lunamoth said:
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 have thought about this most of my life, and I will always look back fondly to some of
my own epiphanies ... wherein I discovered beyond a shadow of a doubt -
some of the information I could trust. Since then, I have reached a point wherein modern science
is not my yardstick, exoteric religion
is also not my yardstick ... and neither are society's standards or simple group consensus (in the sense of
mob rules). Nor am
I the "ultimate authority," yet
I AM the decision-maker, and if my BS-meter is up there in the red-zone, I tend to be wary as hell.
So then,
just what is (or are) - the standard(s) for trust?
Lunamoth said:
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?
(The latter.)
You know, this could really be
much simpler. Let me just state, that I
believe that we can know.
![Stick Out Tongue :p :p]()
There. See? That's purely tautological, but I think I'm much better off not trying to
explain everything. Hell, I bet I go wrong there
95% of the time. Some things, I just know - and I
know I know ...
this I know.
![Roll Eyes :rolleyes: :rolleyes:]()
Yes, it
does just become some kind of linguistic pretzel to me, and the language of Western philosophy is extremely distasteful to me - so I just babble instead, or resort to Eastern terminology.
Wanna help me out here (at this point)? You can do so by telling me -
you, or anyone,
one thing you KNOW. Nevermind
absolutely - let's just say, "for certain."
lunamoth said:
But I would say that there is objective knowledge that is not dependent upon the character, emotions or intelligence of the knower.
Yes, but our
awareness of this knowledge
cannot be anything except
belief (or theory, hypothesis) ... at any of these levels. Sounds stupid, or again - a mere tautology - but
only the knower, knows.
![Roll Eyes :rolleyes: :rolleyes:]()
Some philosophers tried to deal with this, by inventing a
homunculus. Interestingly, George Lucas even hatched up
midichlorians in the newer Star Wars trilogy. It would quickly derail this thread if we were to take up this dicussion, since it overlaps very much so with
metaphysical issues ... but I was
delighted when I heard Lucas's dialogue in
Phantom Menace suggesting a symbiotic "collective consciousness and intelligence, forming links between everything living and the Force" (from
Wiki).
How does this relate to
epistemology and Knowledge vs. belief? Simple. I would say that humans
can only believe, cogitate, ponder & reflect. As you yourself say later,
"We are still, the last time I checked, still fallible, physical humans, not perfect spiritual entities. We build ladders to take us higher." Ladders to
what - or Whom? To the
Knower, to the Spark of the Divine within.
Toward that perfection which
will enable us to know, rather than to believe. Reminds me of my state seal (NC):
Esse quam videri - To Be, rather than to seem.
lunamoth said:
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.
My view is kind of a ...
double funnel. At one extreme, the funnel widens out, and there is the
outward, apparently-objective, external "reality." We all
think we see & experience this the same way, and without question there are similiarities, but I would be mistaken to say -
this is objective, end of story. We learned a long time ago, in quantum physics,
that the very act of observation, literally changes reality.
![Wink ;) ;)]()
So much for the objectivity at
this end of the "funnel."
But the funnel does indeed narrow down, and in this
interior dimension, since we have
yet (as a race, in large enough numbers) to have fully explored it, things
do seem subjective. But I can meet you in a dream, and
hand you something - and you know ...
it's as real as if we met in person. Mmmm, actually, far more so. And in this way,
knowledge itself (speaking of the scientific kind) has often reached the minds, then brains, of some of the world's
greatest thinkers. Was it a
subjective experience? Yes. Was it not also
objective? I dare say, since it could come to
any of us. And perhaps you've had experiences which you'd call
telepathic. Maybe?
I've had enough to know ... that
whatever the medium and precise nature of the rapport -
thoughts are things. But, we are still in the narrows of the funnel at this point. At best, we can see that it
widens - if we follow it a bit further.
Alice's rabbit-hole leads to the opposite side of the funnel, which is the realm of
the Intuition. In such a state of awareness, there is every bit as much
objectivity as in the keyboard you're typing on, the screen you're reading from, the brain receiving the photons & converting all this into
data, and the thought that
materializes as evidence of Understanding.
Let me quote from an old Shaker song to help illustrate:
'Tis the gift to have friends and a true friend to be,
'Tis the gift to think of others not to only think of "me",
And when we hear what others really think and really feel,
Then we'll all live together with a love that is real.
When true simplicity is gained,
To bow and to bend we shan't be ashamed.
To turn, turn will be our delight,
'Til by turning, turning we come round right
lunamoth said:
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.
Aha. What does it matter if I would say it using
other words. Here, we are on exactly the same page.
lunamoth said:
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.
"There is a peace which passeth understanding ..." - yet, even to truly
understand each other (see the Shaker song) is more than just, "yeah, I get ya,
so what." I would submit that true understanding leads (eventually & inevitably) to
perfect accord. To help us reach this,
I do believe (ahh, that word) that Christ has very much so returned,
is returning ...
ReAppearing. Semantics yes, but one Who has never truly gone away, cannot "return."
lunamoth said:
My little girl wants some attention now. That's real to me.
What is the
nature of the "attention" she wants?
![Smile :) :)]()
Spiritual Intuition/Straight Knowledge/true Understanding -
is the same as what you will answer.
![Wink ;) ;)]()
At least, that's what
I believe.
andrew