On Knowledge

[seekinghga]

All knowledge is false.  As one man has said, "it (knowledge) is like so many ropes of sand."  Why would I make such a seemingly false and reprehensible statement?  I feel that example will elucidate the problem far easier than explanation. 

Let us ask the question:
"What is an apple?"
To put the question mathematically, we would write it out as 'A = ?' where 'A = apple' and '? = desire to know'.
You might say to yourself, "ah, that is simple.  An apple is a round fruit."
Or mathematically, 'A = B + C' where 'B = round' and 'C = fruit'.
But that answer really shows that you have already fallen into the trap which is knowledge, because it only brings up more questions:
"What then is round?"
"What is a fruit?"
Or, 'B = ?' & 'C = ?'.
Come the answers, "well, round is the state of having quantifiable dimension, but no sides.  And fruit is a seed-containing ovary which is produced by certain plants."  (Or something along those lines, for the example these are adequate descriptions.)
Otherwise, 'B = D + E + F' & 'C = G + H + I + J', where 'D = state', 'E = dimension', 'F = sides', 'G = seed', 'H = ovary', 'I = produced', and 'J = plants'.
Very wise these answers will seem to you, surely they give the solutions that are sought.  However, a bit of scrutiny will show that this is not so, for we now must ask:
"Well then, what is a state?"
"And what is a dimension?"
"What are sides?"
"What is a seed?"
"What is an ovary?"
"What does produced mean?"
"What are plants?"

All of these questions, of course, COULD be answered with more variables.  But I hope that by now you can see how truly spurious that would ultimately be, given that you could continue to insert variables until you are blue in the face and still not come up with a simple, definitive answer.  All that you will turn up is MORE QUESTIONS and MORE VARIABLES; back and forth and back and forth, ad nauseum...

Knowledge is merely the symbolization of wisdom and understanding, ie. experience, for the purpose of convenience in communication (yes, this statement too falls victim to the above form of investigation).  We could say that knowledge comes about when we seek to go beyond pure intuition.

Now, let it not be said that knowledge is without merit.  On the contrary, only a fool would assume such.  I am just suggesting that everyone should recognize the boundaries and limitations of every tool in his/her repertoire.

[SWM]

this reminds me of when i was a child, i would wonder how objects got there names.  why is a pipe called a pipe. why does it have that name. many names are random application of words to objects, and words themselves are only a collection of letters. letters themselves are only symbols which seem to have an arbitry associations to a sound. through this series of random associations we have a beautiful language which has so much power that you change some ones life simply saying particular words in a particular order.

[seekinghga]

I just read this and forgot to add that this theory of knowledge is heavily based upon the work of another (A.C.).  My effort was merely to make the theory more streamlined for the consensus population.

[Turion]

there is also that knowledge which is psychological and not of matter.

this may be somewhat ambiguous for the unitiatied and is intended "for those who have ears" so to speak. there is a sphere on the tree known as daath, it is the eleventh of ten spheres. go figure. daath exists in the abyss below wisdom and understanding yet it is the closest sphere to the crown. in fact it is sad that daath is the fallen kether. the fall of kether into daath happened at the unifcation of binah and chokmah. think of the fall of man. the knowledge of good and evil. it is through the eating of the fruit that mans eyes are opened. but also that man descends into the illusion of malkuth and the lower spheres.

daath is the other aspect of knowledge that of existential knowledge when daath is returned to the crown. this is knowledge of the divine, knowledge of ones own dividnity. when this knowledge has been acquired it can not be unlearned. when he has walked in the presence of god he cannot return to the illusion of matter. this is knowing, true knowledge.

[seekinghga]

Being one who "has ears" and is acquainted with that "Tree of 10 Spheres", I wholeheartedly appreciate your comment.  If one were to use the Tree as a subjective map of the "attainment" (poor word, as we are already "attained", our divinity is just hidden from us by the veils of ego consciousness) of the individual, I am just starting, being at the path of Tau.  I shall ponder your words very carefully, thank you for sharing them.

[SWM]

If one were to use the Tree as a subjective map of the "attainment" (poor word, as we are already "attained", our divinity is just hidden from us by the veils of ego consciousness) of the individual,

yes we are already in and have always been in communion however, we have not always been "intune" or "at one"  with the source. attainment then is that process of rending the veil. of raising consciousness above mundane world to union in spirit.

the words of the lords prayer are most enlightening when undertood as a mnemonic of the tree (choosing my words carefully)

are you familiar with the ritual of the cross??

