If wanting to get right to the philosophy, jump to post #7.

Greetings all,

Due to feedback I have received and an apparent interest (as well as this being a supplement in one of my own projects) I intend to share through an ongoing thread my "brand" of skepticism. This is a philosophic endeavor in the realm of epistemology. As with many words, “skepticism” is used in a variety of ways. That said, it's important to define that this has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, or governmental scrutiny, or anything of the like. This endeavor is actually at a much deeper level, calling into question our reality and how we decide what we know and why (and/or what we may be unable to know and why). It is more focused on ourselves and our minds rather than (but still with the use of) any ontological aim (because there has to be some axiomatic principles defined in an epistemic sense before ontological claims can be made).

Paradoxically, skepticism seems to look for answers in questions, rather than strictly answers in a positivist sense. For example, it looks for the holes in epistemic systems, whether empirical, rational, or more closely linked to faith (though some degree of faith is applied to any system we choose to use and adhere to, like rationality and logic within this sentence to make this point). Skepticism seems clever in a very unique way (one that makes me think of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem) in that it can use the mechanisms of a system of finding knowledge against that system in seeing where the loose ends are and where it no longer holds up (as well as employing some systems “against” others). This is why skepticism is able to get away with being paradoxically defined. In other words, is able to paradoxically hold itself together by appealing to paradox. For example, the Socratic Paradox being, “I know I know nothing,” is an introspectively honest claim that is defeated by what it maintains and is maintained by what defeats it. It appears to allow us to see where our faith in an epistemic system or prose potentially begins. Our exploration revolves around what is opened by questioning without presupposing any answer. Often, the answer is just other questions.

There is one major contradiction that I notice committed to skepticism (which many opponents will not hesitate to jump on) and that is the nature in which claims seem be made emanating out of skepticism, i.e. making definite (positivist) claims relating to what “is”. This “rule” isn't hard and steady in that it depends on the level in which skepticism is being applied. The rule: Claims arising out of skepticism will be specified within the frame of seeming or appearance, rather than a claim of an absolute, total, positivist, and objective nature. Being what skepticism is (or rather, seems to be), it seems to preclude any such claims since it's intent is to analyze and assess said claims. Any claims of the same family are subject to the same scrutiny. Oddly by extension, I will concede this idea of appearance to all methods of gathering “knowledge:” “We have (current supposed convictions of broad and specific knowledge) what seems to be the most likely way things are with current paradigms, and these seem to be the best tools (epistemic avenues for obtaining “knowledge”) for acquiring the way things are, but could still be far from the “truth.”” This rule is necessary as a paradox can “hold up” (paradoxically) while general contradictions seem unable to in this philosophy.

It puts our claims on the block to be scrutinized, illuminating what we may know, may not know, and potential why for each, and giving us an idea of how much we should invest ourselves in our convictions of knowing.

I intend to elaborate on distinctions of skepticism used personally, thought experiments and arguments highlighting more of skepticism (in the senses of its prose and position), how I find this a spiritual endeavor and one that can be used for “Enlightenment” (and what parts seem to correspond to certain facets of various spiritual thought), what I like to call “sloppy” versus “clear” skepticism, and more.

Not only do I feel like others will be able to refine their own thinking, but they can apply many of these thought experiments and approaches to their psychedelic endeavors as well, in the vein of analyzing, assessing, and drawing inferences, as well as learning to accept and have peace in the free-fall of unknowing.

There's a lot to cover and this will be good practice for me to really flesh out and delineate my own personal ideas.

This is very hard for me to share, as I observe a very restless nervousness and anxiety. I have certain hang-ups around my self-esteem, so this is an exercise in exorcising this is issue. I present this to you humility and grace.

I will try to update this weekly. (Guess I better get on it then, because I have nothing prepared after this)

I thank you all.

One love

Thank you, really great to read your thoughts around this!
I have a few reflections, not so much on the actual topic but more about the 'lived ideas' so to speak. One thing thou is that I can see a lot of value in skepticism, but I would like to think of it as a kind of dance or balance act. A dynamic between believing and questioning. To much questioning can leave to paralyzed, in life that is. In the realm of philosophy that's another thing.

On the personal level.
How do you think this way of thinking has to do with your history and your personality? Do you have worked your way into it, or has it been a 'natural' perspective for a long time for you and that you've mostly elaborated the words and concepts around it? Maybe you'll get to this further on.



Good to hear more about how you see this in the light of psychedelic experiences. I see it a very useful.



You are on a good way and I hope to be able to support you in your sharing. It's inspiring as well as enlightening.

Thank you very very much . It definitely is a balancing act. I have "convictions in the moment" in order operate in the world, but all the time being aware at some level about the inherent unknowability I experience.

I will be going into that in more depth in the upcoming post, but to put it briefly, I've always been rather inquisitive and always attempting to understand. In high school I came up with a saying "understanding is believing enough," and that was pretty much my method of approach to many things. Not particularly judging whether it's "right" or "wrong" but attempting to fully grasp the position and perspective of another individual, idea, thought structure, belief system, paradigm, etc. A new saying has arisen over time: "It's just a paradigm to me." I will be going into that more later on as well.

Thank you so much for your kindness and support. It's really helpful and healing. And I am viewing this in part as a healing process.

One love

My philosophic journey starts in an odd place: with my father. After spending years of my adolescence admiring and looking up to my father, as many do, I ended up becoming disappointed and disillusioned by him around the age of 10. In finding him questionable, I began questioning everything else. I found him deluded and was desperate not to be so myself, so was very keen on learning about my own thinking and expanding awareness (and how even when I think I may not be deluded I still can be).

