One can realize that all mental 'knowing' is arbitrary because it is nothing other recognition of symbols which is constrained by memory.

Suppose you have a table in front of you. You say "I know this is a table". But this is misleading, because the "this" you are referring to is only sense data: light vibration translated by the eye, physical vibration by the skin etc. Therefore, whether there is a table there or not, you can never know because you are perpetually one step removed from the supposed object itself by the medium of the body, of the brain, etc. Moreover, you are a removed yet another step by the prequesite of attaching a symbol - the Thought-word "table" and it's meaning - to the sensation. Without the memory of this symbol or the creation of a new symbol, there is nothing to recognize and therefore nothing to 'know'.

The only actual facts are ones that evoke the mechanics of subjectivity. "I recognize this sensation as a table" is genuine fact. "This appears to me to as a table" is genuine fact. To say "I know this is a table" is not a fact but an assertion (of "isness"): a belief within your perceived reality. How much more absurd is it to say "I know this is a table" when you have only just a read another's recording of that table (ie. history)?

In this way, it's trivial to demonstrate that so-called "objective reality" is a fabrication of the mind. If one supposes that "objectivity" is real then it can only be established by the shared experience of other minds. For example, if you were the only the mind in existance, how would you go about establishing what is "objective"? You would require separate minds to relate their experiences to you to establish a consistant reference: an "objective source". And, as explained, these minds would be bounded by subjective sensation, recognition, etc. just as yours is. Therefore, any notion of "objectivity" is completely dependent on "subjectivity" before it can even be realized. But if this is the case, how can you say that it meets the definition of being "objective"? The fact is, the only apparatus at your disposal for establishing the "objective" is the "subjective".

Then one can take this to its ultimate conclusion: if "objective" is merely an idea - a Thought - then where is there room to establish a "subjective" reality? Subjective compared to what? Such a "reality" must exist with its opposite ("objective"), just as a one-sided coin is illogical. But the latter idea becomes "real" only by belief. Therefore, the same must be true of the former.

Then are subjective and objective "real"? The answer: is both and neither. The "real" is defined by one's conditions of conciousness - the qualifying and correcting of appearances in the mind - not the thoughts or sensations themselves. Once you see that 'knowing' is arbitrary, conditional, and unrelated to any "objective" reality, you will throw all belief, opinion, assertion, conjecture, trust, "seeking to know", "being sure", etc in the trash and never touch them again. Having seen the truth, you comprehend all of these to be nothing other than self-delusion.

It is your disatisfaction with "not knowing" that compels you to try and "assess what's real". It is the habitual attempt to correct this feeling and find answers that bring relief from it. Every time you correct the mind like this, you further condition your consciousness which responds by creating further craving for a "real" that will bring satisfaction. Perpetual seeking, assessing, comparing. This is the "neuroticity", as you say, that does not end. However, it does end when the avoidance of disatisfaction ends.

When you no longer correct or escape from the arising of disatisfaction or craving, you will see what happens. You will look back at the OP and see it was written by a different person. "I need to know what is real" is a genuine fact. Suppose that by not interfering with this "need" - by neither participating in it, distracting from it, suppressing it, and without expectation or waiting - that this fact can vanish. You would discover for yourself a fact of conciousness that makes the apparent "facts" of history appear silly.

To find what is "truly real", bring to end all intentionality which has been giving continuity to your present "real" and see what is left.

One can realize that all mental 'knowing' is arbitrary because it is nothing other recognition of symbols which is constrained by memory.

Suppose you have a table in front of you. You say "I know this is a table". But this is misleading, because the "this" you are referring to is only sense data: light vibration translated by the eye, physical vibration by the skin etc. Therefore, whether there is a table there or not, you can never know because you are perpetually one step removed from the supposed object itself by the medium of the body, of the brain, etc. Moreover, you are a removed yet another step by the prequesite of attaching a symbol - the Thought-word "table" and it's meaning - to the sensation. Without the memory of this symbol or the creation of a new symbol, there is nothing to recognize and therefore nothing to 'know'.

The only actual facts are ones that evoke the mechanics of subjectivity. "I recognize this sensation as a table" is genuine fact. "This appears to me to as a table" is genuine fact. To say "I know this is a table" is not a fact but an assertion (of "isness"): a belief within your perceived reality. How much more absurd is it to say "I know this is a table" when you have only just a read another's recording of that table (ie. history)?

In this way, it's trivial to demonstrate that so-called "objective reality" is a fabrication of the mind. If one supposes that "objectivity" is real then it can only be established by the shared experience of other minds. For example, if you were the only the mind in existance, how would you go about establishing what is "objective"? You would require separate minds to relate their experiences to you to establish a consistant reference: an "objective source". And, as explained, these minds would be bounded by subjective sensation, recognition, etc. just as yours is. Therefore, any notion of "objectivity" is completely dependent on "subjectivity" before it can even be realized. But if this is the case, how can you say that it meets the definition of being "objective"? The fact is, the only apparatus at your disposal for establishing the "objective" is the "subjective".