ATOH (for thine is) MALKUTH (the kingdom)
Ve GEDULAH (the power) Ve GEDULAH (the glory)
La OLAHM (Forever and ever) AMEN (amen)

[Enigma]

What we call knowledge is the human mind's attempt to understand reality.  This knowledge is limited by language and humans' minds' capacities for understanding.  I wouldn't go so far as to say all knowledge is false; I'd prefer to think all knowledge isn't necessarily true.

[liza123]

Knowledge is power. It depends on what you understand from your acquired knowledge. Sometimes, the knowledge that you acquired might not be sufficient(in terms of research etc) or your understanding of the knowledge is not enough. But, to say knowledge is false, I would not agree with such a statement

[seekinghga]

What we call knowledge is the human mind's attempt to understand reality.  This knowledge is limited by language and humans' minds' capacities for understanding.  I wouldn't go so far as to say all knowledge is false; I'd prefer to think all knowledge isn't necessarily true.

Knowledge is power. It depends on what you understand from your acquired knowledge. Sometimes, the knowledge that you acquired might not be sufficient(in terms of research etc) or your understanding of the knowledge is not enough. But, to say knowledge is false, I would not agree with such a statement

Quite.  But Lo!, defeat is not yet foretold by the stars, and the datura-imbibed soothsayers have naught but silence on their lips.  So if, by my essay, one is unable to directly assault the bastions of their Knowledge and expose it for the shadow that it is, then we must formulate a different approach.  For, if knowledge is not false, as those who disagree with me insist, then we can flip the turtle over as it were and ask:
Then what Knowledge, by its own merit, IS true? 
And if anyone depends on a Bible or a God for their evidence, then I, more than ever, stand by my original case.

Surely, if one says "knowledge is not false," then they must be able to say why it is not.  It will not do to say something IS just for the sake of saying it, or because you were brought up to believe it, or because it seems right to you.  If you deny something, at the very least you should be able to answer WHY.  The easiest way of doing so, in my opinion, being to answer the question I asked earlier, and others:

WHAT Knowledge IS True?  What causes Truth?  How are the works of Einstein and Newton MORE TRUE than those of the village idiot?  Because they appeal to the broadest view or are confirmable by empirical EVIDENCE?  What is evidence and empiricism?  Experience?

[Enigma]

There is no way in which to know which knowledge is true and which is false.  Take the law of gravity for example.  This knowledge states that if I sit here and drop my pen, it will fall to the floor every time.  If I drop my pen and it flies to the ceiling, than that means our knowledge of the what we call gravity is flawed.  As I said before, what we call knowledge is the attempt to understand reality in a fashion that the human mind can comprehend.  Knowledge does not exist in the physical world.  You cannot touch or see knowledge.  It is a construct of the human mind.  You might as well ask if thoughts are true or false.

[seekinghga]

There is no way in which to know which knowledge is true and which is false.  Take the law of gravity for example.  This knowledge states that if I sit here and drop my pen, it will fall to the floor every time.  If I drop my pen and it flies to the ceiling, than that means our knowledge of the what we call gravity is flawed.  As I said before, what we call knowledge is the attempt to understand reality in a fashion that the human mind can comprehend.  Knowledge does not exist in the physical world.  You cannot touch or see knowledge.  It is a construct of the human mind.  You might as well ask if thoughts are true or false.

Exactly.  For what it is worth, I applaud you.

[liza123]

There is no way in which to know which knowledge is true and which is false.  Take the law of gravity for example.  This knowledge states that if I sit here and drop my pen, it will fall to the floor every time.  If I drop my pen and it flies to the ceiling, than that means our knowledge of the what we call gravity is flawed.  As I said before, what we call knowledge is the attempt to understand reality in a fashion that the human mind can comprehend.  Knowledge does not exist in the physical world.  You cannot touch or see knowledge.  It is a construct of the human mind.  You might as well ask if thoughts are true or false.

Well said. Knowledge is indeed the sphere of the mind. Thoughts are indeed influenced by our knowledge...since the mind is involved..but to say that knowledge is false is like saying that all our thoughts could be false as well. Each individual 's mind has a different level, how we use the knowledge etc makes a difference. It goes back to understanding of the acquired knowledge..it also means that some "knowledge"(since it is such a general word...what sort of knowledge?what is the definition?) could be false...

