Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Ha ha! :)
That's a huge and deep question.
The name arises almost as soon as the senses recognise something. For most it's an automatic process, an almost unconscious constant process of identifying or labelling what we experience. Generally, that first word or label gives rise to a string of associated thoughts from our experiences with that phenomenon, thing, issue, ideam matter, plant, animal or person.
Some regard beliefs and "knowledge", however I would assert that belief requires a choice to have faith in something that is unprovable.
We often tend to think of knowledge as collections of facts. But that's a limited and limiting view.
Spiritual or esoteric knowledge, that which comes from deep commitment to meditation
(or can spontaneously arise from deep absorption or focus),
is impossible to communicate through language.
Enlightenment can only be discovered via subjective consciousness -- awareness that examines its processes and itself.
It arrives (after much practise) at a paradox:
that oneness and duality (or plurality) simultaneously co-exist; each with[i]in[/i] the other - no separation.
Such paradox, when experienced, is accepted as reality.
t's subjective and seems like nonsense to those who've never experienced a glimpse of it -- like koans.
It is untainted by language, concepts or logic, like the awareness of a pre-verbal infant.
It is considered a form of knowledge in some cultures, and among those who experience it.
Knowledge can have countless forms. The first and most tangible comes from direct experience; the deeper the experience, the greater the knowledge is likely to be. It can include physical or athletic skills; practical skills; research, comparative, analytical, critical and intellectual skills; social and emotional intelligence, creativity, and so on.
But what happens to one person subjectively doesn't necessarily happen for all or even most. So personal knowledge may lack a wider objectivity - unless it also embraces learning from others and experts, and as much research as possible. There is no field of knowledge that can't benefit from further investigation - no knowledge can ever be complete.
I'm sure others could contribute much to this thread - especially anyone who loves epistimology and ontology.
That's a huge and deep question.
The name arises almost as soon as the senses recognise something. For most it's an automatic process, an almost unconscious constant process of identifying or labelling what we experience. Generally, that first word or label gives rise to a string of associated thoughts from our experiences with that phenomenon, thing, issue, ideam matter, plant, animal or person.
Some regard beliefs and "knowledge", however I would assert that belief requires a choice to have faith in something that is unprovable.
We often tend to think of knowledge as collections of facts. But that's a limited and limiting view.
Spiritual or esoteric knowledge, that which comes from deep commitment to meditation
(or can spontaneously arise from deep absorption or focus),
is impossible to communicate through language.
Enlightenment can only be discovered via subjective consciousness -- awareness that examines its processes and itself.
It arrives (after much practise) at a paradox:
that oneness and duality (or plurality) simultaneously co-exist; each with[i]in[/i] the other - no separation.
Such paradox, when experienced, is accepted as reality.
t's subjective and seems like nonsense to those who've never experienced a glimpse of it -- like koans.
It is untainted by language, concepts or logic, like the awareness of a pre-verbal infant.
It is considered a form of knowledge in some cultures, and among those who experience it.
Knowledge can have countless forms. The first and most tangible comes from direct experience; the deeper the experience, the greater the knowledge is likely to be. It can include physical or athletic skills; practical skills; research, comparative, analytical, critical and intellectual skills; social and emotional intelligence, creativity, and so on.
But what happens to one person subjectively doesn't necessarily happen for all or even most. So personal knowledge may lack a wider objectivity - unless it also embraces learning from others and experts, and as much research as possible. There is no field of knowledge that can't benefit from further investigation - no knowledge can ever be complete.
I'm sure others could contribute much to this thread - especially anyone who loves epistimology and ontology.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
There are various approaches about.
IMO one of them is that names are a knowledge category (epistemic) while kowledge of something is about what is what it is even if not known (about the thing in itself).
IMO one of them is that names are a knowledge category (epistemic) while kowledge of something is about what is what it is even if not known (about the thing in itself).