I've also always been curious, detail oriented, inquisitive, always seeking understanding, successively pulling back layer after layer of framework, going deeper and deeper. The deep diving brought me to epistemology before I knew the word “epistemology.” In my efforts to understand, many contradictory ideals were able to be held in my mind at one time. I was seeking information on what to believe, such is part of the nature of life; trying to have some inkling and understanding of what's going on in our present existence. In trying to be understanding more than anything else, I found myself apparently outside the normal sandbox of common cognition. I thought outside the box, seeing many other boxes I could conceptually hop into and explore, but also noticed that outside the initial box, surrounding it and all the others, was yet another box, and so on; nested “boxes.”

I cut my teeth on Greek and Vedic philosophy while also having a general interest in theology, noticing and acknowledging the impact of religion in general on the world as a whole. Through Vedic philosophy, I came to Buddhist philosophy as well, and with these two coupled, decided that I'd pursue enlightenment. As the years went on, skepticism became my main method for achieving such: finding balance and stable grounding of self in the free-fall of potential unknowing, being detached even from knowing, which we as creatures can't seem to help but attach to. I know I know nothing (Socratic Paradox) and I don't know if anything can be known. There seems to be a novel freedom and potential transcendence here in my view.

There were a few sayings that were developed in high school, such as, "understanding is believing enough," and the questions, "how could I be wrong," "what are my biases here," and "am I being honest with or deluding myself?" These among others I feel primed me for skepticism and they are questions that have always kept in mind to some degree, especially in considering what I know, or at least, think I know.

In college, after my time at the music school didn't work out, I defaulted to philosophy. I already had an ongoing interest and study and I didn't want to drop out. I was introduced to so many ideas. One thing I noticed; over time, use of various philosophies change. How can we be so confident to say we know in the midst of such change? It's as though a thinker assess a philosophy from the past, finds what they may consider flaws and then develops a better philosophy. It is then delivered with conviction, often in the guise of finality of exploring said topic. And then it all happens again... and seems to be the case in many fields.

This changing of view within a given field or purview of thought is known in some cases as a paradigm shift.

One of the biggest conundrums I noticed was the difficulty in defining knowledge. There still doesn't seem to be a consensus on what it entails entirely, even to this day, and we can see the debate with regard to AI, in which a new parameter of intelligence is posed after some other parameter has been covered. How do we know when we know what knowledge is anyway? There have been many convictions held that weren't the case.

There came a point where I didn't find any positivist view convincing and noticed that even if I did, being convinced doesn't mean that I know something that is true. Many individuals speak with conviction and can be found to be in error. So, a prose of conviction seems should never sway whether or not I concede to any given point. It should be about the point being made and how it's made. We all want to believe we are right and that we have true beliefs. But some things are outside any methodology of verification, and are, often times admittedly, taken purely on faith (though, it will be covered how the systems we use for knowing also require our faith). Also, no one knows everything, and so everyone has some "false" beliefs, but doesn't know what they are. If they knew that a belief was false, they wouldn't believe it. Another of the reason I had a hard time being “convinced” is, while understanding a particular prose, I could always find a counterargument or could move slightly outside the given system to find faults in the prose being put forth.

It was also in college when I started using psychedelics. Often basking in philosophic rumination of musings that seemed to lead me further and further in the skeptical trajectory. Utterly fascinated by their power of mind altering, making me wonder at times "what would happen if our senses were slightly augmented differently? How would I see the world then? How would we explain the world at that point and how would we feel?" Psychedelics offered me full entrance into assessing my own thinking and perception.

I can't help but notice the double edge to this and the potential negative ways in which it has impacted and influenced me. I already manage severe depression, but in conjunction with skepticism is a recipe for an affinity to nihilism. There's a lacking of direction, fulfillment and meaning in some key regards. This is in part to not valuing my own subjective perspective enough (and with depression, not myself enough either), always looking to be more and more objective if I desire to move closer and closer to "truth." Something that also drives a detrimental pull towards perfectionism. The truth so far however is, "I don't know, but I am aware how it seems to me." Me being honest with myself.

Despite some of the negatives, a journey of this sort leads one (or at least me) into a space where there is no dialogue, but more just a state of being, for even ascribing words to an objective attempt detracts from its objectivity. I find parallels to Buddhism in contexts like these with skepticism; in suspending judgment if lack of knowing has already been admitted. Spiritual endeavors have continued to be explore regardless of my skeptical stances, because as already stated I don't know, so give myself to experience to see what happens.

As I have aged and moved away from the academic mindset (though I'd love to pursue my Master's, I'm not trying to go into debt for something I have no clue where to go with), and my philosophic interactions have lessened, my ideals and conception about skepticism have remained throughout. It has become a stoic practice for me, for if I admit that I don't know at some level about all things, then there is nothing to attach myself to. This is the theory. It's not always the case in practice because of the powerful seeming of pragmatic reality. Like with many spiritual traditions, practice is the progenitor of learning in employing this method in my regular life.

For some clarity, I am in no way devaluing the sciences and philosophies that we use today to lead our apparent lives, moves us forward technologically, and potentially enhances our understanding. That would be antithetical to my view of skepticism because it would be asserting a positivist claim, which also comes under the same scrutiny as any other claim of the same nature. Rather, I shoot for understanding, doing as best as possible to leave preconceived notions behind to attain the full flavor of the topic in question, especially since I have admitted I don't know; then jump in and find out for myself (what I call phenomenological skepticism and will cover later). If information from some other modality seems appropriate to use (like using math in certain aspects of physics) I will do so. This also applies to more esoteric and mystical concentrations as well. So, I have a deep appreciation and affinity towards the sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc), philosophy (epistemology, ethics, philosophy of mind, existentialism, logic (and math, they go hand in hand in my mind), etc), and mysticism (Vedic, Buddhist, Hermetic, Egyptian, Shamanistic, etc). I use them. I just don't put absolute faith in them, and am rarely surprised when something in our overall understanding changes (such is the history of science; a history of change). I also have various opinions about them, but always remember, I could be wrong. I seem to have a day-to-day life to live, so flow through it in a manner of "what seems to be most likely the case in this overall seeming." There is an attempt at entertaining all “relevant and convincing” possibilities (which is pretty arbitrary). I wouldn't say, “this is the way things are,” but rather try to state, “this is how things seem to be,” to state broadly.

Feeling as though something is missing, but here's a bit of what brought me to work with skepticism as a thought modality and paradigm. Much of what has been introduced will be expanded upon in subsequent posts.

Apologies on the tardiness. Life gets in the way as well as my own hangups. But thank you for reading all the same.

One love

I stumbled upon a quite nice philosophical clip on YouTube yesterday that addresses the difficulty of correct action in a world of uncertainty and how stories that seem to have straightforward plot lines may distort our evaluation of how the life really is. Here is an excerpt:

"The unknown can be rather terrifying but this fear is only intensified to an unnecessarily immobile state of paralysis when we maintain the assumption that there can ever be a perfect, right decision in anything that will lead to an ultimately noble resolution of everything. Rather we should perhaps work to have the fortitude to make decisions at all to forge onward through our story trying our best to navigate with decency, effort and honesty. Accepting whatever our decisions may cause and whatever events might occur to us." https://youtu.be/x3EVh2jhyLM

Through study of statistics I have learned to quantify the uncertainty to a some degree. There seems to be correlations between events even though there are exceptions. And even though it's often difficult to know for sure what will bring good results, the negative is easier to see. I probably should not smoke if I want to be healthy when old.

Pragmatism can be a friend of a skeptic. To follow what seems to work and bring good. Also, while it's difficult to know how things will work out in the outer world, we have much more control over our inner world with regards to attitudes and virtues.

Learning to deal with the uncertainty is huge. Lots of disappointment can result from expecting something good from the world only to be let down even though you did seemingly everything right.

My friend! Thank you for chiming in.

I have observations related to your first statement. Sometimes I feel like others expect to be viewed how they view those on T.V.; a certain strong sense of self-importance and entitlement. And that quote is very spot on. I would add authenticity to the list of traits to take with us in making decisions about our lives. I know that in some ways I have fell victim to this in that I have assumed that others in the limelight moved to where they are in a more linear manner than otherwise. It's taken me a while to figure out that is generally otherwise, and still time to be taken in extracting this thought process from my mind.

I tend to make my decisions (as to most people in some sense, unbeknownst to them) based on probability (slightly different field of mathematics from statitistics) since I've already admitted that "I do not know." Another similarity between us my friend (even if it is a little slight). But I do understand your method (though I will be going into some percieved flaws in later posts; nothing is off limits ).

Rene Descartes comes to mind, with the proposition of "knowing the contents of one's thoughts." I often tell people that we tend to have very little control over what happens to us, but we always have more control over our actions due to what happens to us.

And this is why I bask in the unknowing

Note: Currently, I am reframing my approach to many things in my life and really assessing my motivations, even with this, so will be removing a time schedule for posts, but will continue to share this idea as I can. Thank you all for your understanding.

One love

For any method of acquiring information and method of reasoning that we devise, we have to start with some assumption (and regardless of how “obvious” it may seem, it's still an assumption, for whatever “obviousness” an assumption appears to retain may really be only a reflection of how we may be conditioned and programmed to think). We do this because we have to start somewhere. In many of these systems (largely a byproduct of the “Western” thought paradigm), and for good reason (such as consistency), contradictions are to be avoided and are generally seen as erroneous. But any system we devise has limits, and sometimes those limits can be seen by paradoxes about the system, within the system, or paradoxical information generated by the system. It usually is at some bare-bones, fundamental root underpinning the system, and often (but not always) with some sort of regard of self-reference. Often times, a paradox is a sort of contradiction, but a very special kind; one that is “true” or workable, operable or understandable, despite “breaking the rules.” And sometimes, it's simply an error.

To make things a little bit easier, let's have a definition for paradox that we will work with when it comes up: A statement, observation, situation, or series of such, that contradict or seem to contradict, but can still be seen (upon reframing, further inspection or analysis, etc) as well-founded, true, valid, or sound. I will use the terms “workable” and “well-founded,” instead of “true,” “valid,” or “sound,” as the latter have very explicit definitions in the field and study of logic, and as such, have very deeply entrenched connotations and associations that can make the understanding of the ideas to be shared fraught with mental gymnastics that can take the fun out of this. Also, since the core of this is about skepticism, it seems it would be an error and antithetical for me to make too many assertions related to the idea of “truth.” Which brings us to considering that some paradoxes are such because they occupy a state of being both “true” and “false.” [“This sentence is false.”]

Often paradoxes are also attributed to statements, observations, situations or a series of such that is ironic or defies expectation despite being “true.” In some sense, we seem to be able to say this about almost all paradoxes.

The information that we gather has it's value to us as in some way being “well-founded” or “workable,” until a time comes that it becomes obsolete.

