Knowing and understanding stuff

  • Thread starter jammieg
  • Start date
  • #26
1,569
1
i don't know if this is what TENYEARS meant because i of course can't read his mind.

there is a nonrelativity to the statement:
THIS IS WHAT I WITNESSED!!!

now i'm not saying what i witnessed is "true" or "false" or "real" or "holographic" or whatever, but i can say with absolute certainty that i remember witnessing something. and if you don't witnesses it i tend to doubt myself. when that doubt fades, the relativity does with it.
induldge me for a sec:
aleister crowley, liber CCCXXXIII, book 45:
45

CHINESE MUSIC
"Explain this happening!"

"It must have a 'natural' cause."

"It must have a 'supernatural' cause."
Let these two asses be set to grind corn.

May, might, must, should, probably, may be, we may safely assume, ought, it is hardly questionable, almost certainly -- poor hacks! let them be turned out to grass!

Proof is only possible in mathematics, and mathematics is only a matter of arbitrary conventions.

And yet doubt is a good servant but a bad master; a perfect mistress, but a nagging wife.

"White is white" is the lash of the overseer; "white is black" is the watchword of the slave. The Master takes no heed.

The Chinese cannot help thinking that the octave has 5 notes.

The more necessary anything appears to my mind, the more certain it is that I only assert a limitation.

I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning.
 
  • #27
jammieg
Makes good sense about the sllpenig, Crowley was a good poet or mystic. My guess on Jesus saying those things is that what he meant is that hardly anyone remembers things before the age of 5 and yet young children are probably the most intelligent beings on this planet but few ever have remarkably intelligent teachers in this time frame and it seems that some people never really grow old in their minds but their bodies do, and some people grow younger in mind, and Jesus may have been one of those people but I think Socrates was one who went beyond the bowl but unfortunately he couldn't explain it to others, only suggest the ways. Perhaps many many people have come close to achieving some sort of complete control over their own brain but the last word may be missing and so no one has lately crossed that line in which the near death experience of some may reveal what is really going on, one of my friends reported that just before a car accident time seemed to slow down 2 seconds were seen frame by frame as if 10 or 20 seconds, and she was able to reason out what to do very very fast. The other version is the ego and super ego, but finding a useful way of communication and essentially putting the mitochondria into the ameoba for a truly working relationship to make a cell "can't" be done and I don't really know if it can be done, but why not try... If it's true then seeing is believing, I haven't seen it yet either, and yet how do those idiot-savants do it I wonder.
 
  • #28
1,569
1
i've had experiences like that time lapse thing. i looked at the clock and it was 4:40 and closed my eyes and mediated for what felt like ten minutes. and it really felt like 10 whole minutes. i opened my eyes and the clock read 4:40, indicating that just a few seconds had passed.

if there were a matrix/bowl/box, and if there were a way to 'think' 'outside' the 'box' it must be very difficult to explain how to arrive at this.
 
  • #29
469
0
I did mean 4, and yet it could be 2 "relatively speaking" within a confined area of set paramters, it is possible to exit those parmaters, that does not mean one violates the law of conservation of matter and energy, it just means ones system of "relative measurement" is not capable of relaying the result. HINT

I don't claim to know everything, but what I know I know without question. Funny thing is I could take what I know it could be proven and have the whole world aknowlege it and yet, if a new band wagon was created and said it was all a lie, guess what, so much for proof. This is the total sum of the knowlege of the world outside yourself. Science seems more stable than a polotics, but its not. If if you think other wise no matter who you are, you would be quite arrogant not to think again. For now I wait.
 
  • #30
1,569
1
you don't claim to know everything, that much i agree with. but do you?
 
  • #31
231
0
Originally posted by TENYEARS
I don't claim to know everything, but what I know I know without question. Funny thing is I could take what I know it could be proven and have the whole world aknowlege it and yet, if a new band wagon was created and said it was all a lie, guess what, so much for proof. This is the total sum of the knowlege of the world outside yourself.
I do not understand this. What is the total sum of the knowledge of the world outside you? The things others know, but you don't?
 
  • #32
1,569
1
to me it means that what is normally considered proof is actually relative, based on pretense, and not absolute.
 
  • #33
469
0
Badabing, givem a cigar. So what do you do with the wonderful gift of lack of proof which now places uncertainty upon every relative experience, thought, object known fact that has ever existed. Was Abe Lincon the president of the united states of america? I don't know, I may belive with a strong sence of proof, and yet the fact is I do not know. Is my name from birth my real name? Maybe. If these words do not affect you then they are also not real, because for these words to be real you will undoubtably feel them. To anyone that may say a word called "so", you define yourself to yourself, for those who do not, there is no definition, only a walk into the unknown. Careful the fish the swallowed Jonah is lurking nearby.
 
  • #34
1,569
1
i think that while it is in fact difficult and would take a lot of time (LOL) to know everything, it is sufficient to KNOW at least one thing for SURE. that's the first quantum leap. the question is, are you a believer or a knower? and do you just know about or do you know? what is there available to you at all times for your "eye of the I" to peer into, to study, to wonder if it exists, to ask whose name it is but YOURSELF. i once heard on internet infidels that one cannot prove you exist and with this i wholeheartedly agreed. despite the fact that i as a mathematician cling so desparately to the notion of "proof," i also forced myself to just KNOW that i exist without a doubt. it's not just "i think therefore i am." no. i don't always think; they're are brief moments during which "time" i don't think so do i exist during those times or do i cease to exist? to me, it's more like this
1. I AM or just
2. I

it's difficult for language to express truth but statement 2 comes very close as it has no separation between a "subject" and an "object" or a subject being in a state (of existence, for example, or a reason for existence, or a proof of existence).

now if holograms have the property that all is contained in all parts, then knowing one's self would actually mean a lot if the universe were holographic, now wouldn't it?
 
