Critique of Pure Reason/ "Real Predicate"

[Bishadi]

I disagree. There is a great deal of knowledge that is not a derivation of consciousness. I speak of knowledge gained of experience. One can fantasize, hypothesize, calculate, scheme, plot, plan, and figure all day long...but until one actually demonstrates by *doing* it cannot truthfully be called "knowledge."

Knowledge conveyed is in words, symbols, sounds and even gestures; but to be shared from one person to another, transcending time; man created all words.

SO even if you saw the end of the world; how could you define what you saw within today's knowledge (words)

 

[Bishadi]

No, If I were defining God I would be talking about transcendent and meta-principles — metaphysics, not physics — here I'm talking physics. God and existence are two very different things.

To you they are separate; as to you God is somewhee else and not here but way over there....someplace

God is real as in right here, right now, of us, with us, "i am in you and you in me' kind of real..... not some dude on thrown turning switchs and allowing the evil satan to steal souls.... that old school foolishness

You must try and get away from the notion — which you seem to assume of everyone else — of thinking God as some Olympian inhabitant. The Greeks left that image behind a long, long time ago, and so have the rest of us.

but you still adhere to 'phenomenon' as if by God.....

so like you mentioned about the Greeks left that behind, i am here to share with you, that the old style of 'trinity' father son holy stuff, kind of metaphysical ideas of the such is soon to be over with...

— existence in itself is not causative of anything, therefore does not explain the existence of things, nor their movement ... does it ... existence doesn't explain itself.

that is why mass (us) ate that apple.... then we could define with awareness and understanding (like God)....

'the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts'.

Hence why 'existence' itself cannot really have a definition except by math

So 'wisdom' is only ever a divine quality ... and man should avoid it?

The wisdom and absolute observance to the fact that mankind created every word, is a real good one to observe.

The wisdom of integrity such as recognizing God does not use words to speak to me, and to ever accept that God spoke to Moses, Jesus, etc... means I must also observe Confucius, Nostradamus and Ted Haggart...

where wisdom proves that good wisdom can even come from a bag lady

Mass, energy and time are predicates of existence,

Actually they be the place we all live within..

eg mass, energy and time it doesn't explain why the world exists or what caused it

And a burning bush does?

... mass, energy and time do not cause existence, they are attributes of it.

And niether of them can exist without the other; hence the trinity.

Which is where we differ, your triune MET explains how things work, but not why; nor whether there is a reason, purpose or point to it all.

Purpose: to continue... same basic precept of life itself..


Why and the reason... can never be observed unless it is recognized perfectly as; 'to exist'. such that any could say "love"..... but logically that would mean the future was already set in such before even 'the light' that HE was aware of His own beginning.

 

[juantoo3]

Knowledge conveyed is in words, symbols, sounds and even gestures; but to be shared from one person to another, transcending time; man created all words.

SO even if you saw the end of the world; how could you define what you saw within today's knowledge (words)

OK, but that is not what you said. You said "all knowledge was consciously derived." I disagree.

Birds KNOW to fly south for the winter. Hibernating animals KNOW to prepare for the cold weather. I have seen many instances of animals KNOWING things that humans were too involved in their minds, lost in their own little thought worlds, to ever appreciate. Animals as lowly as insects KNOW before an earthquake strikes. Animals KNEW to flee from the shore when the tsunami was coming.

While I can agree knowledge can be shared from one human to another human with the use of words, images, etc.; that would be speaking of human "knowledge" not *all* knowledge, and even then I would hesitate to call it knowledge for the very reasons I mentioned. Without experience that can be demonstrated, what passes as knowledge among humans is not anything close to genuine knowledge.

Unless one cares to demonstrate...like perhaps building a fire without the benefit of a lighter or matches? Now THAT could be classed as "knowledge." Up until the point of experience and demonstration, at best we have is theory, and there is a whole lot passed off as knowledge that doesn't even come close to theory.

 

[Thomas]

To you they are separate;

Distinct according to their natures ... yes. You and I are separate, but the same. God and man are utterly un-alike, yet (potentially) one ...

as to you God is somewhere else and not here but way over there....someplace

No, again you assume a purile model.