To make things a bit easier still, consider being willing to allow the boundaries to become more pliable and mutable of whatever systems of reasoning that you may be working with. For example, if you are very versed in logic, allowing for the idea that perhaps there are some situations which reach outside the confines of the logical system, and so is missing elements for there to be a perfect mapping from the situation in question with the logical system being used. Or with regard to empiricism, that some physical phenomena may escape description and understanding through a system predicated on studying this very broad class of ontological phenomena. Perhaps allowing multiplicity in certain explanations (like light being both a wave and particle, effectively occupying two states).

Sometimes it appears that paradoxes arise from us because in fields for gathering information, we blend different fields together to make new fields for understanding or to propel one or another forward. The paradoxes occur at the crux where the different fields don't “fit together well.” It can also be a result of a particular context within a given system in which some of the rules or axioms (or on occasion, when they are applied to themselves) “contradict” become in “conflict,” or become “tangled.”

When a paradox is noticed, two things seem appropriate to observe; what can be said about the observer of the paradox and what can be said about what's being observed. With respect to the observer, one can notice that a paradox being observed shows a breadth of perspective held by the observer to allow them to be able to hold such in their minds in the first place (depending on the paradox, for we will see a class of paradoxes that are errors, but it's a little harder to identify what the error is). It shows the flexibility of the observer's thinking protocol and position in regards to dropping some axiomatic principles. Sometimes this flexibility entails “double-think,” in which two contradictory ideas can be held in mind [my personal experience came about with this through just understanding without the goal of picking a position in the end]. With respect to what is being observed as a paradox shows, its position and alignment relative to the frameworks we use to try to explain it. The phenomenal world is the phenomenal world, with or without our understandings of it. “It is what it is” (tautology). So when something is observed as a paradox, it may not be so much there is a fallacy in understanding it, but that our understanding of it based on paradigms of thought used are not complete, consistent, or comprehensive (and why should they ever be, as change seems to be constant (with current cosmology even saying that the laws of physics probably haven't always been the way they are now, which says something about the potential mercurial mutability of etiology), and we are also flawed and fallible (as it seems pretty regularly), and so our systems (devised by our flawed and fallible minds) will be flawed and fallible to some degree as well), or that the observation in question simply occupies a paradoxical state, regardless of systems used to understand it.

I find paradoxes to be like prime numbers, in that it's very hard to pin down clear parameters for where a paradox may occur or exist, much like it is hard to have any consistent system for generating prime numbers; what governs prime numbers and their occurrence is not that “clear.” We simply recognize them based on a characteristic that is part of their definition as prime numbers, i.e. a number (greater than one) that has only two factors. I share this because in some instances a “paradox” seems to be more of a fallacy (such as a subtle fault in reasoning or processing within a given system) than the paradoxes of “value.” They are complex problems, but with the paradoxes we'll be employing, while there may be an explanation, they are no less paradoxical [at least in the views shared here]. We have definitions for both, but can't predict either of them; we just know them when we encounter them.

With regards to skepticism, paradoxes can help us to see the underpinning loose ends of flaws in how we conceive the world and our systems for doing so. It helps the skeptic see the potential limits by casting doubt on a given system by a workable paradox “uncovered.” There are also certain aspects of my skeptical philosophy that revolve around paradox; again, the Socratic Paradox: I know I know nothing. A self-referential simultaneous affirming and denial.

It's worth mentioning that in some paradigms of thought such as those involving mysticism and esoterism, paradoxical ideas and even axioms are not uncommon. I feel that some of my philosophy is certainly influenced by these practices and studies. As a skeptic, much of the time, nothing is off limits or out of bounds. It comes down to a matter of relative and subjective feasibility perceived in a given ideal or thought structure in given contexts. If I don't know, shed all preconceived notions, jump in and see what happens; phenomenological skepticism. And yes, this does mean that I play both sides of the fence, always coming back to the fence.

There are also minds and philosophers of the Western thought paradigm that seem to allow and entertain paradoxes of some kinds in their philosophies and thoughts.

A paradox: It appears all of our knowledge is based in something that at the root is baseless. For any system we use for gathering information and “knowledge” we must first place our faith in the presuppositions that we use as axioms for said system.

Another paradox: If one knows, but does not know everything and is not “right” all the time, then that individual believes things that are erroneous or false. To be able to ascertain this is all aspects one would already have to know everything in order to weed out false beliefs. But they can never know everything, so will always be unable to fully discern between falsehoods they believe and truths they believe (and if they did know everything, this wouldn't need to be a consideration in the first place). This sort of paradox is called a Catch-22.

A second Catch-22 (this one is called the Problem of the Criterion): If one is to state a criteria (justifications) for knowing, then they must already know something, but they could they state what they know without a criteria to justify it? So we go from simply knowing back to the criterion and back to simply knowing over and over again, round and round we go. It's rare for someone to accept someone else's proposition without them being able to back it up. How often do you let someone tell you they “just know?” To be fair, there is an epistemic camp that proposes that there is innate knowledge, but then how do we really back that up?

These examples are not meant to say that our systems don't work, as there appears to be progress made in many fields all the time. It just puts on the table the cornerstone limits to our systems and ourselves. It also begs the question. It's all okay. It's the best that we can do. But there's a difference in prose between saying “this is the best and most efficient that we have come up with” and “this is what we know” (at least, without any caveats). Granted the former doesn't quite roll off the tongue. How we state things seems to show a great deal about the frame that we have placed the idea in. And some of these examples and other thought experiments to come may seem “impractical,” but I frankly don't care. They still highlight what I think is (potentially) important about the world, our relation to it, and how we think. For example, no one is a fan of infinite regress (continuous justifications for previous justifications connected to some initial proposition ad infinitum), but I find it honest in that we are forced to acknowledge where our idea of knowing is mysterious and blurred, where it ceases, and again, we notice aspects like faith in how we operate with our systems through existence. It forces a novel honesty with oneself in my opinion and philosophy. I will note that I'm not living and behaving like Phyrro was recorded to have lived and behaved, blindly walking and such .

