The Paradox of Unknowable

October 2, 2014
This issue is now obsolete. This was an early issue in this research and it is difficult to comprehend. For latest reference please see: Universe and Awareness and The Eighth Dynamic.
At the fundamental level, any curiosity shall represent a beginning of awareness. Any response to this curiosity would be more awareness as visualization.
Essentially, there is emergence of awareness and visualization. Prior to this there was simply non-awareness.  It is not known what mechanism brings this transition from non-awareness into awareness, but its later harmonic seems to be the mind.
Mind is a multi-dimensional matrix made up of definitions and logics. It outputs considerations based on input perception. ”Cause” and “effect” are considerations.
Prior to transition to awareness was non-awareness. Non-awareness can only be speculated upon. The barrier of non-awareness can be pushed back only by resolving inconsistencies one by one as they come up.


One may say, “Cause considers (intends). The result is considerations.” That explains Cause only as an observation. It does not tell you how that observation came about. Thus, the idea of Cause itself is nothing more than a consideration. One may also say, “The resulting considerations are effect, and therefore not causative of anything.” This is an observation with some thought added to it. Thus, the idea of Effect also is just a consideration. What I have said here is consideration too by the same token.

We observe and decide what is there. Thus, what we see is our own assessment of what is there. This is one level of consideration.

One may say, “What about THAT which makes that observation? THAT, which cannot be named, is beyond that observation.” Well, is it? Now we are making an observation of ourselves. Believe me there is a considerable amount of observation here, such as, unmoved Mover, uncaused Cause, élan vital, God, soul, etc. They all fall under the same logic as above.

The “looking” beyond what we observe is just our thinking. This is another level of consideration. Whether we like it not, we are stuck with what we consider.

Is there experiencing of THAT, which is making the observations in the first place? Well, that is inherent in looking. When you are looking at any level, you are experiencing THAT. There is no mystery to that. So what is the issue?

The issue seems to be the desire to know. To know something, one needs to put it out there.

We do that very well by considering. Now we have completed the circle and back to where we started from. Can we step off this circle? Is there a dimension beyond this circle of considering and knowing? We may only hope and speculate.

I am sorry that the above “observation” seems to lead to an annoying sort of desperation. This is what seems to underlie the concept of UNKNOWABLE. I have been roundly criticized for it. Is there a way out? What follows as an answer to this question is just my speculation.

The UNKNOWABLE, which I have referred to so often, is so only from the viewpoint of the knowable universe. As long as one is attached to that viewpoint, the unknowable will remain outside one’s grasp.

Here is a possible prescription for overcoming this attachment.

  1. What makes the attachment persist is acceptance of inconsistencies.
  2. Removal of inconsistency paves the path for the removal of attachment.
  3. The removal of inconsistencies leads to the comprehension of the universe as a consistent whole.
  4. A complete review of that consistent whole may satisfy the desire to know.
  5. This may end this attachment to the viewpoint of the knowable universe.
  6. One may then enter the dimension of what appears to be “unknowable” at the moment.

I am sorry if this appears too abstract or mathematical. My current focus is on steps (1) and (2) above, with no further expectations about whether the rest would follow or not.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2011 at 9:46 PM

    Vin: “I am looking. Do you think you are right and I am wrong?”

    Chris: I think I write and then you write something back but not to my statement or question. And when I parrot back the same thing that you say, you argue. Very confusing for me. If we were married, I’d have to just be quiet and not mention it . . . but . . . !


    • vinaire  On May 15, 2011 at 10:46 PM

      Why do you need my response at all? Are you looking for agreement?

      In the final analysis, it seems, one has to do it all alone. Pick what you find useful in what I write and throw away the rest.

      I have nothing really to offer. I simply write what comes to me on occasions.

      If you are looking for advice, my advice would be to use KHTK.



  • vinaire  On May 17, 2011 at 10:32 AM

    The coordinates of space are orthogonal to each other. That means no projections can be made from one space coordinate to another. In other words, the three primary dimensions of space are inherently independent of each other. From the viewpoint of any one of these dimensions, the other two dimensions shall be unknowable unless one exits that dimension.

    What I am referring to as UNKNOWABLE is a dimension, which one wouldn’t even know if it exists unless one exits the dimension of the current knowable universe made up of considerations and physics.



  • vinaire  On October 5, 2014 at 7:14 AM

    This paradox is now resolved in The Eighth Dynamic


%d bloggers like this: