knowledge vs. belief

[DIKL]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

It seems to me that this kind of thinking leads to nowhere.

Ok, then I'll change my mind. I don't think all positions are equal anymore. Now I think that mine is better than yours.
Seriously now, seems to me you're saying thinking should 'lead somewhere'. In this case, your's is leading somewhere and mine isn't. Where do you want to arrive?
(You don't have to answer this - it might lead too far off the discussion 'knowledge vs belief'...)

Not really. This is an extreme form of relativism. We are more confined by experience and physical reality than that.

The definition of relativism is
n : (philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved.

This is actually more or less my standpoint. I wasn't aware of it, thanks for clarifying it for me. (To be totally clear, I'm not being ironic.) But, of course, I don't see it as 'extreme'. Rather, quite logical. Which is not to say I don't find your position logical.

Anyway, I guess you don't feel like continuing this discussion. In my experience, there's no room for further discussion when an argumentation is labeled 'non-productive' and 'extreme'. Then there is little chance of finding a synthesis of our separate positions. Pity. I was enjoying it.

Take care,
DIKL

[lunamoth]

Hi DIKL,

Oh, I've enjoyed the conversation as well but I feel it is doomed to just go 'round and 'round in circles if there can be no agreement on anything because all points of view are equally true. In fact, and forgive me if I am just missing your point completely, but I can't really figure out what you are trying say with all this. Everything is relative? Do you have a definition of knowledge you would like to use, or a definition of belief? If we're going to just keep changing definitions all the time I don't see much point in trying to converse, we'll always be flying off in different directions.

Do you create your whole world every morning when you get up, or do you trust the things you remember from the day before and go on from there? When the thermometer reads zero, do you put your coat on or must you go outside and check first to see if it's cold? Not trying to be glib, just trying to get a handle on what you are saying.

Scientific knowledge, if that is what we are talking about, is always building upon itself. What we know tomorrow depends upon what we know today, while at the same time not being attached to ideas as they become outdated and refined. Some ideas are better than others because they reflect the observed data and and useful for making predictions. That's why many ideas about the relationships between things remain theories, rather than "facts." Theories are continuously refined, rarely but possibly to the point where they no longer resemble their original content, or to the point where they are discarded and replaced by a new theory. This is not a weakness of science, it is a strength.

Compare scientific knowledge to human flight. When the Wright brothers were working out the first airplanes was every idea they tried equally useful? But did they not eventually find a model that performed the desired function? And has not that model changed drastically, been expanded upon and refined? But it is all still human flight. And, building a locomotive train is not a useful position to take when the goal is flight.

Anyway, I guess I have lost steam in this conversation. I really have lost, or perhaps never really understood, the main point you are trying to make. But, I've enjoyed it too. Best wishes.

Peace,
lunamoth

[taijasi]

Luna, et al,

Especially in reading your most recent post, I think I am with you. So at what point does it become necessary to introduce the deus ex machina? At what point will our explanations break down? Is it not possible to hold a worldview based on scientific/literal knowledge, where sacred knowledge helps bridge a gap or two, but does not in & of itself become the substitute - for scientific knowledge?

At what point can your Wisdom Knowledge become rational knowledge, especially if we subject it to scientific critieria, and perhaps also consult any existing sacred knowledge available?

As you can see, what I'm getting at is really kind of a synthetic knowledge, which you yourself speak of in your posts. Imho, this is as far as many of us get, but I do not think this is as far as knowledge goes. My philosophical background, and strong interest in epistemology, led me awhile back to consider yet another category of knowledge, if you will, which has yet to be mentioned - except possibly where you say, "if that divine revelation is personally received, then it may or may not also be wisdom, depending exactly what the belief is about (i.e., personal or community)."

(But what, precisely, constitutes the "yardstick?" )

One teacher speaks of this as straight knowledge, while others simply call it the Spiritual Intuition. In the East, it has been associated with Buddhi, a faculty of conscious awareness greater than the mind, and potentially 100% accurate, though interpretation must come through the more limited and error-prone consciousness of the mind, emotions, and brain. But at least theoretically, we can know.

Is this merely a belief? Mmmm, I don't think so. It has been a long time since I tried playing these "logic-games" with others ... but if we proceed carefully, I think we can always arrive - at the same point! But is that what we want to do?

