Knowing that yeu know nothing

[Ginkgo]

When your cup is empty, you get more space to fill it with. When you cup is perpetually empty, you become a conduit of ideas. You are never satisfied with any fact. You simply digest more perception and relation like an insufferable beast.

 

[DMCubic]

This is a quote from Fluffywolf from the thread (also on this forum) Post-Deity Devinities, dated 2-8-10: "In that sense, I think the divine can and still has much to offer us in the future. I can't say how much of the factual scientific world can still be explained through our perspective, but I do know that new discoveries are made by looking outside of the box. By pushing the limits of logic further and into the philosophic world."

Something tells me we might be talking past each other, Fluffywolf. I don't want to make it look like I'm exclusively picking a fight with you, especially if there is common ground being masked by a different use of terminology. This always happens with me and one of my friends - we will start having a philosophical discussion and just will not be able to reconcile ourselves... but then we find out at some point that we actually are making the same point, but are arguing about what the words mean. Funny how that happens. Anyway, I want to hear more of what you have to say.

 

[Asterion]

Your mind will be more flexible if you don't latch onto everything that comes your way. eg. I am awesome. If you think about it too much, you'll get attached to your awesomeness, and become egotistic. vs: I might just be awesome. There's no attachment because it isn't certain and it never will be.

In a desperate bid to mold themselves into people, many seem to latch onto things like that. They become certain that they are for example, whatever they believe thier MBTI is*, or worse, they start to discriminate against people as Kat mentioned in the OP.

As DMCubic has said, you don't have to 'drain your cup of knowledge', you just have to look at it the right way.

*tangent --- Victor does have a point, a large majority of people 'know that they know' what they've discovered (watch tv for about ten minutes and you'll notice it). Unleashing MBTI upon our population is only likely to damage people. It might be okay for people who are aware of the danger, but that's not usually the case. On a large scale, it would probably have a negative effect. It's any wonder that Psychologists don't use it.

 

[Fluffywolf]

This is a quote from Fluffywolf from the thread (also on this forum) Post-Deity Devinities, dated 2-8-10: "In that sense, I think the divine can and still has much to offer us in the future. I can't say how much of the factual scientific world can still be explained through our perspective, but I do know that new discoveries are made by looking outside of the box. By pushing the limits of logic further and into the philosophic world."

Something tells me we might be talking past each other, Fluffywolf. I don't want to make it look like I'm exclusively picking a fight with you, especially if there is common ground being masked by a different use of terminology. This always happens with me and one of my friends - we will start having a philosophical discussion and just will not be able to reconcile ourselves... but then we find out at some point that we actually are making the same point, but are arguing about what the words mean. Funny how that happens. Anyway, I want to hear more of what you have to say.

I'm all for progressive behaviour, expansion. But looking at things without existing knowledge is regression. That's the issue I have with the topic. It encourages derailing behaviour. "Knowing that you know nothing. Looking outside the box while ignoring the existing box." and "Looking outside of the box, but knowing the box exists and respecting the box at the same time." are two entirely different ideals. It's that aspect of the topic that I don't agree with.

A blind eye is a disfunctional eye.

 

[Atomic Fiend]

Who the hell is yeu?

 

[matmos]

Who the hell is yeu?

Mark Yeu. From Hong Kong.

 

[Poki]

The more time you spend teaching, the less time you have to understand, the more time you spend understanding the less time you have to teach.

 

[Katsuni]

Wow internet goes down for one day and everyone flocks while I'm gone XD

Utter hogwash. An insult to science and logic.

Hardly the case; proper science and logic dictates that yeu must embrace that fact, actually.

Science, in its' truest form, must realize that it doesn't "know" anything 100% for certain; the best it can manage is to theorize based on the evidence currently presented at that time, and test, with the assumption that all factors are known.

Truth be told though, there is always the possibility that there are factors outside of whot we actually know which are affecting the outcome and we just don't realize it.

True logic also realizes that if A sometimes = B, and B sometimes = C, that A may sometimes = C, but not always, and possibly not ever, dependent upon whot factors correlate the three. To assume yeu know anything as absolute 100% fact is silly. We KNEW for an absolute fact that yeu could never go faster than the speed of sound. We also KNEW for an absolute fact that it was impossible to read minds mechanically. We KNEW that immortality was impossible without divine aid. Each of these things has been disproven over time, so whot things do we now know as fact which shall be looked upon as naivety 100 years from now?

