KHTK | Vinaire's Blog

Category Archives: KHTK

Knowing How to Know

Research into Unknowable

November 3, 2011 – 6:36 AM

October 17, 2014
The concept of Unknowable is better expressed as the non-awareness part of the “awareness – non-awareness” dichotomy. Please see Universe and Awareness.

This space shall contain comments that pertain to research into unknowable:

From Maria (Ref. Knowable and Unknowable):

I understand what you are describing here. It aligned extremely well with my past experience but it does not align with my own experience very accurately these days. Probably the language, which becomes very clumsy.

There is a level beyond knowing that we can and do “experience.” I cannot say “I” experience it to even halfway accurately describe this. It does not have any manifestation associated with it and “I” becomes a meaningless word. What follows is the best description I can presently offer:

Knowing, perceiving, experiencing in this reality (in which I am typing) as me is never anything more than a perception of the past and with a successive series of present moments. They are successive ONLY in interchange and they are not particularly precise. Even the future in this reality is already past. It is already past because it was already created as what will be. So there is really only now and then in this reality.

Simultaneously and always there is a true now. It is NOT in the time stream. It is the source of the time stream. It is not past, present or “future.” And this is where me goes beyond the limited being me.

While it is true that this state is not knowable in any “concrete” way, including concept, thought, mental images, physical forms, emotion, perception (bodily or otherwise) it is also true that it is a some kind of wellspring or source of these things. I don’t “know about” it. “I” don’t “know” it. I am and I am more than I am no fixed state and the words fail miserably.

I am sorry I cannot be more clear about this. I assure you this is real, more real than any manifestation of anything and I love it beyond all things. In my “self” it is a state of complete ease that often reflects into emotion as unbelievable joy, and from there into the body as lightness and brightness and sheer exuberance.

It is unknowable in the terms of this world, in terms of things, yes. But it is real beyond all limited reality.

Vinaire’s comment:

“Unknowable” is just an enticing placeholder that dares one to challenge it. It postulates that there always will be something that is not known no matter how deep you may dive into it…. somewhat like an infinte series. It is quite an exciting concept for me.

The “unknowable” is postulated simply to warn, “DO NOT REST AFTER DISCOVERING A STABLE DATUM. THERE IS NO LAST WORD.”

By vinaire | Also posted in Postulates | Comments (112)

Debate, Discussion, Condescension & Sin

November 1, 2011 – 9:25 PM

In a debate, the participants are playing a game with each other. Each participant is trying to make oneself right and the other person wrong. Very seldom inroads are made into knowledge through debate. A debate is ego driven, and usually ends up in conflicts.

In a discussion, the game is very different. Here the participants are teaming up together against ignorance. Inroads are often made into knowledge through discussion.

The game of knowledge is played better through discussion. It is successful as long as attention is kept to the subject and not diverted on to any participant. This is how science progresses.

The moment allegations are introduced that are critical of any participant in the game of knowledge… the progress, as far as knowledge is concerned, comes to a stop. Ad hominem is a special case of this.

BEING CONDESCENDING

con·de·scend·ing
showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority: They resented the older neighbors’ condescending cordiality.

con·de·scend
to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity.
Origin: 1300–50; Middle English condescenden < Late Latin condēscendere (see con-, descend); replacing Middle English condescendre < Middle French [Intensive of descend, to come down]

pa·tron·iz·ing
displaying or indicative of an offensively condescending manner: a patronizing greeting, accompanied by a gentle pat on the pack.

pa·tron·ize
to behave in an offensively condescending manner toward: a professor who patronizes his students.

pa·tron
Roman History. the protector of a dependent or client, often the former master of a freedman still retaining certain rights over him.
Origin: 1250–1300; Middle English < Medieval Latin, Latin patrōnus legal protector, advocate (Medieval Latin: lord, master), derivative of pater father.

Can the confident behavior of another be taken as offensively condescending?

Can “offensively concescending” be part of the filter that one is looking through, while having nothing to do with the characteristics of what is being looking at?

SIN

Sin is basically an action which one knows to be wrong. It is wrong because

(1) One has been told that it is wrong.
(2) One feels that one would be rejected by others when found out.

One restrains oneself from committing the sin. Attention remains on sinful actions and their consequences. One commits the sin when one can no longer restrain oneself. There is a conflict simply because a true understanding of why some action is a sin is not present.

When one is self-determined, one naturally understands the wrongness of an action. It is an action that goes against one’s self-determinism. One would never commit such an action.

But when one is not allowed to be self-determined, and one’s thinking is determined by others, then that natural understanding of wrongness is missing. There is a constant unease at the back of one’s mind. Guilt is simply a magnified intensity of that unease.

The feeling of uneasiness and guilt evaporates when one takes a self-determined look at the conflict surrounding one’s actions. As one starts to spot inconsistencies, the understanding starts to improve, and the feeling of guilt lessens. One then knows what self-determined actions truly are, and what sin really is.

Glossary

Debate
In a debate, each participant is trying to make oneself right and the other person wrong. Very seldom inroads are made into knowledge through debate. A debate is ego driven, and usually ends up in conflicts.