I find skepticism at its core to be very paradoxical because it is not concerned with answers so much as questions (hence why it is not a positivist epistemic practice), and yet a great deal can be gleaned from these questions, even if deemed unanswerable. Being, as much as possible, removed from axioms and presuppositions, because those are questioned as well, some paradoxes seamlessly slide into my thinking. Since my position for many years has been understanding more so than knowing, expanding awareness (which, connotatively, I find less concrete than knowing in possessing a mutability that allows change and augmentation to thinking and “belief” structure upon reception of knew information that seems more valid and true, as well as statistically “appealing;” a game of chance, because few of us had any control over what we've be introduced to, when, and why, which includes style and format of thought), paradoxical thinking and perception sort of auto-generated for me.

Skepticism in my mind is strengthened by the use of paradoxes and paradoxical perception and thought. It opens a new road to understanding with huge breadth and depth, though it provides little for knowing other than being aware of its [potential] existence.

Children are naturally skeptics (as a child I was actually told not to ask why because I did it often, and not to get a rise out of anyone or be annoying, but because I was genuinely curious), until they assimilate to whatever thought paradigm is most prevalent in their more immediate vicinity (culture and subculture etc.) and are able to be convinced by explanations native to the thought paradigm generated by their environment. Is a conviction knowing though? We're taught in most cultures in the world that it's important “to know,” but rarely question the concept.

Side note: The first things one learns are usually the last things one is willing to question.

If every rule has exceptions, then there's at least one exception to every rule; the exception to this one being, there is no exception. Exception Paradox

Everything in moderation, including moderation. Moderation Paradox

I know I know nothing. Socratic Paradox

And for clarity, this thread is not about paradoxes, but is an aside to illustrate that anything of a paradoxical nature that occurs in the posts to come is probably there on purpose (I am fallible so could potentially put in some by accident I suppose; questioning everything), and I am likely aware of them and in this philosophy, they serve a purpose. This is sharing a flow and style of thought.

I would like to visit Quine for a brief moment. Throughout this post I have described three kinds of paradoxes very subtly that happen to parallel in some ways with Quine's distinctions of paradoxes. The first are those in which they seem not to make sense but are nevertheless true. The next are ones that are false despite all appearances, due to a hidden fallacy of reason or elucidation of context (the complex problems mentioned earlier). And lastly, those that occupy more than one state; true/false)/neither/both), on/off, dead/alive (Schrodinger's Cat). This is a simplified version of course. I encourage delving deeper if you feel inclined. To no surprise, the rabbit hole of paradox and paradoxes never gets old.

Within the bounds of the seeming of the world that I get through my apparent perception and perspective, I see paradoxes all over the place, even if there's an explanation and nothing seems out of the ordinary. We're both living and dying; despite our everyday experience to the contrary, we can't touch anything (the surface of the atoms that make up your finger and the surface of the atoms that make up the keys on your keyboard have electrons that repel each other throughout the interaction). In our practical lives this is inconsequential, but that doesn't mean it can't lend itself to our overall and growing “understanding” of the world.

This seems to be enough for now. I hope you all enjoy. Thank you for reading.



One love

I just wanted to let you know how much I’m enjoying this thread and, more broadly, the great value you add to this community. I also found it kind of fun that we share a somewhat similar position. I have assumed for several decades now, that knowledge is primarily obtained through approximation. That our perception is so limited, that all we can hope for are decent metaphors that allow us some semblance of a capacity to predict. Even our greatest physics models are said to contradict one another, yet still provide their respective verifiable predictions. For me, the best practice in this regard is to make the largest and most cohesive models that I can manipulate in my mind and put my abstract thinking cap on when “translating” the models of others.

I’ll be following along here, even if I’ve nothing to add.

Thank you so so much for your kindness and enthusiasm I find it very encouraging.

And yes we definitely do share similar positions it sounds. Skepticism aside, there's an apparently unbreakable appearance of living a day-to-day life despite how surreal it may seem in many instances, so having an evolving and transforming paradigm to work with and within allows for me a type of model in which I can choose the "tools" for a particular context (which works really well with my guidework practice, as everyone is different and so everyone needs a different approach, mode of support, paradigms of thought that they are more comfortable with etc). Skepticism provides me the desired paradigm, even if it is a little chaotic (which I just attribute to my own limits of mind and the boundaries pushed therein).

Thank you again my friend.



One love

This is not meant as a correction or judgment or anything of the like. It is a personal view I would like to share in that in possesses two functions: 1. To add further understanding to the paradox discussion from above and, 2. To illuminate more of the kind of thinking process inherent to the overall thread.

Oneness; everything is one. Through the interconnections that bring every individual thing to its singular existence, everything is one. Often when I encounter this idea there are a few things that I notice. One of the first things I notice is an abandonment of a previously held intrinsic observation for a “deeper” awareness of the nature of things as if the deeper awareness is more “real,” and in effect negating the former, in this case, the individual thing.

And don't get me wrong, having been engaging with psychedelics in various degrees and intensities for almost half of my life, I've been there; those illuminating spaces where all difference and distinctions fizzle, dwindle, and melt away, leading to a cosmic, almost omniscient awareness and connection with all that exists.

