knowing the knowledge

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

zinnat13
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: India

knowing the knowledge

Post by zinnat13 » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:16 pm

HI friends,

I read this in the recent post of BB and found it interesting.

SAID HUNTER S THOMPSON, "YOU HAVE TO GET YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF LIFE FROM SOMEWHERE. YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE MATERIAL YOU'RE WRITING ABOUT BEFORE YOU ALTER IT."

Is he right about his perception of knowledge?

With love,
Sanjay

..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by ..nameless.. » Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:28 am

The new, critically updated, all inclusive, final definition of 'Knowledge';
"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived'!"
All inclusive!

That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is 'knowledge'.
All we can 'know' is what we perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!!

Existence = the complete Universe = Reality = Consciousness = Truth = 'Self!' = God = Brahman = Tao = ... etc....
ALL INCLUSIVE!!
'One'!

Everything Exists!
Everything is Real!
Everything is True!
Existence/Reality/Truth is all inclusive!
'One'!
That which is perceived exists!
That which exists is perceived!
Not a thing exists (notice that I didn't say that 'nothing' exists, 'cause it don't! *__- ) that is not perceived!
Not a thing is perceived that does not exist!
(There is no, nor can there be, any evidence to the contrary!)
All inclusive!!!

Everything is 'knowledge'.

Every Perspective is unique every moment!

The First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"

There is no 'one-size-fits-all 'knowledge'. Everyone's perceptions are unique; some just a bit, others very much so.

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

tat tvam asi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi)

Everyone's perceptions/knowledge are inherently real features of Reality!
ALL INCLUSIVE!

Two people observe an elephant.
One can only perceive the trunk; "An elephant is like a snake!"
This is 'knowledge' to/for him.
The other can only perceive the leg; "An elephant is like a tree trunk!"
This is 'knowledge' to/for him.

One thing that they can do is to argue who is correct, as they both, obviously, cannot be correct. There might even be one who out-argues the other, even gets the other to discredit his own knowledge.
In this scenario, one doesn't learn anything, and the other 'loses' what he knew, replacing it with the same truncated understanding the other has.
Either way it is a lose/lose scenario.

Another more philosophically sound scenario is if they both attempted to understand the other's Perspective, the other's 'knowledge'; to understand the context where they are 'correct', and incorporate it into your own understanding.
Then you both would have a more complete understanding of 'elephant'.
Win/win!

All unique (Perspectives/perceptions) 'knowledge' is perceived by 'one' Consciousness.
All at once!

zinnat13
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: India

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by zinnat13 » Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:57 pm

Hi nameless,

You gave a very broad or rather i should say that a metaphysical explanation of the term 'knowledge', but, i am pointing towards a limited reference, which was there in the quote.

Actually, the quote was restricted to the phenomenon of 'writing' instead of 'knowledge'.

So, the point of discussion is the perception of the quote, not the 'knowledge', in its totality.

The most important word to look in the quote is 'alter'.

The question i am asking is that; whether the use of word 'alter' is proper or justified for writing in general?

with love,
sanjay

keithprosser2
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:46 pm

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by keithprosser2 » Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:52 pm

The gist of the quote is clear enough, even if the word 'alter' was not a perfect choice.
Reading the wiki entry on HST, his style was to blur the distinction between reality and imagination, so what he wrote was "Reality, but altered", presumably altered to suit his purpose. He could have used 'adjusted' or even 'distorted' without changing the meaning of the quote.

It is a separate question of whether all (fictional) writing is (or should be) 'adjusted reality'. Perhaps it's not even just fiction - perhaps history and biography is also 'adjusted reality'. On a practical level, I think it is a good idea not to write about something that you know absolutely nothing about! I would make a pigs ear of a novel set in India, for example. But if I wrote a novel about an expat Brit in Uganda could well be the reality of my life - but altered to miss out the boring bits... what else could or should it be?

zinnat13
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: India

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by zinnat13 » Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:04 pm

Hi kp2,

you said-

The gist of the quote is clear enough, even if the word 'alter' was not a perfect choice.


Agreed. I also would like to disagree with the HST.
I do not think that his perception of the writing is correct.

But, having said this, his words compel us to examine the writing in broader sense.

Let us leave fiction out of the discussion as it is totally imagination and nothing to do with the reality.

What if we apply this notion to the other streams of writing?

And what about the philosophy and philosophical books, in this reference?

with love,
sanjay

keithprosser2
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:46 pm

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by keithprosser2 » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:07 pm

I think the cases of fiction and non-fiction are clearly different. I think it goes without saying that if you are writing non-fiction then you should not 'alter reality' - otherwise you are writing the worst sort of propaganda. I can't think of any defence for altering reality if what you are writing - or claim to be writing - is non-fiction.