As I say, things are a bit foggy for me now, but I do recall that the philosophers love to ask questions like, "How do we know anything?" And the trick nature, or slippery part of that question - is that, from a certain point of view, it is indeed true that we know nothing.

We don't even have to adopt a thoroughly Eastern approach toward philosophy, Wisdom, & such in order to realize that our 5 objective senses (and even the 6th/7th, as-yet-imperfectly-developed ones) do not constitute "knowing," not even in your scientific/literal sense. This is because they are part of a 3-part equation with which every one of us has had experience. Knower-knowing-known. The senses are the knowing part, the apparently-external world(s) is the known part. But that still leaves the Knower - and accuracy of knowledge in the three worlds (mind, emotions, body) is elusive.

Some folks are more convinced of these various distinctions than others. But the same distinction applies in the world of passion-pleasure-emotions, as well as within the world of mind. Just try distinguishing between Knower-knowing-known during really good sex, or say ... while you're completely intoxicated. In the former case, why would you want to do that!?! And in the latter, could you, if you tried? So that says something about desire, or the factors that influence just how much and in what ways we do or don't want to know/understand someone or something - or ourself. True?

The sage Patanjali speaks of the "modifications of the thinking principle," where mind is still the faculty of consciousness which is apprehending someone, something, or some experience. A definite disctinction still exists at the level of mind between Thinker, the act of thinking, and the object of our thought - which we can also call Knower, knowing, and known. The "knowledge" may be imperfect, incomplete, or altogether inaccurate at this level, but we should not become confused just because the object of thought or knowledge might happen to be internal rather than external ("objective"). After all, which of these is "really" the truer reality?

Aha. The wrong question, unless this is about ontology, but it's not. The question is one of epistemology - "How do we know, what we know?" And I do think we can know things, rather than "merely" believe them. And while up to this point I do think relativism applies, it is at the level of the Intuition, or "straight knowledge," that relativism breaks down, since finally, we know a thing (person, experience, etc.) for its true, inherent, and absolute value. Nevermind that there are no absolutes, save One, at that level/point ... "relativism" in the way that I think many people at CR (or of strong religious faith) are disturbed by that term, disappears.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Here's how Professor H. Wildon Carr defines the intuition

"the apprehension by the [Knower] of reality directly as it is, and not under the form of a perception or a conception, nor as an idea or object of the reason, all of which by contrast are intellectual apprehension." - Philosophy of Change, page 21. (emphasis mine)

Direct apprehension: What would that be like? How are we to understand what such an understanding would be? Hint: Only mind divides, reduces, and dissects ... in a non-synthetic and non-wholistic effort to understand the relation(ship) between Knower and known. The limitation, is thus the form of "knowing." At best, Inspired Mind can synthesize, apply Insight, and perceive a Harmony between otherwise disparate parts, or components, of the/a whole.

Intuitive apprehension alone, can grasp the true nature of that whole, as it exists before it is divided & dissected by mind. And for this kind of straight-knowledge to happen, the very distinction between Knower & Known must dissappear (or not appear). The result? There is only "knowing," in which Self IS. And while this seems thoroughly Eastern to some, it is only because the Western mind is much more firmly rooted on, and founded in, scientific rationalism.

Only the Western Mystics have presented to us the notion of Straight Knowledge, yet with them, it is always steeped in religious dogma, or couched in the language and symbolism of esoteric traditions. Why not simply bring this out into the open? After all, if there really is such a faculty, will we not all, surely, discover it someday? Shall we not grok, too ... as our Water-Brother Michael once did?

I hope so.

andrew

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Luna, et al,

Especially in reading your most recent post, I think I am with you. So at what point does it become necessary to introduce the deus ex machina? At what point will our explanations break down? Is it not possible to hold a worldview based on scientific/literal knowledge, where sacred knowledge helps bridge a gap or two, but does not in & of itself become the substitute - for scientific knowledge?

At what point can your Wisdom Knowledge become rational knowledge, especially if we subject it to scientific critieria, and perhaps also consult any existing sacred knowledge available?

As you can see, what I'm getting at is really kind of a synthetic knowledge, which you yourself speak of in your posts. Imho, this is as far as many of us get, but I do not think this is as far as knowledge goes. My philosophical background, and strong interest in epistemology, led me awhile back to consider yet another category of knowledge, if you will, which has yet to be mentioned - except possibly where you say, "if that divine revelation is personally received, then it may or may not also be wisdom, depending exactly what the belief is about (i.e., personal or community)."