It's estimated that within 50 years we may very well be capable of downloading the contents of the brain directly into a computer as a backup, and to be able to rebuild yeur body from cloned cells, repair damage from stem cells, and so on. Immortality is far from impossible, and when we attain such, just how many things will fall into place when people can spend hundreds of years studying and researching several different fields to see where they go together?

In the end, we honestly don't know anything for certain, though there are things which are exceedingly likely. I'm *RELATIVELY* certain that the keyboard I'm typing on exists. Sure it may not, it could be all the whole zomg matrix thing going on. I doubt it, but never know. I'm relatively certain I exist. I'm relatively certain gravity exists as well, despite that it's able to be defined as little more than magic by science so far, which's kinda creepy.

I'm not saying we should be going through life assuming all we 'know' is wrong, or to act as if nothing matters; but rather that we should be accepting of the fact that there's always the potential that we don't have the whole story; that factors outside of our knowledge base may be affecting things in ways we don't comprehend.

Literally, anything is possible. Obvioiusly, yeu'd need proof for some of the more fantastical things that "could" be real... but there's so many things we don't understand and so many things that we don't even know exist out there. It would be foolish to believe we know anything guaranteed as solid fact. Moreso, we should embrace this understanding and be like, yeu know... I'm 99% certain that 2+2=4 . However... just on the very very very remote off chance... I'm going to try to keep an open mind if someone can give me new evidence to suggest that maybe it isn't really the case after all. I don't find it likely that such will happen any time soon, so it's not like I'm about to suddenly start preaching that math is a lie. Rather, I'm going to accept that whot I "know", I know only by the evidence presented. It may "probably" be right, but it's not guaranteed. The best we can do is try to make sense out of chaos, and sometimes our understanding may turn out to be wrong.

True science understands that with new evidence, comes new theories, and that whot was previously accepted as fact is instead fluid rather than solid, and can shift constantly as we learn more about our surroundings. As soon as we reject the notion that we could be wrong, and refute even bothering to look at new evidence, or to even try to FIND new evidence in the first place, then we no longer are in possession of science anymore - we are in possession of religion; the belief that we know whot is real without proof to support it. It becomes faith, not fact.

The theory of relativity is just a theory. The theory of gravity is in fact just a theory. So on and so forth. They may be highly publicized, and have little in the way of refuting evidence at the moment, but they're only theories. As soon as yeu make 'theory' interchangeable with 'fact', yeu have lost the point of any of this =3

So yeah, I don't mean to claim that we should just drop all we know, but rather, just to accept that there's always the chance we could be wrong, and be open to alternative interpretations, and to not blindly believe that yeu know it all.

The only proof we have of anything is our own brains, and we know how notoriously unreliable those are =3

 

[Qre:us]

Without looking at OP...thread starter is.....um....um.....

KATSUNI!

 

[Katsuni]

Without looking at OP...thread starter is.....um....um.....

KATSUNI!

GASP! HAX! BRAIN HAX! Psychic at work here, obviously.

 

[Kalach]

Did someone else point out that "I know nothing" is a perceiver's philosophy? To refuse to know allows you to extend the time spent with collecting information and eventually if belatedly judgment can be comfortably made. Judgment necessarily cuts of perception, and isn't very P.

And I'm okay with the idea that yeu know nothing. Wacka Wacka.

 

[Asterion]

Did someone else point out that "I know nothing" is a perceiver's philosophy? To refuse to know allows you to extend the time spent with collecting information and eventually if belatedly judgment can be comfortably made. Judgment necessarily cuts of perception, and isn't very P.

And I'm okay with the idea that yeu know nothing. Wacka Wacka.

I was surprised to find that I know a handful of judgers (Mostly IXTJs) who are well versed in this philosophy. Does that mean that IXTJs aren't very judgy judgers?

 

[tcda]

I don't agree that we know nothing. Humans know how to do many things, this is why we have built civlizations. Humans represent living organisms reaching consciousness, while living organisms in themselves represent matter developing into life.

Humans are in effect the matter of the universe, which has reached a level of evolution whereby it can be conscious of its own existence and understand, re-order and reshape nature itself. i.e. we act upon the natural world within the limits which it presents us with, thereby changing the limits for the next generation we are not simply slaves to "nature" or our "instincts" or whatever.

In effect as a species we represent matter - a part of the universe (the matter which makes us predates humanity and will outlive humanity, I find that beautiful) - which is capable of understanding itself and of understanding the universe! i.e. we represent a part of the universe which is capable of understanding the universe, i.e. the potentiality for the universe to understand itself.

