Unknown to all

Unknown to all

Is there something [or not a thing] that cannot be known to anything or anyone, it is simply ungraspable. [if god exists then even to him].

Equally is that unknowable quality somehow used in or by reality, even if it doesnt know why or how, and we see the effect of this with things like improbability and coincidence etc.

I just like the idea that there is something that can never be known, and even better [although scary] that it can be effectual [not just in terms of quantum mechanics].

  1. what you are going to think next
  2. afterlife weekends
  3. before-life meditation practices
  4. what really happened to Hitler
  5. what really stains superman’s cape
  6. Shania Twain’s next husband

Omniscience! All these things would be known to it.

I am more thinking about the unknowable than the unknown.

like that :smiley:

Wow, I suppose its cyclic upon input, but an occult element - if I may, certainly seams to be in there somewhere.

Most of the universe falls into the unknown category, but you are suggesting the unknowable and yet having effect. That is a trip down the hall of mirrors, isn’t it? I’m not sure how pure metaphysical conjecture aids understanding anything. But then I didn’t have an invisible friend as a child either.

Well it aids us in asking the question ‘why isn’t the universe perfectly ordered’ or why do odd things happen. It may simply be the case that when the universe was born it churned up the unknowable with it.

If there is a god, omniscience etc then it represents something that is out of his control. something that breaks all moulds.

If infinity, then there is something else out there.

If all-time then it doesn’t include everything.

It may be the very reason why the universe exists, and why it will end.

believe it or not i didnt have an invisible friend either.

But speculation of the unknowable (distinct from the unknown) goes nowhere. It just might be that the universe is perfectly ordered. We just don’t know enough out of ignorance to make that judgement.

Some people thought speculation that infinity exists goes nowhere, but by exploring the idea we end up with useable things like calculus.
It is also useful for contemplating the nature of reality, when we consider that no definition we have builds a complete reality map, even with infinity there has to be more to reality.
Equally theologically we can ask questions as to weather or not ‘god’ is omniscient and what is omniscient etc.

I agree that our constructs can be useful, but connecting those dots are a bit more difficult, and IMO, postulating the unknowable is akin to throwing knowledge out the window if we can ascribe everything to “god did it”. Since unknowables with effect are impossible to know by definition, we are controlled by the ghosts we can’t know. Questions with no answers have little or no value - except to priests and shamans.

“quetzalcoatl”

Could we even answer this question at this time? Wouldn’t we have to go the entire distance first before answering?

Again, how can we answer this question? Mystery gives rise to a lot of personal and subjective meaning (thankfully). For myself, I sense that the universe is also a really loving and intelligent place because of coincidences that have occurred and the seemingly impossible (well almost anyway) that has happened. But then we question the reality of it and think of it and it remains mystery and meaningful…or else, we assign to a mundane place in our lives.

I also like that idea because it gives us cause to wonder and to ponder. It would be a shame to know everything, to take the mystery out of our lives. But, stepping out on a limb here, though, I would say there are many things that will never be known though in our arrogance we may think we will someday.

If the universe is in flux, how could we ever catch up? :laughing:

Objective Reality is unknowable. It cannot be grasped by the mind, because by the minds nature, it can only “know” thought. Mind can “experience” Objective Reality, but it cannot “know” it.

So when I look at this, I know nothing:

franklin_trees_01.jpg

Can you actually look at the scene above and say that you cannot ‘know’ it? We see that there are many tall, slender trees, we see so much green, we see a wonderful pathway that lies under a canopy or cathedral of branches that extends into the distance. We can see the sky above that is mostly hidden from view. And although I may not ‘see’ them, I can also gather that there may be animals hidden that I cannot see and bugs flying around that I can’t see.

Yes, i can also certainly ‘experience’ it ‘subjectively’ - I can see a scene that is both beautiful and meaningful in its solitude.

There is nothing physical within that picture that i cannot ‘know’ - at least by going on the internet or into a book and reading about it, if I do not know it.

But maybe I don’t understand what you mean by ‘objective’ reality. We have named, labeled, all of these things within the picture. Or do you mean that the brain is not capable of seeing this as it really ‘is’ only as it is biologically and physically capable of seeing now?

Good point, and we would still not know if what we didn’t know was the unknown or the unknowable.
How about if we attempt to do that by using fundamental natures/ideas like infinity, universe, the absolute etc. would we come any closer to a description of reality? With infinity we go as large as possible but it doesn’t explain everything, with universe it needs something else to explain all reality. It seams to me that the only true description may indeed be that only the unknowable tao - let us say [to give it a thingness we may grasp in some way] can be what reality truly is?

Indeed, so the act of describing has at least the tendency to loos the very thing it attempts to describe. Unless that thing is very mundane as like material things, even then we have surpassed the solidness of even those.

Ha that’s a very good point. :smiley: I would be happier if we can show that knowing everything is impossible, especially if there is an actual nature of reality which is too shapeless to affix concepts too….

This is what got me thinking along these lines [from another thread]…
Where did Richard Wagner get the notion that time could turn into space?)* And of course, the next question is: can space turn into time?