If you understood Christianity at all youy would know this is an erroneous assumption to make of a Christian. God to me is Absolutely Transcendent, and intimately Immanent.

God is real as in right here, right now,

OK. Prove it.

+++

of us,

Ah, you might be assuming pantheism, or panentheism ... but this is not Christian.

with us, "i am in you and you in me' kind of real ...

Well as you're making a very poor reference to Christian Scripture, that is obviously what I think, isn't it ... so you're argument is illogical as well as poorly presented ... to which I can only conclude you might have some vague inkling of what Scripture says, but you certainly don't understand it.

... not some dude on thrown turning switchs and allowing the evil satan to steal souls.... that old school foolishness

Here you go again ... asserting your old prejudices in the face of every evidence to the contrary ...

... and none of these assertions can you prove ... they are acts of faith on your part ...

but you still adhere to 'phenomenon' as if by God.....

Ontologically, yes. If not then what? I certainly don't adhere to the idea that phenomena just pops out of the void ... or that existence caused itself.

so like you mentioned about the Greeks left that behind, i am here to share with you, that the old style of 'trinity' father son holy stuff, kind of metaphysical ideas of the such is soon to be over with...

Bishadi you're not here to share anything.

You're here on the Christianity forum, persistently and inconsistently mocking Christianity and insisting on your own a-theist POV. I am here pointing out your errors, both doctrinally and philosophically.

that is why mass (us) ate that apple.... then we could define with awareness and understanding (like God)....

Again, you see, you're leaping to conclusions on no basis of evidence at all, what is the correlation between mass and consciousness, and consciousness and understanding? None in any physics I know.

The point of Scripture is man cannot know that which lies outside his nature to know, he is not omniscient, nor omnipotent ... much as he likes to convince himself he could be.

Hence why 'existence' itself cannot really have a definition except by math

Really? What is math but a system of relations? What is 'number' but an intellectual construct?

Oh, if you could ever get over your own prejudice, and actually made an inquiry about the above of Christian doctrine, you would be gobsmacked!

I can think of:
St Gregory of Nyssa — who chose to examine the philosophical notion of 'distance' or 'spacing' in existence and its significance ... of 'being' and 'presence' and 'thought'

St Maximus the Confessor — who chose the idea of 'number' and 'movement' ..

Or St Nicholas of Cusa, who laid the foundation of renaissance math and the idea of the infinite ...

... there are hundreds more ...

The wisdom and absolute observance to the fact that mankind created every word, is a real good one to observe.

But why stop there ... 'words' are conceptual models, like math ... but actually more useful ... math is more exact, more precise, but words can express more ... why not seek the source of that which that gave rise to the word?

The wisdom of integrity such as recognizing God does not use words to speak to me, and to ever accept that God spoke to Moses, Jesus, etc... means I must also observe Confucius, Nostradamus and Ted Haggart...

No exercise of critical faculty then?

where wisdom proves that good wisdom can even come from a bag lady

Yes it can.

Actually they be the place we all live within...

OK, but that still avoids the question.

And a burning bush does?

If you understand that image within the whole model, yes, it does.

And niether of them can exist without the other; hence the trinity.

That's where I think you're wrong. I think MET is just a conceptual model based on empirical observation of phenomena ... MET can explain some (not all) phenomena, but not existence.

Purpose: to continue... same basic precept of life itself...

I would say continuance is subsequent to existence. Life must exist for continuance to be its purpose ... but continuance of what ... that's the question ...

Why and the reason... can never be observed unless it is recognized perfectly as; 'to exist'. such that any could say "love"..... but logically that would mean the future was already set in such before even 'the light' that HE was aware of His own beginning.

Again, I don't follow, and you're thinking seems confused.

If by 'He' you mean God, there never was a beginning — 'beginning' is a concept derives from a spatio-temporal condition ... God is not subject to time no space.

Nor do I see any room for 'love' in your MET model ... neither Mass, nor energy, nor time, causes love.

Thomas

 

[Bishadi]

Distinct according to their natures ... yes. You and I are separate, but the same. God and man are utterly un-alike, yet (potentially) one ...

