Category Archives: KHTK

Knowing How to Know

The Paradox of Unknowable

May 8, 2011 – 8:18 AM
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.

.

By vinaire | Comments (130)

Is there Divinity?

April 23, 2011 – 7:17 AM
Ganesha

Reference: Religion

Socrates almost had his finger on it when he posed the question, “Can man be made self-determined and responsible for his own actions?”

Plato lost it when he recommended the use of religion (supernatural authority and fear) to control the wild beast nature latent in every person.

Aristotle came close to defining it, but the logic that brought him so close to an understanding of divinity, also prevented him from defining it precisely. Let us take a look at that one final step that he could not take.

Aristotle follows Socrates’ lead to examine such common terms as, justice, morality, virtue, etc., to uncover the unknowing assumptions made by people. He applies Plato’s Doctrine of Ideas to voluminous observations to define the concepts, laws, and principles that underlie all that we sense. He coins many new terms, such as, faculty, motive, energy, actuality, maxim, principle, etc., to communicate those concepts precisely. He formulates a scientific method so others may continue with this process.

Aristotle digs deep into observations, especially in the field of biology and natural sciences, and comes up with general frame of references (universals) from which to evaluate further observations. Thus he simplifies the management of voluminous observations by uncovering categories with logical connections.

He, then, digs deep into these categories to come up with a more fundamental frame of reference. He reduces all observations to (a) FORM (the shaping force), and (b) MATTER (the raw material being shaped).

To Aristotle, FORM is the inner necessity or impulse which exists in MATTER. MATTER is continually being formed into new, complex shapes by FORM that is inherent to it.

Aristotle considers MATTER to be without beginning. MATTER is worked into more complex and varied shapes by FORM. To him, God is “Prime Mover Unmoved.” God is the source of all motion. But, God has no motion within itself.

Aristotle never answers the question how MATTER arose in the first place. To him, this is like asking the question, “How God came to be in the first place?” And, that is as far as Aristotle goes. The inherent consideration here seems to be that ability, or potential, needs a “vessel” through which to express itself.

We find most viewpoints in the “Western thought” to be based on this frame of reference. It leads to the viewpoint that God must have a beingness in which to exist.

Can there be God without beingness? Can there be FORM without MATTER? Can there be Motion with no motion at its core? Can there be a Cause that is not itself caused?

 

DIVINITY

When we observe this universe, we cannot separate GOD from BEINGNESS, FORM from MATTER, MOTION from NO MOTION, and CAUSE from EFFECT.

These pairs, or dichotomies, appear simultaneously when a manifestation is perceived. Even the most fundamental ideas of MANIFESTATION and PERCEPTION seem to form a dichotomy. We all have struggled with the questions, “How does a manifestation appear?” “How is it perceived?” “Who or what creates?” “Who or what perceives?” The ultimate focus has been on “how,” “who” or “what.” It all boils down to the speculation that somebody or something must exist beyond all existence.

Essentially, the mind and its logic has hit a ceiling. Any attempt to pierce this ceiling runs into a fundamental  inconsistency, such as, “unmoved Mover” or ”uncaused Cause.”  This inconsistency seems to point to something that cannot even be conceived.

It would be beyond any mental conception. It would be beyond logic. It would be beyond any description. It would not be a form or cause. It would not even exist or be.

It would seem that

  1. A manifestation may occur without any prior consideration.
  2. A perception may occur without any prior consideration.

And in there, somewhere, may be Divinity, or may be not…

The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda

“Neti, neti,”

.

By vinaire | Comments (10)

The Nature of Knowledge

April 17, 2011 – 9:15 AM

Is there an ultimate knowledge? Are there ultimate answers to all the questions we have?

One may use any word, or words, to describe the ultimate understanding; but it doesn’t really matter what words are used because a word is not the “thing.”

The problem here is that there is nothing to describe. As far as our knowledge is concerned we can only know what we consider. We can never know what lies beyond these considerations. We may certainly consider what lies beyond; but then, we would only know the consideration we make.

Thus, what lies beyond considerations is unknowable. As we dig deeper to know more we shall simply find more considerations. Actually, we may simply uncover more of our own hidden assumptions, speculations, etc.

This unknowable would then be nothing more than a carrot to help uncover the considerations, which may be hidden deep in our consciousness. That is more than wonderful.

What then is this consciousness? What is at the core of consciousness? Who or what is THAT, which considers, and which is conscious of these considerations?

THAT, which considers, and which is conscious, is beyond time because time itself is a consideration. Whether THAT exists for ever or for just a blink of an eye, is the same thing. All that we find existing is the consideration of TIME.

THAT is also beyond space because space itself is a consideration. Whether THAT occupies all space or no space at all, is the same thing. All that we find existing is the consideration of SPACE.

Similarly, THAT is beyond the considerations of energy and matter. Whether THAT is all powerful, or with no power at all, is the same thing. Whether THAT is complete substance, or with no substance at all, is again the same thing. Power and substance are considerations too.

Is consciousness just a consideration? Is THAT, which considers, and which is conscious of these considerations, itself a consideration? Would we ever know who we truly are?