But is it that those distinctions don't actually exist when our consciousness expands in such a manner, or is it more accurate perhaps to say that such a perspective makes it seem as though previous conceptions don't actually exist, have less importance or pertinence, are not the “true” reality, etc?

We often come to the conception of oneness through reduction. Simply, we begin with the many and create classes, until we reach a duality; on/off, heads/tails, 0/1, up/down, good/bad, love/hate. Then we observe the complementary nature that is apparent to us in these opposing dualities (and we just came across another paradox which drives this that much more; for our minds, opposing things, that through their opposition define and support one another and are inextricably linked: there is a sameness to be seen in opposition) and through such compliment we see a link, and in seeing the link or connection, we categorize them together, thus everything is one.

But everything is also everything and one is also one.

Which brings me then to wonder, is such an observation and reasoning of the observation ontological or perceptive?

In other words, is it a description about how existence really exists, or does it say more about how our minds work in defining the structures of ontological nature and as such are more so indirect statements about ourselves?

I'm willing to entertain both in vary degrees, levels, and manners, but drawing clearly defined lines seems messy.

Once one line is drawn, a new, thinner, and more precise line is needed for clearer boundary delineation.

There may also always be moving parts for change is constant.

Does something being realized on a different level say that that level is more important, or just how it appears to us in a given context in which we think?

Let's use something smaller to look at this apparent paradox in another way. So far, this has all been in reference to “existence” or the “universe.” We'll shrink it down to the singular human being. As individual units, each of us is a singular “oneness.” But inside each of us, in an array of ways, we possess other “onenesses” that compose us or a facet of us. Physically, the individual atoms that compose individual molecules that have their functions in operating and creating as basic molecules or by combining to form more complex molecules which lend themselves to the creation of our bones, muscle, organs, etc. The individual microbes (some that share no DNA similarities with the host's cells). Cognitively, we each have individual subsets of personality that accumulate to create the overall personality that we see ourselves and other people see us as. Many individual things that aggregate and collate to make-up the singular human being (which upon consideration of other human beings creates individual communities, which leads to individual towns and cities, etc).

There is no single human being without its parts and there are no individual parts (of varying scales) to make up an individual being without the individual being...

A coin. Where does heads end and tails begin?

For me oneness is like a chain, in that I see all facets, parts and functions that make up the whole while also realizing the whole just as I see individual links in a chain when considering the chain.

So then, if we are reabsorbed into oneness (and the mind still exists), ego stripped, does that mean our individuality actually ceases to exist, or that we're just in state of too much indifference to notice such? Does the matter come down to an ontological reality or a perceptive one (and we may never know, so any alignment then becomes a matter of faith and the internal functions of mind that lead towards the holding of that faith)?

Plurality is oneness and oneness is plurality.

So all this to simply say, that subjectively, oneness and the conception of oneness appears as a paradox.

One love

Great post! I'm think I am in the perceptive camp here. I don't think we have ready access to the "true nature" of reality, and even if we did we would lack the ontological language to describe it. In the end we all have to make sense of things as humans, and it comes with certain limitations.

Some of the terminology of this post is beyond me, but I agree that one can only know so much as a human. Find it all fascinating, what we can't know and what we can. Think being curious and open minded is an ideal mindset and brainstorming possibilities is an ideal activity.

That's the funny thing about language; for a term to have meaning, there has to be some intersubjective experience accessible to others in order for the term to be understood and have use. The further we get from ideas that we are used to, the further we get from being able to describe certain kinds of experiences and ideas on a broader scale.



I tend to agree with you in many ways.

As we progress in this thread, we'll look at what we think we know, why, the difficulty apparently inherent in drawing clear lines with regard to what we [think] we know, whether the relativity inherent to our [human] processing and use of information constitutes knowledge, and a variety of other ideas and thought experiments.

Thank you both for reading and joining in.

One love

Thank you Voidmatrix for sharing your thoughts! I've finally read through the thread and I'm enjoying it much. Don't have something on the top of my head (or elsewhere) right not regarding these things but I'm looking forward to the continuation.
Until then, take care.

Thank you again my friend. The encouragement is oh so valuable. And share what you like when you like and there's no obligation either way. I am very happy that you are finding it enjoyable, and I hope it only gets better from here.



One love

I assume that you will understand what I mean by the words I use and the order in which I use them in sharing this idea (and in this instance, understand what I mean by mean especially).

The core of mathematics and logics is predicated on rules assigned a priori for the use of some conceptual system. The first rules on which the system is built are the axioms; what all operations done within the system are preconditioned to have supersede before the utilization of the system, i.e. axioms are antecedents to the systems they are axioms for.

Religion seems mainly predicated (largely) on information of commonly the oldest possible purported sources of a particular cultural base and that is of a high prominence in a given region. The information is commonly based on experiences of others at the time of its “documentation.” It is assumed that the “rules” of a given religion are correct in their interpretation as well as statement. There seems to also be types of inner experiences that can be made manifest for an individual who then proselytize their experience to others. They assume that their inner experiences can be made applicable to many others (if not potentially think it can be applied to all others).

In applying the sciences to learning about the world we assume a certain degree of mapping from that world to the ideal of it being rational, i.e. we assume the world is rational. This is a presupposition, or axiom in which we take for granted.

The questioning itself of these bases (and basis) of thought paradigms is perhaps irrational, but the method and manner is not.

Assume:



Presuppose:



Axiom:




And while we're at it...

Suppose:

[/quote]

[Notice the details in the etymology of “from below” or “set under” and “to place,” in relation to the use of the term “underpinning” in previous section.]