Then one can take this to its ultimate conclusion: if "objective" is merely an idea - a Thought - then where is there room to establish a "subjective" reality? Subjective compared to what? Such a "reality" must exist with its opposite ("objective"), just as a one-sided coin is illogical. But the latter idea becomes "real" only by belief. Therefore, the same must be true of the former.

Then are subjective and objective "real"? The answer: is both and neither. The "real" is defined by one's conditions of conciousness - the qualifying and correcting of appearances in the mind - not the thoughts or sensations themselves. Once you see that 'knowing' is arbitrary, conditional, and unrelated to any "objective" reality, you will throw all belief, opinion, assertion, conjecture, trust, "seeking to know", "being sure", etc in the trash and never touch them again. Having seen the truth, you comprehend all of these to be nothing other than self-delusion.

It is your disatisfaction with "not knowing" that compels you to try and "assess what's real". It is the habitual attempt to correct this feeling and find answers that bring relief from it. Everytime you correct the mind like this, you further condition your consciousness which responds by creating further craving for a "real" that will bring satisfaction. Perpetual seeking, assessing, comparing. This is the "neuroticity", as you say, that does not end. However, it does end when the avoidance of disatisfaction ends.

When you no longer correct or escape from the arising of disatisfaction or craving, you will see what happens. You will look back at the OP and see it was written by a different person. "I need to know what is real" is a genuine fact. Suppose that by not interfering with this "need" - by neither participating in it, distracting from it, suppressing it, and without expectation or waiting - that this fact can vanish. You would discover for yourself a fact of conciousness that makes the apparent "facts" of history appear silly.

To find what is "truly real", bring to end all intentionality which has been giving continuity to your present "real" and see what is left.

One can realize that all mental 'knowing' is arbitrary because it is nothing other recognition of symbols which is constrained by memory.

Suppose you have a table in front of you. You say "I know this is a table". But this is misleading, because the "this" you are referring to is only sense data: light vibration translated by the eye, physical vibration by the skin etc. Therefore, whether there is a table there or not, you can never know because you are perpetually one step removed from the supposed object itself by the medium of the body, of the brain, etc. Moreover, you are a removed yet another step by the prequesite of attaching a symbol - the Thought-word "table" and it's meaning - to the sensation. Without the memory of this symbol or the creation of a new symbol, there is nothing to recognize and therefore nothing to 'know'.

The only actual facts are ones that evoke the mechanics of subjectivity. "I recognize this sensation as a table" is genuine fact. "This appears to me to as a table" is genuine fact. To say "I know this is a table" is not a fact but an assertion (of "isness"): a belief within your perceived reality. How much more absurd is it to say "I know this is a table" when you have only just a read another's recording of that table (ie. history)?

In this way, it's trivial to demonstrate that so-called "objective reality" is a fabrication of the mind. If one supposes that "objectivity" is real then it can only be established by the shared experience of other minds. For example, if you were the only the mind in existance, how would you go about establishing what is "objective"? You would require separate minds to relate their experiences to you to establish a consistant reference: an "objective source". And, as explained, these minds would be bounded by subjective sensation, recognition, etc. just as yours is. Therefore, any notion of "objectivity" is completely dependent on "subjectivity" before it can even be realized. But if this is the case, how can you say that it meets the definition of being "objective"? The fact is, the only apparatus at your disposal for establishing the "objective" is the "subjective".

Then one can take this to its ultimate conclusion: if "objective" is merely an idea - a Thought - then where is there room to establish a "subjective" reality? Subjective compared to what? Such a "reality" must exist with its opposite ("objective"), just as a one-sided coin is illogical. But the latter idea becomes "real" only by belief. Therefore, the same must be true of the former.

Then are subjective and objective "real"? The answer: is both and neither. The "real" is defined by one's conditions of conciousness - the qualifying and correcting of appearances in the mind - not the thoughts or sensations themselves. Once you see that 'knowing' is arbitrary, conditional, and unrelated to any "objective" reality, you will throw all belief, opinion, assertion, conjecture, trust, "seeking to know", "being sure", etc in the trash and never touch them again. Having seen the truth, you comprehend all of these to be nothing other than self-delusion.

It is your disatisfaction with "not knowing" that compels you to try and "assess what's real". It is the immediate attempt correct this feeling and to find answers that bring relief from it. Everytime you correct the mind like this, you further condition your consciousness which responds by creating further craving for a "real" that will bring satisfaction. Perpetual seeking, assessing, comparing. This is the "neuroticity", as you say, that does not end. However, it does end when the avoidance of disatisfaction ends.

When you no longer correct or escape from the arising of disatisfaction or craving, you will see what happens. You will look back at the OP and see it was written by a different person. "I need to know what is real" is a genuine fact. Suppose that by not interfering with this "need" - by neither participating in it, distracting from it, suppressing it, and without expectation or waiting - that this fact can vanish. You would discover for yourself a fact of conciousness that makes the apparent "facts" of history appear silly.

To find what is "truly real", bring to end all intentionality which has been giving continuity to your present "real" and see what is left.