(But what, precisely, constitutes the "yardstick?" )

One teacher speaks of this as straight knowledge, while others simply call it the Spiritual Intuition. In the East, it has been associated with Buddhi, a faculty of conscious awareness greater than the mind, and potentially 100% accurate, though interpretation must come through the more limited and error-prone consciousness of the mind, emotions, and brain. But at least theoretically, we can know.

Is this merely a belief? Mmmm, I don't think so. It has been a long time since I tried playing these "logic-games" with others ... but if we proceed carefully, I think we can always arrive - at the same point! But is that what we want to do?

As I say, things are a bit foggy for me now, but I do recall that the philosophers love to ask questions like, "How do we know anything?" And the trick nature, or slippery part of that question - is that, from a certain point of view, it is indeed true that we know nothing.

We don't even have to adopt a thoroughly Eastern approach toward philosophy, Wisdom, & such in order to realize that our 5 objective senses (and even the 6th/7th, as-yet-imperfectly-developed ones) do not constitute "knowing," not even in your scientific/literal sense. This is because they are part of a 3-part equation with which every one of us has had experience. Knower-knowing-known. The senses are the knowing part, the apparently-external world(s) is the known part. But that still leaves the Knower - and accuracy of knowledge in the three worlds (mind, emotions, body) is elusive.

Some folks are more convinced of these various distinctions than others. But the same distinction applies in the world of passion-pleasure-emotions, as well as within the world of mind. Just try distinguishing between Knower-knowing-known during really good sex, or say ... while you're completely intoxicated. In the former case, why would you want to do that!?! And in the latter, could you, if you tried? So that says something about desire, or the factors that influence just how much and in what ways we do or don't want to know/understand someone or something - or ourself. True?

The sage Patanjali speaks of the "modifications of the thinking principle," where mind is still the faculty of consciousness which is apprehending someone, something, or some experience. A definite disctinction still exists at the level of mind between Thinker, the act of thinking, and the object of our thought - which we can also call Knower, knowing, and known. The "knowledge" may be imperfect, incomplete, or altogether inaccurate at this level, but we should not become confused just because the object of thought or knowledge might happen to be internal rather than external ("objective"). After all, which of these is "really" the truer reality?

Aha. The wrong question, unless this is about ontology, but it's not. The question is one of epistemology - "How do we know, what we know?" And I do think we can know things, rather than "merely" believe them. And while up to this point I do think relativism applies, it is at the level of the Intuition, or "straight knowledge," that relativism breaks down, since finally, we know a thing (person, experience, etc.) for its true, inherent, and absolute value. Nevermind that there are no absolutes, save One, at that level/point ... "relativism" in the way that I think many people at CR (or of strong religious faith) are disturbed by that term, disappears.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Here's how Professor H. Wildon Carr defines the intuition

"the apprehension by the [Knower] of reality directly as it is, and not under the form of a perception or a conception, nor as an idea or object of the reason, all of which by contrast are intellectual apprehension." - Philosophy of Change, page 21. (emphasis mine)

Direct apprehension: What would that be like? How are we to understand what such an understanding would be? Hint: Only mind divides, reduces, and dissects ... in a non-synthetic and non-wholistic effort to understand the relation(ship) between Knower and known. The limitation, is thus the form of "knowing." At best, Inspired Mind can synthesize, apply Insight, and perceive a Harmony between otherwise disparate parts, or components, of the/a whole.

Intuitive apprehension alone, can grasp the true nature of that whole, as it exists before it is divided & dissected by mind. And for this kind of straight-knowledge to happen, the very distinction between Knower & Known must dissappear (or not appear). The result? There is only "knowing," in which Self IS. And while this seems thoroughly Eastern to some, it is only because the Western mind is much more firmly rooted on, and founded in, scientific rationalism.

Only the Western Mystics have presented to us the notion of Straight Knowledge, yet with them, it is always steeped in religious dogma, or couched in the language and symbolism of esoteric traditions. Why not simply bring this out into the open? After all, if there really is such a faculty, will we not all, surely, discover it someday? Shall we not grok, too ... as our Water-Brother Michael once did?

I hope so.

andrew

Western man is a different culture than Eastern man. Western man seeks from without, while Eastern man seeks from within. The West went to the stars, while the East went to inner self. The west pushed out, while the east searched in. West found infinity, and East finds...nothingness (could that be the opposite of infinity, in a way?)

