3 ms·

bluetomcat's statement is in the realm of Relativistic Epistemology. In general, epistemology is about the root of human knowledge, and why some statement of k

bluetomcat's statement is in the realm of Relativistic Epistemology. In general, epistemology is about the root of human knowledge, and why some statement of knowledge represents a justified belief, but those roots never terminate because as Feynman said the Why question never stops recurring, as we dig deeper. In other words, there is no objective truth or any thing for that matter (no pun intended) apart from what we observe (the idea of "primacy of consciousness over matter" per E. Schrödinger et al, a neurophenomenologist view of reality) which means that our justified beliefs depend on how we observe and what we can and cannot conceive of given our finite mental model. I don't think epistemic relativism is the way to go about life as it basically puts a barrier to further inquiry and pursuit of a truth that we feel is there, and it's the act of digging that allows us to progress, and not the transient truths we derive along the way, as we dig deeper. It's almost as if the truth is a magnet with infinite power and infinite distance that keeps our consciousness in motion or that it sits behind the barrier between being and not being, life and death, etc. In the wise words of Manuel, I know nothing. Also, see Bohm's final paper on Hidden Variables and the Implicate Order, the most sane of all metaphysical thoughts that I've come across.

mistermann 6y ago
Considering the topic of the article, it's interesting that this comment was downvoted to [dead]. Humans seem to have a strong dislike for the general idea that there are limits to our knowledge of reality, and it seems to me that the magnitude of that dislike increases as a function of the intelligence of the individual (the smarter one is, the more disgust experienced during discussion of the unknown/unknowable).
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  We all know absolutely there are limits - quick tell me the first words ever uttered by any human being! We can't for it has been lost to entropy, whole converted into the same end state regardless of possible outcomes. It isn't even "find what word was written on this paper before it was immersed in ink and smoother" but "find out what word was written on the paper after it was burnt and the carbon used through a cycle of bacteria, plant, animal, and minerals for a few millenia. The rhetoric is particularly galling because it is self-reinforcing willful ignorance - refusing to learn and then saying "We cannot possibly know!" instead of trying to stretch our limits.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > We all know absolutely there are limits Once attention is drawn to it, yes. But in our real time behaviours and thoughts, at the low level detail of how the human mind works, do we sometimes ~forget? Does man sometimes suffer from hubris or other imperfections? > The rhetoric is particularly galling because it is self-reinforcing willful ignorance That is but one of many possible interpretations of my words, as is often the case, but not always realized. > refusing to learn and then saying "We cannot possibly know!" instead of trying to stretch our limits. I've made no such claim (but to be clear, I'm not sure if you were making that assertion). I've noticed that the human mind is often able to "see" things that aren't there (something else that seems to be often overlooked, particularly when convenient for the person doing the looking) - it is an incredibly powerful entity.
jadbox 6y ago
I've started reading Bohm's paper- it's fascinating, thank you for the recommendation. The focus on the "verb" or "happening" rather than the particular seems to line up with Levinas. In turn, I'd highly recommend checking out this paper "Essential Vulnerabilities: Plato and Levinas on Relations to the Other" if you resonate with Hidden Variables: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv3znz3r https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv3znz3r

mistermann 6y ago

Considering the topic of the article, it's interesting that this comment was downvoted to [dead]. Humans seem to have a strong dislike for the general idea that there are limits to our knowledge of reality, and it seems to me that the magnitude of that dislike increases as a function of the intelligence of the individual (the smarter one is, the more disgust experienced during discussion of the unknown/unknowable).

Nasrudith 6y ago
We all know absolutely there are limits - quick tell me the first words ever uttered by any human being! We can't for it has been lost to entropy, whole converted into the same end state regardless of possible outcomes. It isn't even "find what word was written on this paper before it was immersed in ink and smoother" but "find out what word was written on the paper after it was burnt and the carbon used through a cycle of bacteria, plant, animal, and minerals for a few millenia. The rhetoric is particularly galling because it is self-reinforcing willful ignorance - refusing to learn and then saying "We cannot possibly know!" instead of trying to stretch our limits.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > We all know absolutely there are limits Once attention is drawn to it, yes. But in our real time behaviours and thoughts, at the low level detail of how the human mind works, do we sometimes ~forget? Does man sometimes suffer from hubris or other imperfections? > The rhetoric is particularly galling because it is self-reinforcing willful ignorance That is but one of many possible interpretations of my words, as is often the case, but not always realized. > refusing to learn and then saying "We cannot possibly know!" instead of trying to stretch our limits. I've made no such claim (but to be clear, I'm not sure if you were making that assertion). I've noticed that the human mind is often able to "see" things that aren't there (something else that seems to be often overlooked, particularly when convenient for the person doing the looking) - it is an incredibly powerful entity.

jadbox 6y ago

I've started reading Bohm's paper- it's fascinating, thank you for the recommendation. The focus on the "verb" or "happening" rather than the particular seems to line up with Levinas. In turn, I'd highly recommend checking out this paper "Essential Vulnerabilities: Plato and Levinas on Relations to the Other" if you resonate with Hidden Variables: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv3znz3r https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv3znz3r