The ultimate identification of “who”, “what”, “where” and “when” seems to be unknowable, as these questions lead to speculations and more considerations. I do not know what others’ experience has been in this regard; but for me the ultimate identification has been unknowable. I have to accept that.

Any answers to “who”, “what”, “where” and “when” then must be self-generated and self-contained. The seed must appear spontaneously and randomly somehow… from where… that is impossible to know. This seed may then balloon into a “sphere of considerations” in a background of unknown.

All considerations in this “sphere” must be interconnected. All these considerations must support each other somehow. We try to look for linearity, and a beginning and an end; but, on the ultimate scale, I do not find such linearity to be there.

No wonder, others find me to be going around in circles. There is definitely a truth to this accusation. I do not have the ultimate answer. Nor do I think that anybody else has the ultimate answer.

A seeming answer may lie in this self-contained and self-generated “sphere of consideration.” But that may only take one around in circles. Sorry! This is my conclusion.

But there seem to be freedom beyond a mere consideration of freedom. One can only be constrained by one’s own considerations. Freedom may mean not constrained by one’s own considerations. Only those considerations may constrain one that are being generated unconsciously. One may enjoy life fully; participate in any and all adventures, while also being aware of all considerations one is generating even at the deepest level.

That would be Nirvana of Buddhism… that would be Mukti of Hinduism… that may be the “salvation” of Christianity; for this doesn’t mean forsaking life and adventure.

Nirvana would simply mean absence of hidden considerations even at the deepest level. It would mean total command over oneself. The Vedic concept of Brahma, as built into the process “neti, neti,” helps one move in that direction. With the process of “neti, neti,” one is simply saying, “This may not be the ultimate answer because this could just be a consideration of mine.”

This process then helps one question what one has been taking for granted, and look at it more closely to see if it is not just what one is considering. It is boring into the unknown and finding more and more of one’s own hidden considerations. When one knows that there are no more hidden considerations then only one knows oneself fully. That, to me, is Nirvana. From that point on one knows when one is generating, sustaining or dissolving considerations. It is the state of perfect equilibrium. This is just my take. It may or may not be true for another person.

Thus, Nirvana would simply mean the ability to generate a consideration, hold on to that consideration, and then dissolve that consideration. Nirvana would not mean forsaking this universe. Nirvana would simply mean total control over one’s considerations. One may then attain Nirvana while being in this universe. In fact one’s enjoyment of this universe would be infinitely greater after attaining nirvana. Buddha lived to a grand age of 80, quite rare for his time, after attaining nirvana.

In that Nirvana… in that Mukti… in that Salvation… seems to lie the ultimate knowledge.

.

Glossary

KNOWLEDGE
As far as our knowledge is concerned we can only know what we consider. We can never know what lies apart from these considerations.

NIRVANA
Nirvana would simply mean absence of hidden considerations even at the deepest level. It would mean total command over oneself.

NETI NETI
“Neti neti” is a Vedic process to locate THAT which is not an outcome of your consideration.

 .

By vinaire | Comments (17)

An Analysis of Cause

April 10, 2011 – 10:18 AM
Cause

The following statement seems to summarize very efficiently what is believed in most western religions and philosophies.

“Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.”

Judaism emphasizes God as the ultimate creator. Christianity makes God a personal being. Islam seems to de-emphasize that identity of a personal being by declaring God to be formless. However, God is still retained as the cause of all existence.

Spinoza starts his philosophical system with the premise of “uncaused Cause.”  Aristotle starts his philosophical system with the premise of “unmoved Mover.” The system of philosophy that follows from either premise is pretty rational. But the underlying premise is at best arbitrary.

Regardless of how rational a system of philosophy might appear, the logical consistency of that system is set by its starting postulate.

Let’s examine the premise of “Cause.” It is taken for granted by the western religions. Cause is supposed to be there before the beginning of a manifestation. The question then arises, “Can Cause be there all by itself before its effect manifests itself?”

If the answer is “yes” then Cause will be a manifestation on its own right. The question then becomes, “What is the cause of the Cause?” This logic inevitably leads to an endless chain of causes, and the beginning keeps getting pushed back earlier and earlier.

If the answer is “no” then the “Cause” must occur simultaneously with effect. “Cause-effect” would then be part of the same manifestation as the beginning. The idea “before the beginning” would then be a projection that is created after the fact of beginning.

Cause is a projection backward that is created after the fact of beginning.

This is consistent with the idea that time itself would start at the beginning, and there would be no such thing as “before the beginning.” Cause would, therefore, be a consideration created at the beginning. As there is no “before the beginning,” Beyond the beginning would be unknowable. See Knowable and Unknowable.

The premise “uncaused cause” seems to be an attempt to fix the unwieldy conclusion of the endless chain of causes when Cause is assumed to exist all by itself.  “Uncaused cause” is just another arbitrary consideration. No wonder it appears to be self-contradictory.

“Uncaused cause” is a consideration that is self-contradictory.

CAUSE is part of the creation, and has no meaning prior to the creation as assumed in the statement at the beginning of this essay. Neither “Cause,” nor “Uncaused cause” is an independent premise. It is part of the system of philosophy it generates.