There is a signifigance here that many have missed. I'm not certain I understand it myself, yet I do note we are lead in different directions. There must be a reason...

Why is it so hard for Western man to accept Eastern thought (it takes effort). Likewise, Eastern man accepting Western thought...

Why does Western man hold fiercely to individuality, and Eastern man prefer communal identity?

v/r

Q

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

West found infinity, and East finds...nothingness (could that be the opposite of infinity, in a way?)

There is a signifigance here that many have missed. I'm not certain I understand it myself, yet I do note we are lead in different directions. There must be a reason...

Imho, the East did not find "nothingness." What the Wisdom of the East revealed has largely been misunderstood by us in the West, as well as in the East, by many a man. Nirvana is not nothing. In fact, to put it positively, it is everything ... and everything else, is "nothing."

Yeah, I know, wth??? Mmm, you know what I mean. The Mystic (may as well be Western here, for that matter) will speak of a whole "new level" or world of experience(s) in which ... everything s/he has thitherto experienced of reality - is suddenly revealed "as if it were" nothing (not that it literally is nothing, any more than Nirvana was ever meant to be thought of as nothing). It has to do with reorientation, and perhaps a re-evaluation, but really we must do away with this most bothersome word, "nothing." For what, exactly is it a label, and if so, then why do we use it so often?

So, we could say that Nirvana is like nothing we've ever experienced before, since prior to Samadhi, yep, you betcha - it was nothing. But, after even a glimpse/taste of it, what does all of our prior experience suddenly seem like? Ha! Again, yes - as nothing! But, nowhere in all of this is nothing literal (I knew all this literal/liberal stuff would help out sooner or later). It is merely a figure of speech.

We speak of the "vast nothingness of space," as discovered/verified by the telescopes and scientific instrumentation of the West. Yet in truth, we know that we are actually beholding Infinity, in small measure. But doesn't this Infinity also exist as an Interior Dimension (ever read Teilhard de Chardin?)? Hmmm .... perhaps they meet somewhere ...

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Why is it so hard for Western man to accept Eastern thought (it takes effort). Likewise, Eastern man accepting Western thought...

Evolution of mind/consciousness over vast aeons = objective, observable, definite differences. But not in our innermost nature, just in how we have cultivated it, or brought it forth. There must be a balancing, which I think we will inevitably & eventually reach. All modes of knowledge, understanding & perception will one day be understood objectively, while yet not sacrificing the (importance & value of) subjectivity of experience.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Why does Western man hold fiercely to individuality, and Eastern man prefer communal identity?

My understanding, though it will be unpopular with many ... is simply that we (Western civilizations) are so much younger, and most certainly less mature than Eastern. This does not make the East more advanced across the board, yet spiritually - I do think there is a bit of an edge. Materially, we might have an edge, but who's got the short end of the stick, here?

Thus the great interest we all should have in finding out just exactly what's the next step in God's Plan for us. In what new ways and arenas will East meet West? What might the syntheses of views and modes of thinking (and discovering knowledge) bring about, which we cannot yet conceive in the slightest? Something I have often pondered (and not in vain, since it has already occurred) - is what advances might occur if some of the best-trained & expert clairvoyants got together with some of the most open-minded & accomplished of today's scientists, combining their talents? Indeed, how radical!

andrew

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Imho, the East did not find "nothingness." What the Wisdom of the East revealed has largely been misunderstood by us in the West, as well as in the East, by many a man. Nirvana is not nothing. In fact, to put it positively, it is everything ... and everything else, is "nothing."

Yeah, I know, wth??? Mmm, you know what I mean. The Mystic (may as well be Western here, for that matter) will speak of a whole "new level" or world of experience(s) in which ... everything s/he has thitherto experienced of reality - is suddenly revealed "as if it were" nothing (not that it literally is nothing, any more than Nirvana was ever meant to be thought of as nothing). It has to do with reorientation, and perhaps a re-evaluation, but really we must do away with this most bothersome word, "nothing." For what, exactly is it a label, and if so, then why do we use it so often?

So, we could say that Nirvana is like nothing we've ever experienced before, since prior to Samadhi, yep, you betcha - it was nothing. But, after even a glimpse/taste of it, what does all of our prior experience suddenly seem like? Ha! Again, yes - as nothing! But, nowhere in all of this is nothing literal (I knew all this literal/liberal stuff would help out sooner or later). It is merely a figure of speech.