  • #35
jammieg
Phonix it's possible that everyone is born with some fundamental bit of certainty or one sure thing and they go through the whole process of life from that one bit outward to the rest of their brain, it's possible that the brain is kindof like a big chunck of computer that's trying to mimic the universe and so randomly people are set up with some bit and may go throughout a lifetime trying to refine that bit or discard it for a better one or what not and it's passed on through sex, but each time the various fundamental bits people have are subject to chaos or the imagination of the highier brain which puts it to some tests. If I had to guess although I think everyone may experience this, that when I get really sick I have the vision of something balancing on a thin string of which it shouldn't be able to it seems and yet it does.
My fundamental belief could be dichotomy or another silly theory and finding balance in all things, it seems like a good one because I find as long as whatever new things I try I also try the opposite and analyze the two for what I can and try to determine what sense can be made of them I don't get too lost in the cortex. Anyone who's ever taken acid has some experience with the cerebral cortex, we aren't supposed to be using things we can't wield with reason so I ended up covered in head to toe in mud for what seemed like a good reason at the time anyway. So reason may be the process of finding balance and also being able to let go and take control- the better one's balance the further they can go, that's the impression I get anyway. Or one's fundamentals could be as complex as a plutonium atom, who knows, but then how would one figure out what those fundamentals were, if such a thing were true?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
1,569
1
perhaps one may best 'figure out the fundamentals' by realizing that, well at least in my case, that i ain't gonna 'figure it out.' others that are brighter than i perhaps can 'figure it out' but not me. there are other tools besides figuring though... tools that others will wholeheartedly call subjective and not a proof of anything and to that my mind would agree. i guess it's kind of like 'thinking' out of the box. you can't think your way out of a box, can you? or can you? sorry this post is so unhelpful...
 
  • #37
469
0
jammieg, you have all the ability you need to accomplish anything you want to do. The question usally avoided to oneself is what do you really want to do? Your subconcious expressing itself when you are sick interesting. You see, you are a witness to the primary expression of the subconious. That is a start, there is more.
 
  • #38
733
0
Originally posted by jammieg
What is the difference between knowing a thing and understanding a thing?

A "free will decision to make a choice.

Why is it so often that even when people acknowledge that they know the right thing to do their actions differ from their words?
For example, most everyone agrees that lying is bad but we all lie more or less.
Is lying a lie to a lier? The perspective of the I, is what makes the I lie or not.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
146
0
Knowing is a memory.

Understanding is a pattern that you remember.


Something I know: What an apple looks like.

Something I understand: 1+1=2

Relevant situation: I am looking at two apples on a table.

Relevant thought processes involved in analysing this situation: I recognise before me an apple. I recognise before me another apple. There is 1 apple and 1 other apple. Ergo: 1+1=2. I see before me 2 apples.


:smile:
 
  • #40
733
0
"Truth and Reality"

Originally posted by the_truth
Knowing is a memory.

Understanding is a pattern that you remember.


Something I know: What an apple looks like.

Something I understand: 1+1=2

Relevant situation: I am looking at two apples on a table.

Relevant thought processes involved in analysing this situation: I recognise before me an apple. I recognise before me another apple. There is 1 apple and 1 other apple. Ergo: 1+1=2. I see before me 2 apples.

:smile:
"Our Reality" is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based on our perceptions. What we percieve depends on what we look for. What we look for depends on what we think. What we think depends upon what we perceive. What we perceive depends on what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is "our reality".

But if you trully undertstand, the deep meaning behind the physics of QM," Our Reality is an illusion and everything just "Is". Which brings a totally new meaning of what "Reality" might be.
Emitte lucem Tuam et veritatem Tuam
 
Last edited:
  • #41
231
0
An additional comment to Rader's post:

What we define as reality is the result of our perception. That literally explained what Rader wrote. This opens the door for other and unlike comprehensions of what reality is like and if there is a "universal" reality that is palpable to every being.
 
  • #42
86
0
transcendentalism

Well I'm a transcendentalist. I'm not very familiar with any of the writings of Emerson or Thoreau, but basically I believe that the basis of transcendentalism is that knowledge can be aquired without the senses or sensory experience. There is an essay by kant called "critique of pure reason" which is kindof about this but I have no idea what he says about it. I doubt it's even possible to be a transcendentalist and believe that the mind is reducable to the physical brain. I believe that the physical brain is just an interface for the spiritual mind (which transcends time), to take part in this existence. Kindof like a deep sea diving suit is to a diver and it allows him to travel to depths were the pressure would naturally implode his skull. Our psycical mind, senses and body are just an insturment.

Understanding cannot come from the sences or reside in the brain. Well, our course, it may have its origin through the senses and physical brain, but it is not "understood" until it transecnds that part of the mind. This is understanding. For example, Einstien did not preceive the ingredients for his theories. It came to him through intuition. The man who composed the periodic table of the elements saw it all it a dream. According to Edison, Genius (understanding) is not possible without that 1% inspiration.
 

Related Threads for: Knowing and understanding stuff

  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
86
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
3K
Top