Name a nature of God we do not.

If you understood Christianity at all youy would know this is an erroneous assumption to make of a Christian. God to me is Absolutely Transcendent, and intimately Immanent.

Same with existence.

OK. Prove it.

i am, therfore I exist..... within existence (God)

not an ism kind of guy as the word truthism.. doesn't sound cool enough

Well as you're making a very poor reference to Christian Scripture, that is obviously what I think, isn't it ... so you're argument is illogical

but the idea that a women came from man's rib is?

or that some dude will fly through the cloud and rapture up the good....... that's all logical?

... and none of these assertions can you prove ... they are acts of faith on your part ...

that's my line......

Bishadi you're not here to share anything.

deaf ears cannot hear..... it's in your book (Bible)

You're here on the Christianity forum, persistently and inconsistently mocking Christianity and insisting on your own a-theist POV. I am here pointing out your errors, both doctrinally and philosophically.

No I am not here damaging a religion but here sharing what the religions all said was going to happen. What I crush are the fibs of men that oppress the minds of the children; our future. If that puts a priest out of a job, then maybe we have less pedophilia as well deciet damaging others for the institutions survival. Meaning I care more about others than my beliefs.

Again, you see, you're leaping to conclusions on no basis of evidence at all, what is the correlation between mass and consciousness, and consciousness and understanding? None in any physics I know.

Because consciousness reveals t<0 and not physicist will put their 'career' on the line to go against the 'community' just like most faithful don't believe half of what their religious order suggests, but don't say a thing about it.

but then all the religions suggested a day would come when 'the revealing' will answer all comers who wish to debate truth.

But why stop there ... 'words' are conceptual models, like math ... but actually more useful ... math is more exact, more precise, but words can express more ... why not seek the source of that which that gave rise to the word?

So you have a few good points here; first the math, is the universal language; hence the name of God is of Math.

Second that words convey much and most of your theology is based in words as math was a second thought to religious order.

and last; both concepts used to define existence are / were created by men/women and evolved through time...

and like all the old school, they had a new generation share how ignorant they really are....

try some old philosophy...


“To live in accordance with the essence of things, as Socrates said, is the premise of the moral life.

One cannot live in peace of mind without at the same time being in harmony with reality.”

“The premises of a moral life is based on a covenant with reality.”

“No life is authentic that is in conflict with the order of the universe.”


And not knowing the order of the universe constitutes a serious handicap in living a moral life!

or mine to you

"virtue was the most valuable of all possessions; the ideal life was spent in search of the Good. Truth lies beneath the shadows of existence, and that it is the job of the philosopher to show the rest how little they really know."

Socrates

 

[Bishadi]

I disagree. There is a great deal of knowledge that is not a derivation of consciousness. I speak of knowledge gained of experience. One can fantasize, hypothesize, calculate, scheme, plot, plan, and figure all day long...but until one actually demonstrates by *doing* it cannot truthfully be called "knowledge."

sorry as it seems our definitions are mixed up.

knowledge conveyed between mankind...... all were 'created' by men/women.... to communicate/associate...

if we are going to talk about whales communicating over vast distance or even that ideas are not of experience, then i am not sure what you are talking about....


because it does not make sense to suggest that only 'doing' is knowledge

I would call the idea when a person 'does' something that a choice was made, not that knowledge was 'doing' ....

 

[juantoo3]

knowledge conveyed between mankind...... all were 'created' by men/women.... to communicate/associate...

You are still not being clear in your presentation. All *what* were created by humans? Knowledge? I demonstrated that this assertion is incorrect. The primary fallacy in your assertion is the qualifier "all."

if we are going to talk about whales communicating over vast distance or even that ideas are not of experience, then i am not sure what you are talking about....

Are you suggesting whales exchange knowledge *exclusively* through whalesong? I submit that is again erroneous and limited thinking.

because it does not make sense to suggest that only 'doing' is knowledge

It doesn't make sense? Why? Because it shows the limitations of the fallacious assertion? Or because it illuminates the prejudicial promotion of humans above other animal life? Or because it highlights the fallacious presumption that thought and knowledge are equivocal- almost interchangeable?