We speak of the "vast nothingness of space," as discovered/verified by the telescopes and scientific instrumentation of the West. Yet in truth, we know that we are actually beholding Infinity, in small measure. But doesn't this Infinity also exist as an Interior Dimension (ever read Teilhard de Chardin?)? Hmmm .... perhaps they meet somewhere ...

Evolution of mind/consciousness over vast aeons = objective, observable, definite differences. But not in our innermost nature, just in how we have cultivated it, or brought it forth. There must be a balancing, which I think we will inevitably & eventually reach. All modes of knowledge, understanding & perception will one day be understood objectively, while yet not sacrificing the (importance & value of) subjectivity of experience.

My understanding, though it will be unpopular with many ... is simply that we (Western civilizations) are so much younger, and most certainly less mature than Eastern. This does not make the East more advanced across the board, yet spiritually - I do think there is a bit of an edge. Materially, we might have an edge, but who's got the short end of the stick, here?

Thus the great interest we all should have in finding out just exactly what's the next step in God's Plan for us. In what new ways and arenas will East meet West? What might the syntheses of views and modes of thinking (and discovering knowledge) bring about, which we cannot yet conceive in the slightest? Something I have often pondered (and not in vain, since it has already occurred) - is what advances might occur if some of the best-trained & expert clairvoyants got together with some of the most open-minded & accomplished of today's scientists, combining their talents? Indeed, how radical!

andrew

Yup, I figured you'd say that. Ready for this? Just because you think western world is immature, and the Eastern world considers the Western world immature (according to your own statements), what makes you think you are correct in your assesment? Better yet, what makes you right?

Your concept of "knowledge" is befuddling, not because it is beyond comprehension, but rather because there is no evidence to solidify what you are stating. (I know, there goes the western thought of "prove it" again)

In reality, proof is required. In esoteric thinking, proof not an issue.

We'll never agree I'm afraid, on even the simplest of things in this life. So, I'll leave you to your knowledge, while I stick with my "beliefs" (while I pull up my scientific instruments to test the waters of the Bering Sea's warming trend...)

v/r

Q

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Q

The west pushed out, while the east searched in. West found infinity, and East finds...nothingness (could that be the opposite of infinity, in a way?)

Actually, from both a relativist and an absolutist perspective, infinity begins and ends at zero. All the numbers, real and imaginary, are named relative to their position from zero, the beginning point. Infinity can also be divided into an infinite number of subsets that could also have an infinite number of members, such as odd numbers and even numbers, or positive values and negative values. From nothing comes everything. Infinity begins with zero, from the relativistic perspective. However, if you add up the value of absolutely all the numbers in infinity, the net value will also be zero, because for every positive number, real or imaginary, there is also a corresponding negative number, which will cancel each other out, for a net value of zero. Infinity ends with zero, from the absolutist perspective.

Perhaps we should start a separate thread for this?

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Yup, I figured you'd say that. Ready for this? Just because you think western world is immature, and the Eastern world considers the Western world immature (according to your own statements), what makes you think you are correct in your assesment? Better yet, what makes you right?

Your concept of "knowledge" is befuddling, not because it is beyond comprehension, but rather because there is no evidence to solidify what you are stating. (I know, there goes the western thought of "prove it" again)

What makes you think you are correct in anything ... or "right" about anything, either? Ahhhh, now you've helped my argument for an inherent ability to KNOW. You've given me evidence, in fact, that is exists. If what I say somehow doesn't rest well with you, then you must either think, A) I know better, or B) something within me registers (senses, feels, thinks, etc.) that "what he said" just doesn't pan out. Aha. So there is activity. Now tell me more about "it."

Originally Posted by Quahom1

In reality, proof is required. In esoteric thinking, proof not an issue.

Not so, but we don't spend all day taking barometric readings. Why? Because the scientist will do that just fine. And also because, if we are the least bit attuned to the climate and atmosphere, we can tell for ourselves that there is moisture in the air, and how much. The measurement may not be as exact as your barometer, but tell me - what does it matter? In some cases, yes, it will matter. For most of us though, in everyday situations, a precise barometric reading is probably - a bit much.

