I was referring to people who claim to be able to tap into what they call “universal/God consciousness”, the realm beyond time and space/ultimate reality, etc.
I may not have communicated well, but I don’t think this is a response to the point I was making. I agree with what you say here, in fact I think, if anything, it supports my point. My point was not that I am an immaculate thinker in the present, but that it seems artificial to say I have some kind of direct knowledge of things that occured when there were some humans on the planet and indirect knowledge of things that happened before that. It all seems indirect to me. It all relates to things I am not in contact with. It is all subject to much interpretation, cultural biases, detection device failure, mythology and so on. I would guess sometimes humans are more accurate about things that occurred before there were humans because there is less history of interpretations (and wars, and positioning and enculturing) of those events. That is not my main point, my main point is that your boundary seems arbritrary to me. That some humans were walking around when a meteor hit Australia does not make that event closer to me than other impacts.
Tectonics would clear up this whole mess. A little common sense, as well (gasp-- the dreaded term! no no, good sir, not in philosophy!)
There are obviously limits to knowledge, to thinking, to perception. If there were no limits to these things, they would not be “things” at all. So the question is how are they limited, and by what, and to what ends/consequences, and toward what telos might all this be worked, if indeed that is our aim to work some sort of value and usefulness from our understanding? (If that is not our aim, then… what is?) Note that last point does not imply “utilitarianism” but rather quite the exact opposite of it.
Everything is connected to other things. Everything emerges from causes and as the consequences of causes, as the unfolding of conditions which directly create and allow to exist every thing which does exist – as perspectives. And those causes are just more things which exist, themselves parts of larger and smaller conditioning-systems. (And there are qualities of emergence and collapse, a subject not very familiar to most people but which could be the only proper direction that this current topic might be steered, to regain some sanity). Nothing, including and especially consciousness/thought is exempt from this or exists in a void apart from reality. Consciousness is understood as a greater connection to reality, which also implies greater possibility to excess and error. But without such possibility the whole apparatus fails to stand, at least in the initial stages of formation (and it is still in those initial stages, in nearly every human being currently and formerly alive). Which is to say: error and excess are removed only at the behest of a convergence of personal incentive, strength, and luck. In other words, more consciousness.
So-called “correlationism”, “realism” or “givenness” are funny terms used by funny modern professor-types more interested in selling books and accumulating status and mystique than anything else. (And now I have introduced a new limit, to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, and even in terms of consciousness itself no less… and we shall see how that goes.) These terms are not difficult to comprehend as to the concepts and relations behind them, but only in so far as one has no more need for such “academic terminology” and deliberate cause to confusion.
Why not just state what we mean? But that would require strength, vantage, and clear-thinking (relative lack of error and excess – either that or a good degree of plain idiocy). No-- as we know a “will to straight-forwardness” turns only to poison when, coming from lower men, is attempted to be ingested by the philosopher; and turns equally to ash in the mouth of the philosopher himself, when speaking with his brethren. What then is there to make of this deviousness herein displayed? Perhaps not just a test of consciousness itself, but also invoking a matter of preference, of taste.
Whose palate would be agreeable to such a thing?
I see the problem of correlation not from ideal positions as in fischte and schelling, but more successfully as in kant and leibnitz. The functional analysis may be correlated to other geometrical notions of conic sections. I think limiting correlation to the circle may present an inadequate map, as pertains to the OP.