At different stages of human development different "ideologies" (i.e. the understanding of a social class of its own historical interests) were necessarry for revolutions in order to lay the foundations for a new social order, which le dto progress in our knowledge and understanding. For exampl;e the British, French and American revolutions against moncarchism and feudalism, were what made possible the development of modern capitalism and liberal demcoracy, withotu which we wouldn't have had the material foundation for all the improvements in our understanding of the universe since then.

So a blanket "we know nothing, all ideologies = human arrogance & is teh evil", is the just a generality in my opinion, and very harmful, precisely because it doesn't differentiate between different ideologies, and therefore in effect, makes an apology for obscurantist, superstitious and reactionary ideologies, by saying that progressive "ideologies" which seek to eradicate these, are just as bad.

In effect humans have a responsibility to ensure not only our survival as a species, but the evolution of conscious life...Ken Macleod wrote in his novels about a socialist society whereby humans are surpassed as a species. We cannot do this however if we stay within the bounds of capitalism. As Rosa Luxembourg said "socialism or barbarism". A system based on competition between individuals and states, led to the development of industrialized society, but cannot lesad to anything beytond that, and will destroy itself through economic crisis (leading to periodic destruction of the means of production, exhaustion of existing energy supplies while vested interests block their replacement with superior energy supplies (like nuclear power which can underlie a transition period to diversified renewable enrgy sources), wars, genocide, etc.

Marxism doesn't understand "everything" but neither do we "know nothing". Some "ideolgoies" are superior to others. The fundamental laws of motion of the universe which Marx and Engels proposed, Dialectical Maeterialism, have now been proven by the likes of Carl Sagan, showing that two galaxies colliding obey the same basic laws of motion, as two balls of dye colliding.

An ideology which understands this - the permanent state of motion of all matter and therefore of all human society - is undoubtedly superior to one which does not (bourgeois empiricism/rationalism, or religion, or postmodernist subjectivism).

Only a society based on this understanding can lay the foundations for a new civilization whereby humans truly understand our position within the universe and our possibilites and limitations as a species. As Marx said, Communism is the end of the Pre-history of humanity, and the beginning of our History.

Whew, long post. No I don't smoke weed.

 

[tcda]

Did someone else point out that "I know nothing" is a perceiver's philosophy? To refuse to know allows you to extend the time spent with collecting information and eventually if belatedly judgment can be comfortably made. Judgment necessarily cuts of perception, and isn't very P.

And I'm okay with the idea that yeu know nothing. Wacka Wacka.

I don't think MBTI is really the issue. MBTI one the whole "differences between NTJ and NTP" thing is really vague enough to explain away anything.

For example, a J who believes "we know nothing". The MBTI sage will say "ah yes, there we have it - introverted Percieving allows him to speculate as to the true nature of reality, while he concentrates his J function of pragmatically organizing the world around him for practical gains".

Whereas the INTP who claims we can know something will be explained away with "ah yes, there we have it, the Ti backed up by tertiary Si allow him to work out and maintain strong fundametal principles upon which his sense of morality and identity rest, while the Ne lets him then play around with regards to his own personal course of action".

This Cognitive Functions game is fun, you can basically explain anything retrospectively without having to predict anything.

 

[JocktheMotie]

I don't agree that we know nothing. Humans know how to do many things, this is why we have built civlizations. Humans represent living organisms reaching consciousness, while living organisms in themselves represent matter developing into life.

Humans are in effect the matter of the universe, which has reached a level of evolution whereby it can be conscious of its own existence and understand, re-order and reshape nature itself. i.e. we act upon the natural world within the limits which it presents us with, thereby changing the limits for the next generation we are not simply slaves to "nature" or our "instincts" or whatever.

At different stages of human development different "ideologies" (i.e. the understanding of a social class of its own historical interests) were necessarry for revolutions in order to lay the foundations for a new social order, which le dto progress in our knowledge and understanding. For exampl;e the British, French and American revolutions against moncarchism and feudalism, were what made possible the development of modern capitalism and liberal demcoracy, withotu which we wouldn't have had the material foundation for all the improvements in our understanding of the universe since then.

In effect as a species we represent matter - a part of the universe (the matter which makes us predates humanity and will outlive humanity, I find that beautiful) - which is capable of understanding itself and of understanding the universe! i.e. we represent a part of the universe which is capable of understanding the universe, i.e. the potentiality for the universe to understand itself.