What might be more useful, however, is to directly apprehend the Soul of a people, a country, a religion, or even - yes, one individual. And in that, Q, you are probably correct. We will never agree ... that it doesn't take rocket surgery to come to such straight knowledge.

It isn't just about feeling, but it does take a complete openness in that world. Nor is it simply an intellectual judgement, but one's mind darn well better be open (sensitive, receptive to impression). And do we do it with a blind eye, a deaf ear? No. I think the senses will assist us, and bear witness to the whisperings of the Intuition.

But for knowledge, and understanding, and awareness from Soul to Soul ... I think we should each turn to whatever agency/agencies we are most comfortable with. For him who does not admit of a true Knowing, a direct apprehension by Intuitive Knowledge, then I dare say the attainment of such will be made all the more difficult - though not impossible. But for one who does seek because s/he believes most sincerely that such is possible ... ahhh, well, let's see. What do such people discover?


One thousands words ... but any one will suffice.



andrew

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Actually, from both a relativist and an absolutist perspective, infinity begins and ends at zero. All the numbers, real and imaginary, are named relative to their position from zero, the beginning point. Infinity can also be divided into an infinite number of subsets that could also have an infinite number of members, such as odd numbers and even numbers, or positive values and negative values. From nothing comes everything. Infinity begins with zero, from the relativistic perspective. However, if you add up the value of absolutely all the numbers in infinity, the net value will also be zero, because for every positive number, real or imaginary, there is also a corresponding negative number, which will cancel each other out, for a net value of zero. Infinity ends with zero, from the absolutist perspective.

Perhaps we should start a separate thread for this?

Yup, in the Science section, where we can go to town on this...

v/r

Q

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Yup, in the Science section, where we can go to town on this...

v/r

Q

Hmm, can I post the first chapter of the Tao Te Ching there to support the relativist/naming aspect and the absolutist/unnamed/sum-up aspect, or does that fall outside of the scientific realm?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by taijasi

What makes you think you are correct in anything ... or "right" about anything, either? Ahhhh, now you've helped my argument for an inherent ability to KNOW. You've given me evidence, in fact, that is exists. If what I say somehow doesn't rest well with you, then you must either think, A) I know better, or B) something within me registers (senses, feels, thinks, etc.) that "what he said" just doesn't pan out. Aha. So there is activity. Now tell me more about "it."

Not so, but we don't spend all day taking barometric readings. Why? Because the scientist will do that just fine. And also because, if we are the least bit attuned to the climate and atmosphere, we can tell for ourselves that there is moisture in the air, and how much. The measurement may not be as exact as your barometer, but tell me - what does it matter? In some cases, yes, it will matter. For most of us though, in everyday situations, a precise barometric reading is probably - a bit much.

What might be more useful, however, is to directly apprehend the Soul of a people, a country, a religion, or even - yes, one individual. And in that, Q, you are probably correct. We will never agree ... that it doesn't take rocket surgery to come to such straight knowledge.

It isn't just about feeling, but it does take a complete openness in that world. Nor is it simply an intellectual judgement, but one's mind darn well better be open (sensitive, receptive to impression). And do we do it with a blind eye, a deaf ear? No. I think the senses will assist us, and bear witness to the whisperings of the Intuition.

But for knowledge, and understanding, and awareness from Soul to Soul ... I think we should each turn to whatever agency/agencies we are most comfortable with. For him who does not admit of a true Knowing, a direct apprehension by Intuitive Knowledge, then I dare say the attainment of such will be made all the more difficult - though not impossible. But for one who does seek because s/he believes most sincerely that such is possible ... ahhh, well, let's see. What do such people discover?

Attachment 218
One thousands words ... but any one will suffice.



andrew

Lol, I'm not so eliquent in my writing most of the time, but you have my full attention, so you get my best.

One word...? "42"...(go on, take a chance...ask me)

v/r

Q

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

One word...? "42"...(go on, take a chance...ask me)

Does it have anything to do with Slartibartfast? Curious old chap, Him.

Oops. As for thread relevance, what was it that Deep Thought was s'posed to come up with? And what did he? lol

Veddy in-ter-est-ing ...

andrew

[lunamoth]

Hi taij, as usual you are not caught short for words . I'll try to go through your post and give some responses.

Originally Posted by taijasi

Luna, et al,

Especially in reading your most recent post, I think I am with you. So at what point does it become necessary to introduce the deus ex machina? At what point will our explanations break down? Is it not possible to hold a worldview based on scientific/literal knowledge, where sacred knowledge helps bridge a gap or two, but does not in & of itself become the substitute - for scientific knowledge?