Discussion
A discussion is very different from a debate. Here the participants are teaming up together against ignorance. Inroads are often made into knowledge through discussion.

Sin
Sin is basically an action which one knows to be wrong. It is an action that goes against one’s self-determinism. One would never commit such an action. But when one is not allowed to be self-determined, and one’s thinking is determined by others, then that natural understanding of wrongness is missing. It is replaced by a feeling of unease at the back of one’s mind. The feeling of uneasiness evaporates when one takes a self-determined look at the conflict surrounding one’s actions.

By vinaire | Comments (51)

The Fundamental Desire

October 27, 2011 – 9:21 PM

There was nothing to know or unknow

When there came that stirring

And the question arose

How come there is nothing to know or unknow?

Thus came about speculation

And the observer of that speculation.

And so the self was formed

Infused with the desire to know itself.

Out of this grew the universe,

The galaxies, stars and planets.

And to understand all that

Life itself came about.

But underlying these myriads of manifestations

Was always that ancient desire to know

A desire that didn’t want to know

That it was actually creating

All that it wanted to know…

By vinaire | Comments (0)

Intuition or Gibberish?

October 8, 2011 – 10:27 PM

The physical universe

And the spiritual universe

Are subsets of the Universe of Consideration.

.

The Universe of Consideration seems to come about

Because of the effort of the Unknowable

To know itself.

.

It is Looking that seems to be creating space.

It is Looking that seems to be accelerating the expansion of the universe.

It is Looking that is collapsing the wave function.

Could this looking be that dreaded Unknowable?

.

Space fills itself with space.

Space is its own fabric.

Space undulates…

And that is light.

.

Space undulating is “space + time”

And that is energy (light is one expression of that energy)

Presence of time indicates presence of additives.

An additive is the basic inconsistency.

.

The true nature of a number is “irrational.”

Could the rational number be a “collapsed irrational number.”

.

The true nature of matter and energy also seems to be “irrational.”

Could the discreteness of matter and energy be “collapsed matter and energy.”

.

Could the discreteness of consideration be a “collapsed consideration.”

.

Are there some connections…

Or, is it all just insane gibberish?

By vinaire | Comments (30)

Going Beyond Self

September 17, 2011 – 7:55 AM

The well-known sequence of “Body – Mind – Spirit” may be expanded as follows:

Body (or Sensory input)
Perception
Experience
Information
Hypothesis
Theory
Principles
Axioms
Spirit (or Self)

All these stages between Body and Spirit comprise the mind. The function of the mind is to assess and determine what is there. The sensory input is assessed as perception. Perception is then assessed as experience. Experience is then assessed as Information. And so on down the line. We may look at these stages as the “Scale of Mind.”

At the top of this scale we have the Sensory Input, which may be characterized as material from some unknown primordial state, which is basic to all existence. At the bottom we have identifiable existence, whether animate or inanimate, the basic unit of which may be regarded as “self.”

One may say that sensory input from the primordial state precipitates through these stages recursively, thus bringing about self, and an evolution of self. “Self” may be looked upon as a UNIT of existence, whether it is a thought or an atom. To understand the make-up of “self”, we may borrow some ideas from mathematics.

A UNIT is what we count one at a time. “Self” has the characteristic of individuality that renders it to be counted one at a time.
A rational number posits a unit that divides into both numerator and the denominator. Such a unit has a finite magnitude, no matter how large or small. Similarly, we may consider “self” to be a finite individuality, regardless of its characteristics.
An irrational number reveals that a “unit” is essentially an arbitrarily constructed concept. This discovery created quite an upset in the mathematical world. Please see Going Beyond Counting. If we look at the parallel here, maybe “self,” though useful, is essentially an arbitrarily constructed concept.

Prior to the emergence of self (whether as thought, or as atom, or whatever lies at the core), there is simply a primordial state that cannot be described. It cannot be called chaotic for there is no reference point to assess chaos. That state is its own reference point.

The primordial state creates its own perception, experience, information, hypothesis, thesis, principles, axioms etc. to finally come up with a fabric of self on a totally arbitrary basis. That fabric then seems to create its own perception, experience, information, etc. to evolve into self. This recursive process seems to evolve a self out of “no self,” much like an irrational number evolves out of “no unit.”

Another parallel may be drawn from the formation of a particle (photon) out of a “no particle” (electromagnetic wave). The electromagnetic wave seems to be a phenomenon of space. Space may be looked upon as empty, or as nothing; but space is an observable phenomenon on its own right.

We all perceive and experience the same physical universe. Is it because we agree with each other consciously or unconsciously? Or, is it because we share the same sensory input as the fabric of our very makeup? Does thought and atom have the same basis?

From sensory input to self there seems to be a progression from impressions to visualization. This may be looked upon as the gradual introduction of self-determination, or free will. Again it is a recursive phenomenon and it cannot be said if thought came first, or the atom, in the equation of “self.”

Cognitive functions may be an outcome of this developing ability to visualize after much such iteration. Memory may be a combination of impressions and visualizations. The consistency between impressions and visualizations may manifest as honesty and integrity.

Are we really separate from the physical universe? Or, is the physical universe simply an extension of us? Let’s leave that to future contemplation (looking) for now.

By vinaire | Comments (5)