me? What does it mean to be? It's not the knowledge of the outer world that matters to me anymore, it is more like, what the bleep am I? If you go past the changing landscape, who, where and what is this viewer? and how does the viewer know that it is? The I AMness as it's called is completely baffling and the strangest thing. In an instant you can attach any concept to you and hold it for a life time. Or you can strip yourself of all concepts and navigate as the presence itself.

Peace!

This youtube link is really interesting and current:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GicOsOY6oO8&feature=g-vrec&context=G20c0f4fRVAAAAAAAABw

I sometimes like this perspective:

The desire to "know" something is a lustful craving. Sex is good, there's nothing wrong with this, but it's good to have sex responsibly.

The scientific method is thought with birth control and STD testing.

Our ego lusts to know what it is, to own itself, but it probably cannot.

If you want to give in to lust to "know" information about reality with the rational mind, science is the only appropriate method of doing so, at this point.

It seems that if hyperspace has anything to teach to the rational mind,
It is humility for it's potential.

Was this meant to be a joke? Humorous either way.

Good post abustedtoaster.

Seeing the story of everything is like standing outside the illusion of an individual. Somehow being is knowing itself through experiencing itself. Anything that appears is the knowledge of it. They are one and the same.

You 'know music' when your hearing it. When you see your dog without the cloud of thought-based ideas, then you really know dog. This is knowerless knowing. There is just knowing. Of course you still cant say 'you' know it.

This isn't the same as an ego claiming knowledge of all the facts of the world - rather a verbal expression what knowing is.

Socrates proclamation that 'I know that I know nothing' seems to point in the right direction. We secretly think he must be on to something because it sounds really humble. However, it still implies an I which doesn't know anything. Therefore, the statement does not indicate the reality of not-knower which is pure knowing.

Anyway, thanks for sharing.

It seems to me that if you want to give in to the lust to share information about reality, that science seems to be the only appropriate method of doing so. There is much valid data that can be retrieved and processed via hyperspace, it's just that this multidimensional data is poorly portable for transferring from one individual to another as opposed to the more unidimensional empirical scientific data. It would be like seeing an oddly shaped rock, and then going back to the office to try sketch it by reducing it to a bunch of euclidian geometry. The data is largely incompatible. It's trying to analyze and break down that which is indivisible, and upon the failure to do so, saying that the method that failed (science) has to be the only appropriate way to receive rational authentic information.

I'm using "rational" here to refer to the part of our mind which attempts to reduce the rock to euclidean geometry. I know rational has some cultural connotations which imply that not rational equals thinking unreasonably, but that's not what I mean here.

I think I pretty well agree with you. That there are multiple types of "knowing" things. For instance, in lower hyperspace, there have been times where I've witnessed my rational mind "translating" "telepathic" communication into english, apparently without permission from myself or my communication partner; I'd be seeing at the same time that the translation was not correct.

I like to think of this as the human survival mind. The strong impulse to know something in the framework of human rational logical thought, is a controlling, dominating impulse. An extremely powerful evolutionary advantage. To know something this way, is to be able to manipulate it to our advantage. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I enjoy my relatively easy and intellectual life which space has been created for by this impulse in our ancestors. It also makes it really simple for me to know and do what I need to in order to manipulate things into a situation I find preferable - tasty food, better work, sex, chemicals, education, attempting to dominate things by knowing them, etc. Also, this allows us to "know" ourselves, thereby (potentially) overcoming ourselves. Evolving into something greater.

However, I don't think it's a good idea to assume that everything about reality can be put into this form of knowing. I think when we touch other, what seem to be greater, forms of knowing, our evolutionary instinctual survival impulse is to stuff that other knowing into our survival mind. But if the survival mind is much smaller and less-dimensional, attempting to do so may be a negative force in the momentum towards greater forms of knowing. I think most religions come from this, touching something sacred and then humping its leg greedily with a big survival mind red rocket in order to coax it stay around for awhile

I do think we can subjectively use our language as placeholders for these things. But I think when we forget they are placeholders, and we probably have to at some point over and over again, it is important to put our feet back on the ground, and remind ourselves that the most important thing for our survival mind to know, is that it is humble and small.

I sometimes consider that part of what hyperspace teaches is a different way to think and communicate, something the rational mind cannot understand, but a person can experience and then use the rational mind to bring about into reality (even if it cannot understand it), perhaps through genetics, robotics, computers, or some other form of technology.