I wouldn't look to sacred knowedge to bridge any gaps in my scientific knowledge. The purpose of sacred knowledge addresses a whole different level of thought, experience, and purpose in life.

At what point can your Wisdom Knowledge become rational knowledge, especially if we subject it to scientific critieria, and perhaps also consult any existing sacred knowledge available?

As I've said, I don't see these as mutually exclusive types of knowledge--there's a lot of overlap and interplay. But, when conversing about "knowledge" it is good to set down our reference points. So, wisdom knowledge interacts with rational knowledge when the base assumptions for rational thought are taken from a cultural context. "Murder is wrong." Thus, all reasoning about whether suicide, genocide, war, abortion, captital punishment etc. will be based on the assumption that taking a human life is wrong. But, what I think what you are asking is what do you do when scientific evidence conflicts with a cultural wisdom. "Everybody thinks the earth is flat." Empirical discovery shows that the earth is not flat, but round. Cultural knowledge lagged behind scientific knowledge in this case, but both changed. It's not so much an evolution of knowledge, which implies it can never come to an "end," but a refinement of knowledge. The idea, or model (since I am a visual thinker) gets further and further refined.

Actually, it really has started to come to me that what we call knowledge has a lot to do with information we can trust in one way or another.

I can trust scientific knowledge to tell me about the physical universe in which I live. I can trust cultural wisdom to help me get along in the society in which I live. I can trust sacred knowledge to bring me closer to God. I can trust reason and logic as a path of inquiry into truth, always remembering that there was a base assumption that others also need to accept to come to the same conclusions.

As you can see, what I'm getting at is really kind of a synthetic knowledge, which you yourself speak of in your posts. Imho, this is as far as many of us get, but I do not think this is as far as knowledge goes. My philosophical background, and strong interest in epistemology, led me awhile back to consider yet another category of knowledge, if you will, which has yet to be mentioned - except possibly where you say, "if that divine revelation is personally received, then it may or may not also be wisdom, depending exactly what the belief is about (i.e., personal or community)."

I'm waiting with bated breath.

One teacher speaks of this as straight knowledge, while others simply call it the Spiritual Intuition. In the East, it has been associated with Buddhi, a faculty of conscious awareness greater than the mind, and potentially 100% accurate, though interpretation must come through the more limited and error-prone consciousness of the mind, emotions, and brain. But at least theoretically, we can know.

Is this merely a belief? Mmmm, I don't think so. It has been a long time since I tried playing these "logic-games" with others ... but if we proceed carefully, I think we can always arrive - at the same point! But is that what we want to do?

Let me recapitulate to see if I understand your point. The type of knowledge you propose is Spiritual Intuition (or straight knowledge) that is a mystical or divine revelation directly to an individual that only has consequences for that individual? Or does it also include messages to an individual that are to be shared with everyone else?

As I say, things are a bit foggy for me now, but I do recall that the philosophers love to ask questions like, "How do we know anything?" And the trick nature, or slippery part of that question - is that, from a certain point of view, it is indeed true that we know nothing.

What I call extreme relativism, and yes a valid philosohical POV or tool. However, to proceed past that we need to agree to some basic assumptions; 'I think therefore I am,' 'there is objective truth.' I've never studied epistemology so I am winging it, or in other words, "in over my head and paddling fast."

We don't even have to adopt a thoroughly Eastern approach toward philosophy, Wisdom, & such in order to realize that our 5 objective senses (and even the 6th/7th, as-yet-imperfectly-developed ones) do not constitute "knowing," not even in your scientific/literal sense. This is because they are part of a 3-part equation with which every one of us has had experience. Knower-knowing-known. The senses are the knowing part, the apparently-external world(s) is the known part. But that still leaves the Knower - and accuracy of knowledge in the three worlds (mind, emotions, body) is elusive.

. If I understand you correctly I agree. Data are meaurable observations; information is data organized in a way that adds value in a objective manner, and knowledge is a third tier organization of information in which further value is added by interpretation and judgement. But I would say that there is objective knowledge that is not dependent upon the character, emotions or intelligence of the knower.