Can space turn into time? Sure why not, they as all things both derive from the same thing, and that includes a nature that is both space and time. I usually use a simple formula; ‘it = either, neither and both/all’ thus we have something else that can be time or space, it can be time alone and it can be space alone and it can be space-time, but importantly, that it is something that is ‘both‘, ‘between’ and ‘other than’ then it is something that can turn into either, even if from either ~ that space can turn into time and vice versa.

edit;

The mind is not an object? If it cannot touch objective reality, then it cannot even know it subjectively. Yet we all experience verifiable [because many minds know it] information at the very least. Otherwise you have only your mind in reality and it has no way of thinking about anything, ~ you cannot from an idea in the mind without reference to what that something is.
in the end i dont think we can say what is an object or a subject except that ones subject is anothers object and vice versa.

We have to denote the difference between knowing and experiencing. When you look at the picture, at least when I do, I can know an infinite amount of things. The picture serves as an impetus for the knowing. Unfortunately, what we know about the picture, and the actual picture itself, are two different things.

It’s fairly simple really. The picture itself, without any projections or conceptions or any extra ‘mind stuff’, is what it is. What is known about whatever it is, is that it is a picture, it has green trees, there’s a path, etc., etc. Do you see the difference? It’s difficult to grasp sometimes because I am using “knowing” to describe “not knowing”, which means my description inevitably falls short. Either way, the description of ‘some-thing’ is not the actual thing; it is a description. The actual thing, stands apart from its description. All we “know” about the thing, is its description. We can discuss and talk about the description, because it is “known”; it is the stuff of knowledge. The actual entity, doesn’t need knowledge to exist, it just is.

When I say objective reality, I am referring to that which stands alone, without our definition of it. It exists before we defined it. It does not depend on our knowledge of it, which came later. If this knowledge came later, it is separate from it in a relative sense. The knowledge is one thing, the objective reality another. We often mistake the knowledge, for the actual reality. Knowing implies knowledge about something, and knowledge is completely mental/subjective/of mind. Knowledge uses abstractions and metaphors (language), once again, separated from whatever it is “attempting” to describe. Lastly, knowledge is belief. Facts, are beliefs proven by other beliefs.

Anyway, I feel like I’m repeating myself without providing further elucidation. Let me sum it up like this:

You can know only abstractions of reality, not the actual thing itself.

Said another way: You can know about reality through abstractions and ideas which attempt to refer to it through belief; but the actual reality itself evades whatever you think you can say about it. What you’re saying about it, is not it. It’s ridiculously simple and complex at the same time because we’re using the mind to say it.

The mind itself is most definitely an object of our awareness. Anything that can be said to exist, is an object of our awareness. Subjectivity, refers to the subjects experiencing of those objects.

The mind takes over, as if it is the one who is generating or controlling awareness. The mind functions through knowing, or the internalizing of objects. The mind can only know the internalizations (the knowledge).

All minds work in basically the same way (if we think about it evolutionarily, and we all have a mind that is a product of this evolution, the base of our minds in how they function are pretty much identical; and that base is much larger (from the many years of evolution) than the smaller individual apex that might arise from surface interaction), which means, all minds will internalize in the same way; that is why we can verify “information”. Whether or not the internalizations actually allude to the reality, is up to the “many minds”. They decide, based on previously internalized and abstracted agreements (which were possible because of our minds shared functionality), whether or not it can be verified.

In Parsifal, time turned into space when the forest disappeared and the wall of rough rock took its place. An example of space turning into time would have been that scene where Patton sees the WWII battlefield in North Africa suddenly turn into an ancient field with Roman legions fighting the Carthagenians.

illativemindindeed

Surely there has to be actual contact either with reality or between minds alone [sounds suspiciously matrix like though]. Sure all the minds work in the same way, but they are working with something and not nothing!

Sure but they have to be sharing information to achieve such agreements. Even if we see minds as programmed objects - so to say, and that the program is very similar, those programs have to adjust to the shared environment of we would just not be able to interact very well if at all. Imagine you are driving along the road and your eye cannot use reliable information from external sources, you soon crash.

jonquil

Thanks for the clarification. What I am attempting to get too is the idea of an indescribable thing, one that is in fact the very axis, hub and fundamental nature of all reality [its why e=mc2 etc] prior to anything else like infinity and universe. The mixing pot itself - so to say, perhaps.

It is my belief, that what we are working with is our evolutionary memory. If mind has been present throughout evolution, and it is the individual mind as we know it, which is just recently manifesting; then all individual minds are connected to the larger mind. This makes sense because, you cannot surely tell me where one mind begins or ends. You can allude to the content of the minds, saying they differentiate the minds, but what of the container itself?

Just as awareness can hold the individual mind as an object, it holds a much larger, integrated mind. This integrated mind’s contents are the “something” we are working with.

The knowledge you have about the mind is the mind. If it is possible for you to be free from this knowledge, then there is no mind. The mind and the knowledge you have about the mind are one and the same. There may be something like the mind, but you will never know that. It can’t become part of your conscious thinking.

Have fun, that’s the main thing.

Now I see what you mean, yes I call this the ‘original self’ and I am of the opinion it is a universal thing that we and all other life makes utility of rather than own a chunk of it.

Kinda like a matrix? I still think we touch the environmental reality and by that have contact/communion with it, another discussion perhaps.

It is what we use to do the thinking with, we can have knowledge of it in a mirror like reflection of it in the [its] minds eye.