But - as I indicated earlier - good fiction is very likely to be 'altered reality'. Many classic novels are thinly disguised biographies. Science fiction is another genre which works best when reality (in the sense of scientific law) is subtly altered rather than completely ignored. But writing a sci-fi space opera is very different thing from writing a science text book, so the mis-representation of reality allowed (even demanded) in the former is totally out of place in the latter.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:15 pm

..nameless.. wrote:<snip>

Everything Exists!
Everything is Real!
Everything is True!
Existence/Reality/Truth is all inclusive!
'One'!

<snip>
"..nameless.. deserves to DIE!"
"To Kill ..nameless.. is TRUTH!"
"Thus someone, please kill ..nameless.."

So ..nameless.. can you now see that your argument falls short of truth?

Because I say that it is not true that ..nameless.. deserves to die.

I say that it is true, that the only life, over which, one has 100% dominion, is one's own. Such that all humans that have ever killed for any other reason, than self defense, were in fact untrue, false, not of the one, at least their resolve. They were in fact Psychotic. Is that a part of the one. I am not asking if their existence is, I know that's true. I'm asking if their psychotic resolve is part of the one truth?

If I strategically placed enough hydrogen bombs around the entire earth to utterly destroy everything on it's surface, would I be part of the one? Would that be aligned with truth? At least a part of the one would then cease to exist. How could it possibly be true that I would be aligned with the one truth, in making such a decision? The one truth which is
"HUGE" caused life to exist. How can it be possible that this one insignificant being has a right to end all that, and be in keeping with the one?

Your assertion is a FALSEHOOD! It is an UNTRUTH!

It would 'seem' that what you claim 'know' is merely a delusion.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:21 pm

zinnat13 wrote:HI friends,

I read this in the recent post of BB and found it interesting.

SAID HUNTER S THOMPSON, "YOU HAVE TO GET YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF LIFE FROM SOMEWHERE. YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE MATERIAL YOU'RE WRITING ABOUT BEFORE YOU ALTER IT."

Is he right about his perception of knowledge?

With love,
Sanjay
Well I would say that he was incorrect and that he should have said that "YOU HAVE TO GET YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF LIFE FROM" 'EVERYWHERE.' Because that's the only chance you have of ensuring that it is truly knowledge.

..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by ..nameless.. » Sun Jan 01, 2012 3:40 am

zinnat13 wrote:Hi nameless,

You gave a very broad or rather i should say that a metaphysical explanation of the term 'knowledge', but, i am pointing towards a limited reference, which was there in the quote.

Actually, the quote was restricted to the phenomenon of 'writing' instead of 'knowledge'.

So, the point of discussion is the perception of the quote, not the 'knowledge', in its totality.

The most important word to look in the quote is 'alter'.

The question i am asking is that; whether the use of word 'alter' is proper or justified for writing in general?

with love,
sanjay
'Knowledge' cannot be 'altered'.
No moment of existence can be 'altered.
Every moment of existence is a moment of unique ('Self!'!) Knowledge.
'Knowledge' is an immediateunique perception of a feature of Reality. No 'alteration' of any moment of existence is possible. Never has been, never will be.

It is always a positive thing in a conversation when the terms are clearly identified. Finally, the definition of 'knowledge' is clear and all inclusive.
Even if he understood what 'knowledge' is, he was still incorrect, philosophically and scientifically, in his assumption that it (or anything) can be 'altered'.
I do know what he is trying to say, but he is just dancing around the fire without getting into the 'heat'.
His statement does not withstand philosophical examination.

What vanity to think that one can alter Reality.
Reality is all inclusive!
Even of folks that think that they can or are 'altering' it!
A figure of Perspective.
peace

zinnat13
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: India

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by zinnat13 » Sun Jan 01, 2012 1:59 pm

Hi nameless,

You said- His statement does not withstand philosophical examination.

May be.

But, are you sure of that?

with love,
sanjay

..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by ..nameless.. » Sun Jan 01, 2012 3:18 pm

zinnat13 wrote:Hi nameless,

You said- His statement does not withstand philosophical examination.

May be.

But, are you sure of that?

with love,
sanjay
I'm not 'sure' of anything, but the probabilities are quite high. *__-
zinnat13 wrote: Is he right about his perception of knowledge?
It was this part of the OP in which I found the question and this to which I spoke.
Last edited by ..nameless.. on Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dimebag
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by Dimebag » Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:40 am

..nameless.. wrote:
zinnat13 wrote:Hi nameless,

You gave a very broad or rather i should say that a metaphysical explanation of the term 'knowledge', but, i am pointing towards a limited reference, which was there in the quote.