Some folks are more convinced of these various distinctions than others. But the same distinction applies in the world of passion-pleasure-emotions, as well as within the world of mind. Just try distinguishing between Knower-knowing-known during really good sex, or say ... while you're completely intoxicated. In the former case, why would you want to do that!?! And in the latter, could you, if you tried? So that says something about desire, or the factors that influence just how much and in what ways we do or don't want to know/understand someone or something - or ourself. True?

The sage Patanjali speaks of the "modifications of the thinking principle," where mind is still the faculty of consciousness which is apprehending someone, something, or some experience. A definite disctinction still exists at the level of mind between Thinker, the act of thinking, and the object of our thought - which we can also call Knower, knowing, and known. The "knowledge" may be imperfect, incomplete, or altogether inaccurate at this level, but we should not become confused just because the object of thought or knowledge might happen to be internal rather than external ("objective"). After all, which of these is "really" the truer reality?

Well, you're starting to lose me because once again, to get anywhere we need to define what kind of knowledge we are talking about, external/objective or internal/subjective. I am saying that I accept the assumption there is objective truth and there is subjective truth and if another does not accept this same premise we will always keep talking past each other. The question which is more real seems like a different topic to me.

Aha. The wrong question, unless this is about ontology, but it's not. The question is one of epistemology - "How do we know, what we know?" And I do think we can know things, rather than "merely" believe them.

Oh, just got here, heh. You agree.

And while up to this point I do think relativism applies, it is at the level of the Intuition, or "straight knowledge," that relativism breaks down, since finally, we know a thing (person, experience, etc.) for its true, inherent, and absolute value. Nevermind that there are no absolutes, save One, at that level/point ... "relativism" in the way that I think many people at CR (or of strong religious faith) are disturbed by that term, disappears.

Not sure I get you, but sure, if the knowlege only applies to oneself you don't have to worry about it fitting into anyone else's framework. If you share that personal revelation with others, the most you can expect is to be heard and maybe someone else will find resonance with what you say. There's no way to press a point.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Here's how Professor H. Wildon Carr defines the intuition

"the apprehension by the [Knower] of reality directly as it is, and not under the form of a perception or a conception, nor as an idea or object of the reason, all of which by contrast are intellectual apprehension." - Philosophy of Change, page 21. (emphasis mine)

A personal epiphany I would call that. Great for confirming one's values and personal knowledge or upsetting one's own equilibrium and initiating transformation; useless for adding knowledge to the world except in contrasting and comparing it to cultural knowledge. Until, perhaps, enough people all start to have the same inspiration.

Direct apprehension: What would that be like? How are we to understand what such an understanding would be? Hint: Only mind divides, reduces, and dissects ... in a non-synthetic and non-wholistic effort to understand the relation(ship) between Knower and known. The limitation, is thus the form of "knowing." At best, Inspired Mind can synthesize, apply Insight, and perceive a Harmony between otherwise disparate parts, or components, of the/a whole.

Not exactly sure the point you ar making.

Intuitive apprehension alone, can grasp the true nature of that whole, as it exists before it is divided & dissected by mind. And for this kind of straight-knowledge to happen, the very distinction between Knower & Known must dissappear (or not appear). The result? There is only "knowing," in which Self IS. And while this seems thoroughly Eastern to some, it is only because the Western mind is much more firmly rooted on, and founded in, scientific rationalism.

Seems like you are talking about a kind of holistic knowing that takes us past the dualistic thinking in which we are mired. I agree, and I think that meditation, prayer, contempation, all these ways of achieving transcendence, show us glimpses and glimmers of that one True Knowledge that I call God and that one True Intelligence with which I can have relationship of perfect love.

I've sometimes wondered if the Return of Christ will actually be a global experience of this type of change in consciousness. When we get to the point where subjective and objective knowledge merge, we will also be past all knowing.

Only the Western Mystics have presented to us the notion of Straight Knowledge, yet with them, it is always steeped in religious dogma, or couched in the language and symbolism of esoteric traditions. Why not simply bring this out into the open? After all, if there really is such a faculty, [i]will we not all, surely, discover it someday? Shall we not grok, too ... as our Water-Brother Michael once did?

OK, again the bash on 'religious dogma.' I see it differently. It is all out in the open, so to speak. How else does one express the inexpressible or explain the unexplainable? We are still, the last time I checked, still fallible, physical humans, not perfect spiritual entities. We build ladders to take us higher.

My little girl wants some attention now. That's real to me.

cheers,
lunamoth