I would call the idea when a person 'does' something that a choice was made, not that knowledge was 'doing' ....

Very well, it still does not negate my assertion that true knowledge requires experience.

Otherwise, what you are promoting can as easily be said of lies; "lies conveyed between mankind...... all were 'created' by men/women.... to communicate/associate..." To the unwary or those not understanding, lies might easily be confused with "knowledge."

Allow me to present an example; I can tell you how to pick, cook and eat wild mushrooms. According to you, that would be me conveying knowledge to you. If you take what I have given you, this you call knowledge, and go out and pick the wrong mushrooms, properly prepare them, eat and die...I have not given you knowledge, I have lied to you.

Now, if I can take you into the wilds with me and *show* you which mushrooms, and show you how to prepare them, and enjoy the meal...THEN! That is conveying knowledge.

Animals share knowledge without language or rational thought on a regular basis, by demonstration. Knowledge and thought are only incidentally related.

 

[Dream]

I Kant understand why this thread is in the Christianity forum, however I'm impressed with the level of focus & concentration that must be required to follow the conversation.

 

[juantoo3]

I Kant understand why this thread is in the Christianity forum, however I'm impressed with the level of focus & concentration that must be required to follow the conversation.

Kinda wondered that myself, and thought about moving it to the philosophy board. But if I recall, Kant was a minister of one or another denomination...so I wondered if that was going to enter the convedrsation or not. It's been awhile, I Kant remember what the gist of Kant's arguments were, but I do seem to recall that in the end there was a dichotomy that could not be resolved. In other words, Kant's philosophy isn't perfect and is limited in scope and application.

I'd have to look back into it, and I'm really just not that worried about it right now. Too many other fish to fry...

 

[Eclectic Mystic]

Kant was a Christian writer, and one of the most prolific ever as a matter of fact.

 

[Dream]

Ok, I'm caught up in the thread. So Kant decided that knowledge, such as mathematics, in man may precede experience, moreover that man must be conditioned ahead of time to be able to have experiences at all. Hmm. I agree a child must be taught about God -- either by a person or by God, but not that the sentence "God is" is necessarily incomplete; because we have neither the predicate conditions nor the experience to say so. Some Christians think there is no excuse for not knowing about God, however that is usually because they are taking a single verse (Romans 1:20) out of its context.

Here's an extract from the current WPedia article on Kant.

Kant, however, contests this: he claims that elementary mathematics, like arithmetic, is synthetic a priori, in that its statements provide new knowledge, but knowledge that is not derived from experience. This becomes part of his over-all argument for transcendental idealism. That is, he argues that the possibility of experience depends on certain necessary conditions—which he calls a priori forms—and that these conditions structure and hold true of the world of experience. In so doing, his main claims in the " Transcendental Aesthetic" are that mathematic judgments are synthetic a priori and in addition, that Space and Time are not derived from experience but rather are its preconditions

Can anyone tell me if I'm misinterpreting this? When Kant suggests that existence may not be a real predicate it seems like it means that a sentence like "God is" is incomplete and must instead be something like "God is _____" ("God is perfect" or "God is loving" etc..). This tells me that one can only say "God is" if it goes something like: "God 'is' if God is loving." Otherwise, either he's not God or he doesn't exist, right?

 

[Bishadi]

You are still not being clear in your presentation. All *what* were created by humans? Knowledge? I demonstrated that this assertion is incorrect. The primary fallacy in your assertion is the qualifier "all."

Do you wish to define what it is that mankind exchanges?

Not talking about whale conversing we are talking about 'knowledge'... that thing in which ideas are conveyed.

So you can grunt your knowledge, sing, put sound to it, symbols or even them .........'man/women/child only created things'.......... called words.

So twist it up all you like; nothing creates words but mankind. all MOST all knowledge conveyed between mankind comes in the form of words.

and MANKIND CREATED EVRY WORD IN EXISTENCE......

is that clear enough .... or are we going back to dogs and cats, whales and tales

Very well, it still does not negate my assertion that true knowledge requires experience.

Hence why a God on a thrown is a joke!