Actually, the quote was restricted to the phenomenon of 'writing' instead of 'knowledge'.

So, the point of discussion is the perception of the quote, not the 'knowledge', in its totality.

The most important word to look in the quote is 'alter'.

The question i am asking is that; whether the use of word 'alter' is proper or justified for writing in general?

with love,
sanjay
'Knowledge' cannot be 'altered'.
No moment of existence can be 'altered.
Every moment of existence is a moment of unique ('Self!'!) Knowledge.
'Knowledge' is an immediateunique perception of a feature of Reality. No 'alteration' of any moment of existence is possible. Never has been, never will be.

It is always a positive thing in a conversation when the terms are clearly identified. Finally, the definition of 'knowledge' is clear and all inclusive.
Even if he understood what 'knowledge' is, he was still incorrect, philosophically and scientifically, in his assumption that it (or anything) can be 'altered'.
I do know what he is trying to say, but he is just dancing around the fire without getting into the 'heat'.
His statement does not withstand philosophical examination.

What vanity to think that one can alter Reality.
Reality is all inclusive!
Even of folks that think that they can or are 'altering' it!
A figure of Perspective.
peace
Hi nameless,

It may be the case that the instant something is experienced it can't be altered, however one monent after that, it can be. Due to our mind being severely limited in its ability to hold anything in short term memory for longer than a second or two, we suffer from a tendency to remember things incorrectly. Sometimes we might recall something we thought we saw a second ago which was actually not present, and rather is a result of some kind of unconscious priming of a previous occurrence. Other times, we might not even perceive the thing instantly and instead we have a form of destructive interferrence to that very memory, causing us to only experience the altered version.

So experience actually is constantly being altered every second, like a constant retelling of reality as we access memories and rewrite them as we access them. This is why eye witness testimony is taken with a grain of salt in the judicial system. We might think we saw a criminal with a red sweater but actually we are recalling an earlier memory of aunt Jenny in her red sweater. The mind is totally fallible.

..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by ..nameless.. » Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:26 am

Dimebag wrote:
Hi nameless,

It may be the case that the instant something is experienced it can't be altered, however one monent after that, it can be.

Nope! This IS the "moment after that"!
All moments of existence exist Now!
All moments already are as they are!
Just like now! And Now! And Now!
What is, is, Now!

Every moment of existence exists Now!

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Now!!

There is only one moment (Planck moment; 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!

There is no 'before' or 'after' except as linear thoughts, memories... all Now!
Due to our mind being severely limited in its ability to hold anything in short term memory for longer than a second or two, we suffer from a tendency to remember things incorrectly.

Memories are thou7ghts. Thoughts exist and are perceived like anything else, Now!
We do not 'store' thoughts, we do not create thoughts, we perceive them, from every possible Perspective!
Sometimes we might recall something we thought we saw a second ago which was actually not present, and rather is a result of some kind of unconscious priming of a previous occurrence.

No such thing as 'unConsciousness'!
"Consciousness is the ground of ALL being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics
Neither can there be a 'previous occurrence' in a synchronous Universe! Other than as 'memory' which is not necessarily 'attached' to any other occurrence. A memory is a thought, nothing more.
Thoughts exist, we perceive them Now!
Hamburgers exist, they are perceived Now! Dreams exist, we perceive them Now!
Other times, we might not even perceive the thing instantly and instead we have a form of destructive interferrence to that very memory, causing us to only experience the altered version.
All perceptions are instantaneous!
A unit of perception = one (Planck) moment!
A 'moment' is a-temporal!
So experience actually is constantly being altered every second,
MNope, it is being uniquely perceived every moment!
If you think that you can alter Reality, just unhit your thumb with that hammer!
Make all those little vexations disappear... It sounds like you are talking of the (non)law of attraction/wishes! If it were scientifically or philosophically valid, we would all be healthy, wealthy and wise!
We ain't.
We perceive as we must. We 'behave' as we must!
The entire Universe isn't going to be altered to suit your comfort level. Think Butterfly Effect!
like a constant retelling of reality as we access memories and rewrite them as we access them.
That is a 'linearification' of that which is, other than as 'thought', non-linear!
Reality is a synchrony of moments! Now!
We all perceive the same One Reality, Now!
All Perspectives are unique, Consciousness is One.
This is why eye witness testimony is taken with a grain of salt in the judicial system.

Again, Perspective! All Perspectives are True features of Truth/Reality!!
We might think we saw a criminal with a red sweater but actually we are recalling an earlier memory of aunt Jenny in her red sweater. The mind is totally fallible.
That sort of obsolete 'cause and effect' 'therapy has failed because there is no Universal 'causality', it only exists in the 'linear thoughts'.
"'Cause and effect' is a clumsy way of saying two mutually arising features of the same event!"