In some instances and contexts these terms are interchangeable.

As I reflect on these definitions, several ideas and observations are visible before me. Most of these definitions specify the prose and position of the use of these words to include something that doesn't seem to be concrete. “To take as granted or true.” We're taking it as such, but that doesn't mean it is such. “Suppose to be the case, without proof;” need I say more? Granted, under axiom we have statements such as “self-evident truth,” “maxim taken on its intrinsic merit,” etc. What I feel is potentially taken for granted with these however are the assumptions and experiences necessary to have the faculty and capacity to arrive at such conclusions.

These definitions also show, despite not having definite or concrete “grounding” and “being,” that the positions brought about by these terms are in some ways required, types of preconditions, are necessary, and ”fruitful.” It's as if, if we pay careful attention to the suppositions, presuppositions, assumptions, and axioms, that on a deep level, in a deep way, everything we think we know is a conditional or a hypothetical: Presupposing we can generally trust our senses, and supposing reality is rational, one can assume x, and from there assume y, yielding the development of set of axioms for system q, that allow for one to assume z...

We have to start somewhere it seems. Even if that means beginning in free-fall or on shaky ground.

However, with our first step, it seems that we have detracted irrevocably from the goal of objectivity...

Granted, even the mechanisms of our senses and their functions and interactions also irrevocably detract us from objectivity as well; it's uniquely and subjectively human to perceive the world as we do.

We can also tell that we are at a particular portion of the core to most matters in regards to how we assess them and attain “knowledge” evidenced by the circularity present in the above definitions. On a few occasions, “assume” will have been swapped out for “suppose” and “suppose” for “assume” (usually as a result of the definitional rule of not using a word to define itself because that becomes circular reasoning or defining; and though circularity of reasoning is seen as a no-no in most systems of thought especially those of a formal nature, we're looking at a case of how there are instances where it paradoxically “works;” another example would be the scientific method: based on itself and supporting itself through the use of itself). There are other instances as well of one of our above four terms being used to help in defining one another.

“Self-evident truth...” I question if there is such a thing. I see statements like these as talking more about the observer and their interpretation than of the thing being observed and interpreted; one feels or thinks that instance “x” is self-evidently true. They may just have a deeply entrenched conviction on the matter (could we not potentially say this about almost any primitive or atomic (Wittgenstein) assertion we make and those that follow from them, but we'll get into that more later)...

All of our “knowledge” now seems based on supposition and assumption... like castles floating on clouds, our thought structures just “float” around.

Though we haven't touched on defining knowledge yet, it seems that our faith is applied to certain assumptions and as such our conclusions may not be as conclusive, final, decisive as we might feel or think. We may not know what we think we know.

The systems we use to explain the world are just that and not to be confused with actually being the world itself. As such, they seem to have limits.

“Assumptions make an ass out of you and me...”

Are we all asses considering the above?

Bear in mind, I am not advocating for or against these systems. I'm looking into their potential core nature through an epistemic scope, with particular emphasis on their potential weaknesses, flaws, shortcomings, loose-ends, blah blah blah... as part of our skeptical inquiry regarding “knowledge.” I don't feel or think I know what we “know” and what “knowledge” is or should be and sharing why.

One love

Note: I think this is done... I haven't engaged in such an endeavor since college, and never something where I have this much freedom (for various reasons). At the end of this one, I have a bit of an odd feeling that I can't really describe. To me, the overall concept is simple enough, even if finding the proper wording can be a bit precarious. So keep an eye out, my intuition says there may be a large edit or adjunct to this one.

Western philosophy and religion became ruled by the aristotelian logic where a can never be non-a. In Eastern thought, especially Taoism this is quite different. It is ruled by paradoxical logic, which stresses the complementary nature of opposites.

Instead of describing reality, there is a tendency in the western philosophical and religious thought to define it. This leads to lot of arguing in situations where opposing views could as well be seen as different aspects of the same reality.

Erich Fromm touches this subject in his book Psychoanalysis and Zen Buddhism.

I'm sure you saw the paradox post so I can't help but agree in many ways.

While I have an appreciation for Aristotle's philosophies (but not him as a person because he was a little too elitist for my liking), it is certainly not expansive enough for the totality of our existence. There's even difference in thought coming out of south America and Africa that is different from Western and Eastern philosophies.

One love

It probably seems obnoxious how often this thread (and many of my other posts) use the words “seem” and “appear,” and their variants. It's for a few reasons: first, it's how I am the most honest with myself; all I feel I have is how things appear to me. It allows me to keep any convictions I may have in check. Second it is for consistency of prose in many of my statements. Since I have acknowledged that I do not know, it seems necessary to pay careful attention to the tone I use and the emphasis I have, for that seems to have the ability to effect the receiver of information. Often, people seem to believe things partly as a result of the tone of conviction things are spoken or delivered in. For me to express too much apparent certainty would detract from what I actually mean. Third, to help avoid frivolous contradiction (because most paradoxes have already been permitted), because if I don't know, then saying anything (or maybe most things) in a tone of “knowing” would contradict the prior sort of axiom, by way of logic (an example of an abstract system employed even in skepticism, because one seems to need tools to explore, and skeptical “insights” can apparently be ingrained in its overall “nature” through it's mutability throughout other abstract systems).