Otherwise, what you are promoting can as easily be said of lies; "lies conveyed between mankind...... all were 'created' by men/women.... to communicate/associate..." To the unwary or those not understanding, lies might easily be confused with "knowledge."

Now you're talking..... every lie in existence was create by a person...

and much of what people believe as true in religious contents are fibs...

Allow me to present an example; I can tell you how to pick, cook and eat wild mushrooms. According to you, that would be me conveying knowledge to you. If you take what I have given you, this you call knowledge, and go out and pick the wrong mushrooms, properly prepare them, eat and die...I have not given you knowledge, I have lied to you.

no but to suggest, these are exactly what to look for, these are its properties, and that if you believe in them, you will have ever lasting life....

now you are lying!


animals don't lie to make themselves believed; people do!

 

[Thomas]

Name a nature of God we do not.

then

or that some dude will fly through the cloud and rapture up the good....... that's all logical?

Here we go again ...

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Dream —

According to Kant, it is vital always to distinguish between the distinct realms of phenomena and noumena. Phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality. All of our synthetic a priori judgments apply only to the phenomenal realm, not the noumenal. (It is only at this level, with respect to what we can experience, that we are justified in imposing the structure of our concepts onto the objects of our knowledge.) Since the thing in itself (Ding an sich) would by definition be entirely independent of our experience of it, we are utterly ignorant of the noumenal realm.

Thus, on Kant's view, the most fundamental laws of nature, like the truths of mathematics, are knowable precisely because they make no effort to describe the world as it really is but rather prescribe the structure of the world as we experience it. By applying the pure forms of sensible intuition and the pure concepts of the understanding, we achieve a systematic view of the phenomenal realm but learn nothing of the noumenal realm. Math and science are certainly true of the phenomena; only metaphysics claims to instruct us about the noumena.

More here

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

According to Kantian philosophy then:

Math and science are certainly true of the phenomena; only metaphysics claims to instruct us about the noumena.

Kant argues that man is incapable of objectivity with regard to reality. He can, by the powers of reason, make determinations about the noumena (eg Kant can come up with the idea of noumena in the first place) ... and the history of philosophy shows this.

Christianity would agree, but modifies this position by the belief that Revelation is the one instance that comprises infallible data with regard to the noumena, because it issues from God and not from an operation of human reason.

+++

Math and science are then unable to offer a meaningful refutation of the idea of Revelation — precisely because revelation concerns the noumena, which the empirical and rational sciences determine a priori as unknowable. If they don't know it, they cannot make any affirmative statement beyond their own unknowing.

The fallacy of any scientific refutation of God, from a Kantian perspective, is that it is trying to prove/disprove something utilising a methodology which a priori asserts it is incapable of comprehending the data.

Thomas

 

[Bishadi]

then


Here we go again ...

Thomas

fight fire with fire

genesis 3

22And Jehovah God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,' --

 

[Bishadi]

According to Kantian philosophy then:

Kant argues that man is incapable of objectivity with regard to reality. He can, by the powers of reason, make determinations about the noumena (eg Kant can come up with the idea of noumena in the first place) ... and the history of philosophy shows this.

Noumena could be likened to comprehending "i am" or 'I exist therfore I am'... in which by mind we can define being aware....

You missed the whole concept; that knowledge is what feeds the capacity for mind to comprehend experiences.

Christianity would agree, but modifies this position by the belief that Revelation is the one instance that comprises infallible data with regard to the noumena, because it issues from God and not from an operation of human reason.

oh brother............ what is the basis of the word 'revelations?'

or simply what does word apocolypse mean?

The revealing is what combines all mankind. Knowledge is that last chapter all of mankind is awaiting......

Math and science are then unable to offer a meaningful refutation of the idea of Revelation — precisely because revelation concerns the noumena, which the empirical and rational sciences determine a priori as unknowable. If they don't know it, they cannot make any affirmative statement beyond their own unknowing.

but knowledge evolves..

from one day the earth was flat; now it is round..

once we thought man came from dirt... but find life evolved.

