False Knowledge

It’s not hard to stick labels on abstractions.
This is blue, this is red, this is good, this is bad, this is interesting, this is 5 feet tall.
So what?
This kind of thing is cheap first impressions.
People build up a million of these, and call it knowledge.
Attaching impressions to experiences.


Eventually we arrive at best and worst.
This is religion.

What more can i say? Labeling ideas is not true knowledge.

actually, there might be more work that goes into it than first realized, for things being accidental lies to start with, the work to purposeful might be rife with meaning.

If one sees a stone, one knows a stone is there. If someone asks, how do you know, he says, for the reason that I see it. In all normal situations this is what one calls knowledge. However, is this a “labeling” of the word stone on the ostensive, i.e., on what one can point to?

Some say, mere nomination is not disturbing to what one can point to. And it still retains its unkown status. Although, than are we simply claiming to know that the ostensibles are unkown? Or, under some conditions might one still hope and tremble in consternation over knowing and its essential possibility?

If someone asks ‘how do you know the stone is there?’, why not just pick the stone up and hit them upside the head with it?

Reminds me of the story of the classroom full of students packed into prof. Berkeley’s classroom. An eager student raised his hand and said

While nothing may be perfectly 5 feet tall, or it may be impossible to determine what’s perfectly 5 feet tall, we can determine what’s relatively, or approximately 5 feet all.

And we can intuit all sorts of things about the world outside the narrow, but precise confines of critical thinking, language and numbers.

That’s not what the group is asking about. A stone in a dream, or a memory, is still a stone. It’s in this sense that the knowing is in question.

The group really doesn’t see why “good” is called an “abstraction”. That makes no sense. When this member of the group finds a good meal on the plate, it, “good”, is meant substantively or tangibly, concretely, as much as is anything else. It is surely not an “abstraction”. Not sure what is not an “abstraction” if good is an “abstraction”. The group can understand that if someone speaks of “all good things”, that they abstract from anything they could ever come across.