Knowledge is generational, not one generation or one person.
We are herd/pack animals, everything is truth til proven otherwise. Then we sit on the new truth til it is proven wrong. Reality is the primary subject that is subject to this.
If we can survive ourselves we might evolve past being pack/herd animals and see reality.
Well, calling this almost senior woman a girl, is flattering. Kiss on your forehead
It also could be that females have a generational view more acute then males. Care to figure out why?
First of all, this is really well written and thought-provoking. Bravo. Well done.
But then we always get to the part where folks have conflicting arguments regarding what the meaning of “reality” is. And what constitutes “really” understanding it.
Are you then willing to concede that your own understanding of it [here and now] is not of necessity the first place to start?
A man has children for what reasons? A woman has children for what reasons? They are different almost instinctual reasons. I am talking about nurturing parents, not horny parents.
Reality complexity and simplicity. We could say how reality is seen or aproached is due to memes but, as we are social and utilize both genders as parental influence , we aproach discoveries with nurture and bred instinctual behavior.
I think that the problem is that such isn’t ALL that is going on. And not even the most significant part, merely the current propaganda spearhead (“an exaggerated emphasis thrust into society so as to instigate faster change in a particular direction”). Spearheads are always simple minded. And always wrong. But the social engineers only push them until the tide or average adjusts closer to their design. At that point, they usually just let the notion fade away with the prior generation, but sometimes actually thrust in the opposite direction to tone down what they started.
It is not true that the only reason anyone thinks anything is because of “how they were raised” or “their genetic makeup”. Both of those are social engineering spearhead thoughts to promote their agenda (having nothing to do with truth, but rather control). They are operating from their current simple minded solution for the singular united globalist utopia (for those on top). You are merely their meme mime.
It is just a complex version of what I said. I called it a nail and you called it by what makes a nail a nail.
Also when one sees things differently they must understand that the difference does not make it wholly true. A cylinder has many perspectives and parts. It is not really just a cylinder.
Your thesis, then, is that although it might be the case that—in spite of the fact that we humans wish for reality to be simple—reality is complex (a specious dichotomy if ever there was one), when one really understands it, reality really is simple. That seems to be primary the implication here.
Another of your ideas:
This claim seems to be that simplicity is a fact not about the world, but about the way we model it. Further, that one can only model the world as simple by “presuming” to “understand” it. To my ears, that’s a pejorative—as if to lament the naivety by which we feign knowledge, and the arrogance by which we claim for it a status as simple. But, to reiterate, you claim that by really understanding the world, we reveal it as actually, in the end, simple. But that’s a presumption, and one that seems bound up in a naive reduction (by your own words). I must be missing something.
History shows the propensity for people to presume simplicity and discover complexity.
Nothing is simple to those who don’t really understand it.
Reality remains complex until one really understands it.
Existence may have a 100 elements a 100 dimensions and so on. These are unknowns that will likely change as we explore more and engage with more aspects of existence. But some things will surely never change. 1) There is existence. 2) Existence encompasses all things (omnipresent) 3) Existence includes the potentiality for all things possible/rationally coherent 4) Existence is maximally existent, maximally real, perfect, complete, always existed, will always exist.
Well, that is basically my point. You’re not part of others until they become part of you. That is, when they agree with you about the relationship between what is complex, what is simple and what is reality.
So, you are agreeing then that there are plenty of others who start in a place other than your own, and that all of you together are merely suggesting one particular place that [here and now] they find reasonably [but not necessarily] the best place to start.
Yes. And a relevant thing that I found that never changes is the fact that existence itself refers to “that which has affect”. And from there, “Affectance Ontology” arises. If each additional thought is a thought that itself never changes, the mountain of thought formed from their logical connections, never changes either.
As long as your fundamental thoughts are relevant and thus rational, you end up with a rational and relevant understanding that is immutable, “Rational Metaphysics”. And in this case, since the very first immutable thought involves the fundamental characteristic of existence itself, an immutable understanding of all existence is formed, “RM:AO”.
I agree with the idea that many people propose a means to get to the Moon. Each has its own means to “start” the effort. Out of all of them, most would fail and only a few could succeed. And all do fail until the first one that could succeed is attempted and actually does succeed.
Nothing is possible at all… until it is attempted and accomplished.
Actually, yeah, that’s still a bit convoluted. I think your historical point (that simplicity is a presumption, and that such presumptions often uncover complexity) is muddying your claim to have understood reality in its simplicity. Really, all you’re saying is this: reality is simple; historically, people have presumed that it was simple and were surprised by its complexity, but that’s only because they didn’t really understand it.
And that’s all just to say that you really understand reality (and that it’s simple); you don’t (like all the others) merely presume to, right? Hardcore rationalism is easy. Yeah, pick a starting point, weave your thread of definitions, follow the thread of (capital R) Reason, and there you have it—a comprehensive system. What history has demonstrated, more so than anything else, is the tendency every such system has to fail. The world surges up; it upsets our categories, disrupts our concepts, frustrates our models. And so it should. There is a world there, after all—a world that preceded and will outlive the historical emergence of what we call human rationality. But, believe me: I understand the will to reify the precepts of (capital R) Reason and project them onto an indifferent universe, rendering that universe, more than legible, actually cut from a fabric made of knowability—and all before it was known! I do understand, really. It makes everything so (yes, so) simple. I’m just not convinced.