This is also why I like conditionals. There's a lot I can say without saying that it's so . More often than not, a conditional statement can be identified by it's form. If it starts with “if” or if the statement is split by “if” then it is likely a conditional statement. If a statement has “if” and “then,” then it's even more likely to be a conditional statement. If x, then y, or y, if x, or if x, y. They are contingent upon variables of a situation, otherwise they're just hypothetical . The sentences providing a definition of “conditional statements” are conditional statements. Sometimes “when” can be used to make a conditional. The when may never happen (when pigs fly, hell will freeze over; pigs will probably never “fly” and we don't even know if hell is a real place, and even if it were, if it could “freeze over”), so can also be treated as hypothetical.

I don't seem to be sure if/when I've (or we've) really “gotten” what is. I operate on what seems to appear to be the most probable within this thing we call “reality.” But I “know” that I don't necessarily know (and being right doesn't solidify that something was known either, just that some prose was considered “right” about a particular context or situation; it could be that what was “right” was just guessed “right”).

Perception conundrum (or paradox, as re-titled by a friend I shared this idea with): If our perspective and perception (perspective being the function of the changing and fluctuating of vantage point of a subject, both physical and conceptual, and perception being the overall function and position from information derived from disparate, but connected, data inputs and internal functions) dictates our reality, then this coupling expresses the same (a dictating of reality) in attempts at objectivity. And if our perception dictates our reality, then how much of our perception is dictated by our perception, i.e. how much of our perception of reality being dictated by such is dictated by perception?

I feel similarly about the translation and interpretation of certain Buddhist and Hindu ideas about everything being “Maya,” an illusion. What does that say about the faculty and function of mind that led to such a conclusion?

Which leads me to the Buddhist saying, “Nothing is as it seems, nor is it otherwise.”

It seems things seem differently to different people from disparate sense and thought experience, often seemingly unchecked and assimilated by and to the mind.
It also appears that something seems to be missing here, but I don't seem to be sure what... and this is long overdue, imo, so here ya go.

One love

My humble apologies for the tardiness and neglect of this thread. Aside from being very busy, I have been finding it a little hard to work on. This is a really important project to me, and I really want to do it, but keep pushing up against mental blocks and feelings of pointlessness and nihilism. All the same, here's a preview of the next post. Hope you enjoy.




There are many ideas, concepts, definitions, formulations, descriptions and paradigms for “knowledge,” which in my mind makes the entire ideal that much more questionable .In this post, I would like to cover the common philosophical definition (which I feel most other definitions can be reduced to) and observed potential “shortcomings,” the prose in both its colloquial and technical uses, what it seems to imply and what's perceived as problematic in its colloquial and technical usage.

In later posts, we'll be able to see how despite our definitions and descriptions, it still seems to leave something to be desired.

It seems appropriate to begin with a discussion on defining knowledge. Sometimes abstractions are difficult to define. We want to define it so we can put into words what we feel we know it is. Should we not already know something then? That is, would this imply that we know how to know (perhaps unbeknownst to us) before defining and knowing what knowing and knowledge is?

We've observed how the first steps towards what we call “knowledge” seem to begin with faith and not something more “solid.”

Within the study of philosophy, most discussions around the definition of knowledge revolve around Plato's very concise definition: a true, justified belief. Not only is one required to believe a proposition, but also to have a “justified” reason and rationale for why they believe it, and the proposition must be “true.” At first glance, it may seem sufficient, but upon further investigation we can see that while the best that perhaps Plato (and maybe anyone else) may have been able to come up with, there are some aspects that seem arbitrary or left to scrutiny based on its own merit. Colloquially, we've probably all noticed when people say they know something where there does not seem to be ample reason to. Furthermore, we also encounter in matters that are completely open-ended with respect to matters that can't be “proven” one way or another, at least not in accordance with some already established rigorous system for gathering information and “proving” claims. In these instances, one may simply be reflecting their conviction. But then, considering the above definition for knowledge being holding knowledge of something to also be a conviction; a strong belief and/or sense of certainty. For a conviction to be knowledge, the above requirements seem necessary. Otherwise, in a world that seems to have many consistent aspects, without a boundary and delimiting of some kind, anytime anyone said they “know” would be taken with much less weight that as is experienced now.

Let's revisit the Problem of the Criterion using Plato's definition. Simply, we have a circle, and at one end there is “how one knows” and the other “one just knows,” and there are arrows flowing clockwise from one end to the other. In defining knowledge, we seem to need to break our own rules for what makes something known. In a “true, justified belief” we, at some point, have to just start without what for most things would be a “justified” reason; “one just knows.” The rule is being broken at the start (and pretty much only at the start, which makes it a intriguing paradoxical situation) because it defies “how one knows” which would be the justification or reason for knowing. But as we've seen earlier, it seems problematic to describe how one knows without already knowing something.

So what happens when one has belief that they are “justified” (I find this to appear very subjective and arbitrary) in having but isn't true? This is a simple rendition of the Gettier Problem.

[Note: I won't be covering all definitions, as some I find to be too “loose,” “broad,” or simply not applicable to what we're trying to address, which is why I happen to question the ideas of knowing and knowledge, i.e. my skeptical philosophy. Also, most definitions can be reduced to a “true justified belief, in my view and opinion.] [Note: I would like to take a minute to talk about a specific perspective with regard to language and how words gain their definitions. There is prescriptive and descriptive usage. A word with a prescriptive use is defined by means of “titling” where there is clear delineation of what the word means, such as when someone in a specific field has a new idea to talk about and needs a word to represent it. In descriptive use, words are labeled with definitions predicated on how people in [i]general[i] use the word. With the broader topics of prescriptive linguistics and descriptive linguistics, prescriptive linguistics is the set of technical rules that dictate how a language operates, while descriptive linguistics is the study and attribution of rules based on how all people of language-use-group utilize the language.]