Women was thought to come from man; and never have that ever occurred.. but in single celled biology we find for life to procreate a portion of itself is given.....

knowledge correct the errors in logic left by the religious parables.....the evolution continues...

and of course; when the last chapter unfolds; then knowledge is what combines mankind equally.................

not the magic and illusions created by the minds of mankind, but the revealing found in the natural progression within the laws of existence (God)

The fallacy of any scientific refutation of God, from a Kantian perspective, is that it is trying to prove/disprove something utilising a methodology which a priori asserts it is incapable of comprehending the data.

Thomas

and the religions can offer knowledge to the human experience with compassionate foundation but beliefs have never granted man Peace within the knowledge to define awareness...

you be abusing what can't be understood by faith alone (Kant knew that)

 

[Thomas]

Noumena could be likened to comprehending "i am" or 'I exist therfore I am'... in which by mind we can define being aware....

No ... that "I am" is the observance of a phenomena. "Why am I?" is the question one might ask of the noumena.

You missed the whole concept; that knowledge is what feeds the capacity for mind to comprehend experiences.

And you miss the point that knowledge is all a human construct — an exercise of reason and logic — that is useful for explaining phenomena. It's just one way of managing reality.

Knowledge doesn't exist out there, like some huge oil resource ... it's something man determines, as he goes along.

Like number ... numbers don't exist, but they're a useful way of co-ordinating multiplicity ... but they are a human invention.

But then knowledge is just an abstraction, isn't it ... it's all words, made up by men (which even you treat with such disdain) ...

what is the basis of the word 'revelations?'

A disclosure of the noumenal of that which is, by its nature, beyond the scope of the phenomenological.

or simply what does word apocolypse mean?

"Lifting the veil" ... same thing. Different order of disclosure.

We're talking 'gnosis' here, not 'knowledge' — gnosis in the Christian sense of a union that transcends knowing, and is a way of being.

Thomas

 

[Bishadi]

No ... that "I am" is the observance of a phenomena. "Why am I?" is the question one might ask of the noumena.

That is not what is it for? My view i guess is a Plato kind.

yet to review; it appears as if to use 'noumenon' is to describe or lean on the concept of God. Or purely Existence itself.

The unknowable.......... as faith defines

And you miss the point that knowledge is all a human construct — an exercise of reason and logic — that is useful for explaining phenomena.

Isn't that was knowledge assists mankind with; Comprehending phenomenon? Associating? Describing all the while evolving.

and to suggest 'knowing' as in a gnostic approach is pure, then why do people need to learn anything gnostic? If your idea is pure then we should each be able to sit in a closet right after birth and know existence in all her noumenon......

Thomas.... you be digging another hole

Knowledge doesn't exist out there, like some huge oil resource ... it's something man determines, as he goes along.

Like number ... numbers don't exist, but they're a useful way of co-ordinating multiplicity ... but they are a human invention.

exactly; as all was experienced and descibed by mankind; the evolution of knowledge.

all happens in time...

the progression to knowledge has currently peaked and the only method of reaching the next plateau is a paradigm shift....

But then knowledge is just an abstraction, isn't it ... it's all words, made up by men (which even you treat with such disdain) ...

and how so many tangents were born as the amount of 'disdain' caused man to branch out, furthering the progression; even unwittingly.

but few step back to reconcile;

maybe try it, is my suggestion to you.

Originally Posted by Bishadi
what is the basis of the word 'revelations?'

then you said


A disclosure of the noumenal of that which is, by its nature, beyond the scope of the phenomenological.

How can you say that? It is like fibbing just because you 'will not' be honest.

the revealing is when mankind becomes equal based on the truth as there is only ONE WAY it all works........ and from that foundation all phenomenon will cease to be unknown

"Lifting the veil" ... same thing. Different order of disclosure.

We're talking 'gnosis' here, not 'knowledge' — gnosis in the Christian sense of a union that transcends knowing, and is a way of being.

Thomas

that is your opinion


and has nothing to do with Kant other than you can't see the big picture, and happy to continue in the 'can't understand' mindset.

is that your attraction to Kant? Is it because it has a ring to being complacent?

 

[Thomas]

That is not what is it for? My view i guess is a Plato kind.