[SWM]

For, if knowledge is not false, as those who disagree with me insist, then we can flip the turtle over as it were and ask:
Then what Knowledge, by its own merit, IS true? 

when i think back about the thread topic i am quite sure that if we examine this trutle we will find that it is not really a turtle at all, perhaps more of a herring. 

my first repsonse to your opening post was about words the words that we choose to describe the world. the objective world and the subjective world. your op says that we cannot explain anything because when we describe an object we need a context in which to define it. ie if we say that "the heat is from the sun" one can say "What is the sun" and so on ad infinitum. the problem with the idea that knowledge is false due to this is at fault because knowledge is not at question in this instance it is the description of knowledge.

 

WHAT Knowledge IS True?  What causes Truth?  How are the works of Einstein and Newton MORE TRUE than those of the village idiot?  Because they appeal to the broadest view or are confirmable by empirical EVIDENCE?  What is evidence and empiricism?  Experience?

knowledge in my experience is retained (remembered) learning form experience. we have knowledge of something, it is known, we have experienced it. i can say that "the heat is from the sun" i can say "i am alive"

you have knowledge too, and that knowledge is of itself true. do you know that you are alive? yes of course you do. do you know that i am not you? it does not take much reasoning to realise that, indeed, you are alive and i am not you.

we have two pieces of knowledge that are now true of themselves, i am me and you are not me, there is a self and a not self. we all have knowledge from experience of self, not self and process. ie "you and me are talking" (self, not self and process), "i am aging" (self and process) "the heat is form the sun" (not self, process and not self)

any individual has this knowledge at some level and at varying degrees depending on age, IQ, etc.

the argument of the opening post would ask "self? what is self?" it does not matter what answer is given, or what question is asked. the question is not questioning the knowledge it is questioning the description of the knowledge. the question is not questioning the experience, it is questioning the description of the experience. it questions the description not the described, the name for the object not the object.

i realise while writing this that we may be talking at cross pupose if so this post will be useful to bring us back to some form of mutual understanding

[seekinghga]

Well said. Knowledge is indeed the sphere of the mind. Thoughts are indeed influenced by our knowledge...since the mind is involved..but to say that knowledge is false is like saying that all our thoughts could be false as well. Each individual 's mind has a different level, how we use the knowledge etc makes a difference. It goes back to understanding of the acquired knowledge..it also means that some "knowledge"(since it is such a general word...what sort of knowledge?what is the definition?) could be false...

My dear, Knowledge is not the Sphere of the Mind.  Knowledge is what is stored in the warehouse of the mind.  Thoughts are like trucks and fork lifts which can introduce new knowledge, get rid of obsolete and supposed false knowledge,  or reorganize current knowledge.  Thoughts are the verb and knowledge is the noun, to put it grammatically.  Or, for the nature-oriented, thoughts are the current and knowledge is the water; the water still flows, even if it is tainted.  And, for the prosperity of definition, knowledge is what you know.  

Knowledge is an absolute adjunct to temporal relativity.

[ConsciousPuppet]

     Very funny statement to start a topic with: "All knowledge is false". It defeats itself. It could well be that all knowledge is false, but if we could know it then this claim would be true, making it false. <funny =]>

     Knowledge is a claim to understanding. Understanding comes from experience. That which we experience we call reality. I would say [human] experience comes to exist when "I" comes in conscious contact with something other than "I". The result of experience is belief. So all we really do is believe that we have experience, knowledge, that we are, that we know, and that what we believe could be accurate or inaccurate with "reality". All beliefs, all subjective experiences.

     So all we do is believe and all we communicate are claims.
     So whats the point of having knowledge? Using it. And when two persons wish to use the same resource in different ways struggle arises. So here we are, fighting for dominance over ways of thinking XD

PS:seekinghga, i say as a psychology student, u hav an interesting personality.

[seekinghga]

I am glad to have held your interest, for whatever the term.

[seekinghga]

     Very funny statement to start a topic with: "All knowledge is false". It defeats itself. It could well be that all knowledge is false, but if we could know it then this claim would be true, making it false. <funny =]>

Indeed.  It goaded your mind into action in any case, and thus served a purpose.

     Knowledge is a claim to understanding. Understanding comes from experience. That which we experience we call reality. I would say [human] experience comes to exist when "I" comes in conscious contact with something other than "I". The result of experience is belief. So all we really do is believe that we have experience, knowledge, that we are, that we know, and that what we believe could be accurate or inaccurate with "reality". All beliefs, all subjective experiences.

     So all we do is believe and all we communicate are claims.
     So whats the point of having knowledge? Using it. And when two persons wish to use the same resource in different ways struggle arises. So here we are, fighting for dominance over ways of thinking XD

I have thought about it, and I have come to the conclusion that my posting this thread was pre-mature, EGO-driven poo.  One cannot make such statements, with any real authority, until they have crossed an Abyss which holds Many Faces.   So, even though I started it, this thread is a moot point.