So a blanket "we know nothing, all ideologies = human arrogance & is teh evil", is the just a generality in my opinion, and very harmful, precisely because it doesn't differentiate between different ideologies, and therefore in effect, makes an apology for obscurantist, superstitious and reactionary ideologies, by saying that progressive "ideologies" which seek to eradicate these, are just as bad.

In effect humans have a responsibility to ensure not only our survival as a species, but the evolution of conscious life...Ken Macleod wrote in his novels about a socialist society whereby humans are surpassed as a species.

We cannot do this however if we stay within the bounds of capitalism. As Rosa Luxembourg said "socialism or barbarism". A system based on competition between individuals and states, led to the development of industrialized society, but cannot lesad to anything beytond that, and will destroy itself through speculation, economic crisis (leading to periodic destruction of the means of production, exhaustion of existing energy supplies while vested interests block their replacement with superior energy supplies (like nuclear power which can underlie a transition period to diversified renewable enrgy sources), wars, genocide, etc.

Marxism doesn't udnerstand "everything" but neither do we "know nothing". Some "ideolgoies" are superior to others. The fundamental laws of motion of the universe which Marx and Engels proposed, Dialectical Maeterialism, have now been proven by the likes of Carl Sagan, showing that two galaxies colliding obey the same basic laws of motion, as two balls of dye colliding.

An ideology which understands this - the permanent state of motion of all matter and therefore of all human society - is undoubtedly superior to one which does not (bourgeois empiricism/rationalism, or religion, or postmodernist subjectivism).

Only a society based on this understanding can lay the foundations for a new civilization whereby humans truly understand our position within the universe and our possibilites and limitations as a species. As Marx said, Communism is the end of the Pre-history of humanity, and the beginning of our History.

Whew, long post. No I don't smoke weed.

I'm confused. Evolution is largely an exclusionary, competitive drive/force/what have you. How does communism [which I tend to associate with a more collective, collaborative force] ensure the evolution of conscious life if it doesn't promote a competition?

I've never read Marx, so my definition might be wrong.

 

[SillySapienne]

There is both the drive for competitive as well as cooperative drives within/amongst evolutionary processes, just sayin'.

People tend to forget all the cooperation, granted, selfish, or self-serving, cooperation that goes down in the evolutionary process.

 

[tcda]

I'm confused. Evolution is largely an exclusionary, competitive drive/force/what have you. How does communism [which I tend to associate with a more collective, collaborative force] ensure the evolution of conscious life if it doesn't promote a competition?

I've never read Marx, so my definition might be wrong.

Well it would ensure that we don't wipe each other out or drive ourselves back to the stone age through war and crisis, which I believe is the only possible route for humanity if we don't replace capitalism.

On earth humans are the only living organism with consciousness, so its reasonable to assume that a more intelligent species would develop out of humanity, menaing that humans would need to survive for this to happen.

Communism would mean the rational and demcoratic common management of the economy -i.e. the material basis of a civilization - and therefore to massive advances in science and technology. I have always understood it as the resolution of war between people - which grew out of material scarcity, something which no longer exists (poverty is because of misallocation not lack of productive capacity) - in order to allow us as a species to concentrate on expanding mentally/physically outwards into the universe, and reaching our full potential as a species.

Marxism is not a religion. Marx himself said that Marxism will die and be forgotten once capitalism has died and been forgotten. He never intended to set out a blue print for all the future, he just dealt with the contradictions in front of him which were holding back humanity - private property and state boundaries - and set out a blue print to overthrow these in order to begin a new stage of civilization.

If another species begins to evolve out of that, which is more intelligent than humans and able to take the project of understanding/rationally organizing the universe to a higher level, then so be it.

 

[Jeffster]

I'll tell you one thing I know.

How to spell you.

 

[nolla]

On earth humans are the only living organism with consciousness

I kinda hope this is not true... it would be so cool if someone cracked some code in the dolphin signals and found out that they are conscious and three times as intelligent as humans. Then we would have to have Stephen Hawking as a spokesman and even then he would have to talk to the adolescent dolphins as the grown-ups would be yawning...

 

[tcda]

I kinda hope this is not true... it would be so cool if someone cracked some code in the dolphin signals and found out that they are conscious and three times as intelligent as humans. Then we would have to have Stephen Hawking as a spokesman and even then he would have to talk to the adolescent dolphins as the grown-ups would be yawning...

I'd be surprised if their brains haven't already been studied and tested to discount this possibility.