Well, Plato and Kant and Christianity regards the intelligible world as both good and moral ... although how they integrate existence into the intelligible is a different matter.

yet to review; it appears as if to use 'noumenon' is to describe or lean on the concept of God. Or purely Existence itself.

Well ... I would say that the noumenal covers that which the intelligible can speculate upon, but not prove empirically.

One is not obliged to assume that what lies beyond one's comprehension is the Deity, be it a Christian God, or any other ... likewise, to elevate 'existence' to the level of noumena implies there's more to existence than what is comprehendable via its phenomena ... and then one would have to determine what constitutes existence at the level of noumena, which would rule out light, energy, matter, time ... etc. and you're in to speculation again.

Isn't that was knowledge assists mankind with; Comprehending phenomenon? Associating? Describing all the while evolving.

Yes it does ... but is it the be-all and end-all of human existence, or is it just something we do ... man's happiness does not depend upon knowledge per se, and I dare say most of the human race would rather be happy than knowledgeable ... (although I'm not proposing ignorance as an escape from reality, or a virtue).

But perhaps I have to tread carefully ... to me it seems you ascribe to the process of MET something more than the sum of its parts, as it were ... and you factor knowledge into the formula ... so I would suggest that you're doing just as a theologian does, in speculating on the nature of reality ... and maybe I've got this all wrong, but to me it seems you're saying that the empirical phenomena is all that there is, and that must be God, because there's nothing else but energy in various combinations and degrees of activity ...

and to suggest 'knowing' as in a gnostic approach is pure, then why do people need to learn anything gnostic?

Well 'gnosis' in the wider sense means 'more interior' ... so I would say that knowledge, which is words ... is a construct around and about something, whereas gnosis is the experience of the thing itself ... not the description of the thing ...

I once recall talking to a sailor, about icebergs ... so we're swapping facts about icebergs ... then he said, "of course, you can smell 'em, musty things ... " and I realised for all my knowledge, he had experienced an iceberg — and that's what counts.

It's like a nice cup of tea ... I can explain it to you, the in-depth knowledge of the plant, boiling water, the principle of infusion, milk and sugar ... but nothing matches the taste of a cup of tea, that's real, the knowledge, in that sense, isn't ... it's necessary data if you want to make a cup of tea, though.

Knowledge will never reach the point where it is the thing about which it informs, if that makes sense ... I think man utilises knowledge to try and do just that.

A Catholic priest said in a homily "Go out and look at the sky on a dark and cloudless night ... look at the infinitessimal depths, the dimension ... then factor in time ... infinity in another direction ... it's magnificence is stark, stupendous, breathtaking ... heart-stoppingly, achingly beautiful ... and yet you, you little thing, you little thing that lasts less than a spark in the history of time, you can take it all in ... and more ... "

If your idea is pure then we should each be able to sit in a closet right after birth and know existence in all her noumenon

Who's to say some can't, or don't ... I would say the state of bliss is just that ... and that suggests there's a world of difference between 'knowledge' and 'knowing'.

the progression to knowledge has currently peaked and the only method of reaching the next plateau is a paradigm shift....

Perhaps you're right ... perhaps the next step is being, in all its simplicity, not knowledge, in all its complexity.

How can you say that? It is like fibbing just because you 'will not' be honest.

Not at all ... I've said no more than many philosophers have said ... Anaximander, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, Aquinas, why, the Asiatic traditions — the Dao, Buddhism — both say pretty much the same, there is this world, and there is other ... you're just showing your prejudice, if I read you right, in insisting that 'this' is all there is?

other than you can't see the big picture, and happy to continue in the 'can't understand' mindset.

And yet I'm saying the picture is bigger than the one you paint ... curious, isn't it?

is that your attraction to Kant? Is it because it has a ring to being complacent?

Oh, hardly! I'm Catholic, remember, not a Kantian — we reckon he's wrong, and a whole heap of trouble! ... if anything a NeoPlatonist, although I'd like to say I'm a Thomist, but I've a long way to go yet ... but regardless, I believe the noumena can be known ... if it chooses to be known ...

Thomas