The system of western religion and philosophy is made up of interdependent considerations. They are not linear but they form more like a circle. We may visualize this system as a sphere of consideration, which is ballooning out from a premise at its center. The premise is forever contained within this sphere; and it cannot lead to anything beyond that sphere.

What is beyond the sphere of considerations may only be speculated. But a speculation being a consideration would remain within that sphere.

The assumption that the consideration of “Cause” can extend beyond the “system of considerations” seems to be the basic inconsistency.

“Cause” may appear to be consistent but only within a system of consideration and not beyond. What is beyond is unknowable and it cannot be symbolized as Cause.

.

Glossary

Starting Postulate
No matter how rational a system of philosophy might appear, if the starting postulate is inconsistent, the whole philosophical system would ultimately become unsustainable. The starting postulates, such as, “uncaused cause,” and “unmoved mover” are inconsistent in themselves. Therefore, the philosophical systems based on such postulates have become unsustainable in spite of all the effort to make them appear rational.

.

By vinaire | Comments (45)

The Nature of Truth

March 31, 2011 – 9:29 PM

The word TRUTH comes from an Old English word which meant “fidelity”.  Truth has to do with “consistency”.

Truth is the recognition of something “as it is”. 

A person comes across a door. He looks at the door and says, “It is a door.”  He is speaking a truth.  But when he looks at the door and says, “It is a wall.”  He has altered that truth.  Suppose it is a wall with a secret door built into it.  The existence of the door is not so obvious that it can be discovered easily.  So the person looks at it and says, “It is a wall.”  From his viewpoint that is the truth.  Now somebody else comes along and tells him that there is a secret door.  This person may not be convinced at first, but when he examines it and discovers that he can, in fact, walk through that “wall” to the other side, he gets a better understanding of what is there.  He attains a higher level of truth. Thus, TRUTH is not just black and white.  There are many dimensions to truth.

The clearer is the perception of “what is there” the higher is the level of truth.  Clarity comes from perceiving something in detail and in “depth”.

A general statement, such as, “The organization is all rickety,” obviously, lacks detail.  An acceptance of this statement as “true” can lead to incorrect conclusion, and wrong action, as one makes up for the lack of detail by preconceived notions.  Thus, a belief in generalities, such as, “My religion is the only true religion,”  “All other religions are false,”  “All man are evil,”  “All women are to be despised,”  “White race is superior,” would always lead to conflicts to which there would be no resolution.

Any general statement, therefore, would consist of a low level of truth.  A generality must always be examined carefully for missing details without assuming anything if one is interested in discovering the truth.

An observation, such as, “Sun, moon, and stars, all go around the earth, and therefore earth is at the center of the universe,” is quite superficial. It ignores many other observations which led Copernicus to observe that “it is the earth and other planets which revolve around the sun.”  Galileo was condemned by the religious authorities of his time for making this declaration.  Thus, superficial observations and beliefs tend to ignore seemingly contradictory observations which do not fit into the existing belief system.  Such beliefs, therefore, would also consist of a low level of truth.

If contradictions are observed, one must reexamine one’s beliefs if one is interested in discovering the truth.

An exact truth is determined by the person who created it.  A liar knows that he is lying because he created the “lie” at the first place.  He knows the truth about the “lie”.  Others look and see only the “lie”.  The “lie” persists as long as the underlying truth is hidden.  As soon as the truth is exposed a resolution takes place.  Thus, the following is a very sound test of truth.

If a problem, or conflict, is persisting, the underlying truth is not known. If the underlying truth were known, the problem, or conflict, will not persist.  It would disappear.

Is truth subjective? The answer is that there is no truth in the absence of awareness. What is observed has only a relative level of truth. If something is persisting, there is a higher level of truth underlying it which is not yet observed.

A wall is made up of molecules. Molecules are made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of nucleus with electrons buzzing around. Nucleus is made up of protons and neutrons. Over ninety-nine percent of an atom is empty space. The neutrons, protons, and electrons are a condensed form of energy. Energy is motion which is condensed in less and less space to appear as a particle. A motion is a change in space. And what is space? Space is a viewpoint of dimension.

After you understand all this and look at that wall, you may say, “What wall?” Thus, truth is covered by appearances to the degree generalities are enforced, and awareness is denied.

The problem with truth reduces to the problem of attachment to what one already believes in without understanding.

But, no person’s perception of truth should be condemned just because it is different from yours, because truth, as known in this universe, is never absolute.  Truth is always subject to a viewpoint.  The absolute truth may be termed God, but a belief in “God”, as it exists, has been subject to viewpoints.  God is infinite and so is Truth.  A finite belief is no substitute for an understanding of the Infinite.

Effort of each person should always be to strive for higher levels of truth without making others wrong.

.

Glossary

Truth

  1. Origin: “fidelity.” Truth has to do with “consistency”.
  2. Truth is the recognition of what is there. The clearer is the perception of “what is there” the higher is the level of truth. A generality must always be examined carefully for missing details without assuming anything if one is interested in discovering the truth.
.
By vinaire | Comments (3)