Please see The Unknowable
The universe is knowable because it can be sensed, but that does not mean that it is fully known. We find the universe mixed with what is not known or is unknowable.
.
Definition of UNKNOWABLE
The knowable is manifested but the unknowable is not. The beginning of this universe and its cause are unknowable. But we make postulates in an effort to make the unknowable manifest itself.
We experience the universe through our senses little at a time. We do not fully know the details of what we sense. So we give meaning to what we experience by assimilating it with the help of our postulates.
We do not know if we shall ever be able to gain enough experience to fully know the universe. Our postulates are valid only to the degree they help us assimilate our experience into a meaningful whole.
Religions are the repository of the earliest postulates that were made. The idea of God, and all qualities and attributes assigned to God are postulates only. Phrases, such as, ‘Uncaused Cause,’ and ‘Unmoved Mover’ have been used to describe God, but their self-contradiction only emphasizes the seeming impossibility of knowing God.
Science has evolved out of the religions. It deals with more detailed observations, and with postulates that are increasingly precise. But the scientific knowledge is yet to be sewn together into a single piece of cloth.
We consider ourselves to be the source of these postulates. But when we turn around and look at our beingness, we run into more things that we do not know.
It appears that the unknowable is always there accompanying the knowable, no matter how precisely we know.
.
Misconceptions
1. The key misconception is to think that we can know the Unknowable by making arbitrary postulates and then reasoning from those postulates. The postulates themselves must conform to oneness.
2. It is a misconception to think that the background of what is not known is knowable. That knowable is always mixed with the unknowable that needs to be postulated.
3. It is a misconception to think that the unknowable can be completely postulated, because any postulate is bounded by the unknowable.
.
Comments
Beautiful essay!
(Until that last and contradictory se tence)
At the level of this deep dive, one simply decides what to believe. Almost no one lives at a deeper level than the macro level of daily life. Very few people know our cares
One can be certain of anything,
yet “certainty” is not evidence of anything. One can be dismissive of everything and decide to be uncertain of everything but that does not make the world any less real.
Objective evidence of objects is helpful and useful for controlling objects. Subjective evidence is anecdotal evidence and useful for leveraging opinions.
Shelley says, “Have a good time, all the time.” This seems wise to me.
Or, if one is whetting their physics tools, take Richard Feynman’s advice when he said, “Shut up, and calculate!” This seems like the path if one’s greatest concerns are smoothing the inconsistencies from their hypotheses.
Nevertheless, I mean it when I write how I enjoy reading how you wring-out the English language! You are very thoughtful and thorough.
The knowable is always manifested but the Unknowable is not manifested in the first place. This makes the two starkly distinct.
I have replaced the last sentence of the essay with the above sentence.
The concept of Unknowable supports what you say about tautology.
Can you agree that ethics holds the platform (serves as a foundation) for a continuous.harmoniousness that flows with consistency?I am asking this because in your response to one of my responses the word ethics was replaced with something like ” …….! “. I know in the church many have much bypassed resistance entangled with the subject,but I see it as a very important benefit to abundance in life.
I have no problem with Scientology definition of ETHICS as stated below. It works perfectly well for the mankind.
“ethics actually consist, as we can define them now in Dn, of rationality toward the highest level of survival for the individual, the future race, the group, and mankind, and the other dynamics taken collectively. Ethics are reason. The highest ethic level would be long-term survival concepts with minimal destruction, along any of the dynamics. (SOS, p. 128)”
The Principle of Oneness applies to the Universe and it is more basic. So I would say that the Principle of Oneness serves as a foundation for Ethics.
Thank you! That may be so.I was looking at ethics without the restriction to a mankind state,because that state is what took the present moment and entered it into TIME with dichotomies! and the door to problems……
Let me have your definition of ethics.
As an energy production source,a beings ethics is established through the directing of that force into an ideal that promotes life to the utmost in regards to wholeness or oneness.This is ethics.The actions need to support truth in the exact time place form and event.These actions are ethics.Yet, the true source from which humans derive this potential is God,Nature,oneness and wholeness.I would guess that KRC also becomes a requirement in stream lining the action as RESONSIBILITY always leads back to the starting point of an cycle. Oh and I really have no idea to express my mentioning of the ethics above mankind or existing as a point of view without time.But it stems from the present moment as in what Ron named aware of being aware consciousness.All in all at this point I agree with your suggestion that ONENESS is the foundation for ethics.I think that is what you shared……right?
Yes, I see ONENESS as the foundation for ethics. Hubbard’s view of a being is really a human being, albeit without a body.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/vinaire/posts/2386471341741532
Fred Pickhardt
The causal agent may exist transend the observable dementions.
Vinay Agarwala
Well, the statement, “The causal agent may exist transcend the observable dimensions,” is a postulate. Somebody put it out there sometime back. You have picked this postulate up and now putting it out here. So, it is something manifested and people can know it. This postulate is, therefore, something knowable, and it exists in our universe.
From this postulate, you and everybody else can reason. You can be very logical and derive all kind of conclusions from it. But all this reasoning, logic and conclusions will depend on the original postulate that has no logic underlying it.
Se we have a package of “postulate + reasoning + logic + conclusions” which we call a hypothesis. This whole package is knowable. So it would be part of the knowable universe.
But we know our own postulate and the hypothesis only. We still don’t know what is beyond the knowable universe.
I am not saying anything new. The Vedic sages knew it.