PS:seekinghga, i say as a psychology student, u hav an interesting personality.

It IS creepy to know that there is a person out there who can discern one's personality simply from a few posts on an internet forum.  You must have preter-human insight to do that.  I suppose, though, that such is part and parcel of omniscience (read: EGO).

[SWM]

I have thought about it, and I have come to the conclusion that my posting this thread was pre-mature, EGO-driven poo.

yey! do another one! i liked it!

[ConsciousPuppet]

lol I'm nothing close to a superhuman XD, i can only interpret behavior and draw characteristics from it. Doesn't mean i know the whole, but have come in contact with parts of it.

I love thinking, and this site gives me just that!

PS: whats a preter-human? nvm, just looked it up =]

[liza123]

My dear, Knowledge is not the Sphere of the Mind.  Knowledge is what is stored in the warehouse of the mind.  Thoughts are like trucks and fork lifts which can introduce new knowledge, get rid of obsolete and supposed false knowledge,  or reorganize current knowledge.  Thoughts are the verb and knowledge is the noun, to put it grammatically.  Or, for the nature-oriented, thoughts are the current and knowledge is the water; the water still flows, even if it is tainted.  And, for the prosperity of definition, knowledge is what you know.  

Knowledge is an absolute adjunct to temporal relativity.

Knowledge is in the sphere of the mind...where did you get the warehouse from...a factory?
Such a waste of time...

[Enigma]

We humans think we are special on this earth.  We think we are above nature.  We think we are smarter than this planet that has shaped itself for billions of years.  We forget that we are simply another animal.  Yes, our brain has evolved us into the most unique  species on this planet.  But there are forces at work in this universe that our feeble minds cannot begin to comprehend, just as the mind of an ant cannot comprehend the theory of gravity.  As I said before, knowledge is the mind's attempt to understand these forces that shape our universe.  Are we on the right track?  Maybe.  Maybe we've figured out some of the small stuff.  But the true way the universe works is something that we cannot even begin to comprehend. 


What we need to do is fin another life-bearing planet.  Then we can compare similarities of how species evolve and how the planet shapes itself.  But even that raises more questions than it answers.  Such are the limits of the human mind.  We are just another animal.

[seekinghga]

We are just another animal.

One of like-mind to myself, one Frater Perdurabo, wrote:
"There is, however, one form of miracle which certainly happens, the influence of the genius. There is no known analogy in Nature. One cannot even think of a "super-dog" transforming the world of dogs, whereas in the history of mankind this happens with regularity and frequency."

[edit]
I forgot to add that I implicitly understand what you are saying though.

[Polly-Nicole]

There is no way in which to know which knowledge is true and which is false.  Take the law of gravity for example.  This knowledge states that if I sit here and drop my pen, it will fall to the floor every time.  If I drop my pen and it flies to the ceiling, than that means our knowledge of the what we call gravity is flawed.  As I said before, what we call knowledge is the attempt to understand reality in a fashion that the human mind can comprehend.  Knowledge does not exist in the physical world.  You cannot touch or see knowledge.  It is a construct of the human mind.  You might as well ask if thoughts are true or false.

It seems knowledge can be multi-dimensional. A simple example being the descriptive language that is used in a certain place in time around the world. Ie, the French would be knowledgeable in French where as the English speaking countries have a different definition on fomites  they consider to be a knowledgeable description.

Is there such a thing as the 'universal language' as we may not know it. I understand English is used as the universal language.

Can we have a language of knowledge that provides a succinct definition of what is without having the chain of definitions for each?

-Polly

[SWM]

emotion transends language.

[Enigma]

Can we have a language of knowledge that provides a succinct definition of what is without having the chain of definitions for each?

-Polly

No.  Reality is a subjective experience. 

[Polly-Nicole]

This makes sense. Embarrassing as my comment was, I will endeavour to think before posting.

apologies,

Polly

[S. Earl Martin]

  A smile is something everyone everywere does in the same language. 

[S. Earl Martin]

It is so strange. Maybe I am paraniod, but it seems when I post people stop posting.
What You Know
What You Think You Know
What You Don't Know
What You Can't Know.
This is the most accurate method I have found to determine the truth.

[voodoo scientist]

I have all the knowledge. It all belongs to me. You can have a little of it, but not much.

[S. Earl Martin]

So VooDoo did someone die and make you God? LOL! Just kidding.
If you have all knowledge I have this problem trying to work out my research into super conductivity and anti gravity. Maybe you could help me out?