I'm trying to collapse epistemology into ontology, or trying to show that just b/c we can know things in many ways, it doesn't mean that the result is some fundamental relativity that makes everything meaningless al extremo. Said another way, we've wrongly believed that the thing in itself is itself from what we know of it, and since things can be known in many ways, the things are many and of themselves, isolated, always to vitiate their relations, but never to touch.
Yes, in one sense, this is true, but the fact that something can be known is the unifying fact of the matter. All is not lost! Things can be known, as such, things are.
It is.
Blessed is the faith.
But this isn't your run of the Mill (ha ha) esse et percipi or cogito ergo sum, as the knower, while crucial, is not relevant here, simply because things can be without us, and thus a human mind independent reality is effectively clear. So really, whether the things can be known is essentially irrelevant, as this provides no place for proving or affirming existence.
Things simply are.
It is.
Almighty Source.
Yet, can things be known without us? Things can be without us, but can they be known without us?
I believe yes, as to me, being is knowing, being is mind.
Forever, and ever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This one feels like a prayer. Especially with the Forever, and ever, as well as some of the single word breaks. Yet science and philosophy are both injected into the mix. I like it. It has resolve...sort of.
A little of the tree falls in the forest argument here(yawn)
Would it have been too obvious to mention god? Or fate?
Blessed is my fate.
How does Kant feel about all this?
The basic premise of arriving at truth through rational analysis is contrary to my zen nature and drunkenly now I cannot approach your words. But this weekend I will have mystrica and will attain the ability to enter into your way of thinking and help you if you so desire. Why do you not have msn messenger. Regardless, perhaps my salamander twin who is in your presence may help you out.
I hope they're like that.
But really, my attempts are righteous with the essence of frisbeeJah, I swear it.
So, I agree, DOing is the pulpy flesh of the matter, but first I think we need to demonstrate that, like you state, knowledge is not arrived at through pure rationality nor through just our observations.
The piece is, in this sense, a prayer as well, as faith is the stuff.
Faith is the stuff.
For example, the basis of empirical measurement is uncertainty. Explain that? The fact that to know the world in a way that is very fine tuned (clearly, think of the beauty and horror of science and technology) rests solely on the idea that nothing is determinable, uncertainty at its base, in effect, immeasurable.
Here lies the loop of essence.
Getting back again, I feel we need to establish this through the language that discusses it the best, I think.
So while mumbo jumbo yes, don't all spells have their language?
And all of this leads to an attempt to try and establish a third order ontology, so help me out.
:)
Post a Comment