It really is simple.
There is no need to offend Occam any further.
The 'complete set', Universal, all inclusive, consists of all the 'exclusive' subsets!

Every Perspective is unique, by definition/nature.

The First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - Book of Fudd

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

Dimebag
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by Dimebag » Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:01 pm

..nameless.. wrote:
Dimebag wrote:
Hi nameless,

It may be the case that the instant something is experienced it can't be altered, however one monent after that, it can be.

Nope! This IS the "moment after that"!
All moments of existence exist Now!
All moments already are as they are!
Just like now! And Now! And Now!
What is, is, Now!

Every moment of existence exists Now!

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Now!!

There is only one moment (Planck moment; 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!

There is no 'before' or 'after' except as linear thoughts, memories... all Now!
Due to our mind being severely limited in its ability to hold anything in short term memory for longer than a second or two, we suffer from a tendency to remember things incorrectly.

Memories are thou7ghts. Thoughts exist and are perceived like anything else, Now!
We do not 'store' thoughts, we do not create thoughts, we perceive them, from every possible Perspective!
Sometimes we might recall something we thought we saw a second ago which was actually not present, and rather is a result of some kind of unconscious priming of a previous occurrence.

No such thing as 'unConsciousness'!
"Consciousness is the ground of ALL being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics
Neither can there be a 'previous occurrence' in a synchronous Universe! Other than as 'memory' which is not necessarily 'attached' to any other occurrence. A memory is a thought, nothing more.
Thoughts exist, we perceive them Now!
Hamburgers exist, they are perceived Now! Dreams exist, we perceive them Now!
Other times, we might not even perceive the thing instantly and instead we have a form of destructive interferrence to that very memory, causing us to only experience the altered version.
All perceptions are instantaneous!
A unit of perception = one (Planck) moment!
A 'moment' is a-temporal!
So experience actually is constantly being altered every second,
MNope, it is being uniquely perceived every moment!
If you think that you can alter Reality, just unhit your thumb with that hammer!
Make all those little vexations disappear... It sounds like you are talking of the (non)law of attraction/wishes! If it were scientifically or philosophically valid, we would all be healthy, wealthy and wise!
We ain't.
We perceive as we must. We 'behave' as we must!
The entire Universe isn't going to be altered to suit your comfort level. Think Butterfly Effect!
like a constant retelling of reality as we access memories and rewrite them as we access them.
That is a 'linearification' of that which is, other than as 'thought', non-linear!
Reality is a synchrony of moments! Now!
We all perceive the same One Reality, Now!
All Perspectives are unique, Consciousness is One.
This is why eye witness testimony is taken with a grain of salt in the judicial system.

Again, Perspective! All Perspectives are True features of Truth/Reality!!
We might think we saw a criminal with a red sweater but actually we are recalling an earlier memory of aunt Jenny in her red sweater. The mind is totally fallible.
That sort of obsolete 'cause and effect' 'therapy has failed because there is no Universal 'causality', it only exists in the 'linear thoughts'.
"'Cause and effect' is a clumsy way of saying two mutually arising features of the same event!"

It really is simple.
There is no need to offend Occam any further.
The 'complete set', Universal, all inclusive, consists of all the 'exclusive' subsets!

Every Perspective is unique, by definition/nature.

The First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - Book of Fudd

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!
Obviously the multiple drafts model means nothing to you.

..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: knowing the knowledge

Post by ..nameless.. » Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:22 am

Dimebag wrote:Obviously the multiple drafts model means nothing to you.
If there is something that you care to present in refutation of something I say, please, feel free. But this is unworthy.
There are many 'models' that are crap! Much obsolete garbage all over the place.
Any 'model' of which you care to get my perspective, just let me know.
But I'm disinclined to investing all this time and energy thoughtfully and respectfully responding to your questions, when without even acknowledging any points that I offer, one way or another, you just move right along...

I am unfamiliar with the theory that you blythely mention, and I'm not going to look it up. If it somehow refutes something I offer, I would have heard of it a long time ago, or, please, show me!
I'm always open...
The philosopher, the scientist, the artist, always lives in the arena of critical examination!

What I am offering (the Perspective) is worth at least a serious effort to understand it (that is what happens in a philosophical discussion), and then, when you do, if you still have questions, we go from there.
Theories can always be altered or dumped. The third option is tentative acceptance, even accepted axiomatically.

What I offer is the often disputed, as yet unrefuted, all inclusive, 'theory of everything'.
Such big talk just begs for refutation, no?
If/when it comes, it will be wonderful to watch me publically crash and burn (but i rebuild even better)! But 'till then...
First understand, then refute (if possible).
peace

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest