The Primordial Genesis of Epistemology

[RyanDeBENNETT]

The Primordial Genesis of Epistemology

A mind warmup, an experiment then a question will take you closer to the origin of epistemology; and shed nuanced light on the questions, what is human? What is life?


Note for this article: alternate terms for knowing are thinking, pondering, cogitation, mentation, contemplation, learning, transcendence, philosophy


Prelude
Where does mind start and end? To all offspring of Realism, please do not ‘confines of brain’ me...
I need to know (have Knowledge of) as this incorporates Person/Self/’the I’; this is the first axiom or perhaps ‘Super Axiom’ if you will. This is the first hard problem of Philosophy that I have termed The mind/Mind Problem (caps intended). Verily, that which unequivocally precedes the Mind/Body problem...Today, the conceited specious erroneous Knowledge of Mind (caps intended) Super Axiom denominates today's orthodox Reality...

“preceding I think therefore I am, one must “think in an I” ” – somanywhys.com

Knowing is a divine essence of human, is divine per se. Knowledge of knowing evades all humanity hitherto. The offspring of a solved mind/Mind Problem (Mind-ists if you will) will decree and barrak otherwise, a belief choice which embodies case in point...read on. With Knowledge of the mind/Mind Problem, one divinely acknowledges that all Knowledge is predicated on belief. One then acknowledges the true-er essence of human is knowing and Knowledge is and should rightfully be its product, it’s servant.




Thought Experiment
Let me take you for a chronological walk of reason. Is it reasonably safe in stating:

Knowing is completely unequivocally divine. Knowledge is a product of knowing, the effect of knowing. Knowledge is an objective moment of the subject knowing. Knowledge is the cessation of knowing or Knowledge is static knowing or discrete all-knowing (omniscience). When one is ‘pro’ Knowledge or posits Knowledge, one professes a ‘position’, makes a ‘point’; one is a Knowledge professor... These terms etymologically are all implications of discretisation/objectification of the indiscrete/subject knowing.

Knowledge, is dead knowing…


At this point, think about what view best represents you?
A:
I reject your proposition. I know what knowing is, that is, i have Knowledge of knowing.

B:
Yes Knowledge is the cessation of knowing. Knowledge is and can only exists in a moment of dead knowing


If you chose,
A:
You believe Knowledge, pointedly yours or contemporary Knowledge is absolute. You or your peers are thus the primordial creator of all proceeding Knowledge. You and your Knowledge are the providence, the dispensator, the pontificate. As the creator, you are the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent demiurge and thus can always determine/validate absolutely. All Knowledge through your lens of Knowledge is deterministic. You embody the very definition of self-validation and yes indeed, you will validate a reality, a consciousness, the question ‘what is human’ with your own Knowledge and; inevitably feel a sense of truth, self worth, righteousness. In this choice, Knowledge, pointedly your Knowledge, is annointed over knowing and you will exist in a Knowledge penitentiary of your own Knowledge doctrine. You will more-than-likely self-profess omniscience by labelling products with the prefix “Smart”; a metric for self-omniscience (dead knowing) decree and anointment...You venerate/believe in Knowledge over knowing.

B:
You believe knowing agents Knowledge and Knowledge is and-only-is a cessation of knowing. You believe Knowledge can be useful though not venerated or to be identified with. Via knowing, you can contemplate Knowledge, juxtapose Knowledge to build its worth or collapse it’s fallacy. You see all Knowledge radicals in Knowledge, Knowledge axioms that are predicated on belief. You acknowledge that Knowledge is all predicated on belief. Further, you acknowledge the first hard problem of Philosophy, a solved mind/Mind Problem (Mind) and you acknowledge its dendritic proceeds, its children, as today's orthodox Knowledge. You venerate/believe in knowing over Knowledge and your knowing on Knowledge conjures more knowing triumph and veneration over Knowledge.


Discussion
The quintessential question to ‘what is human’ is embodied in the question do you anoint knowing or Knowledge? The point you choose Knowledge, knowing is triumphed, you become the net creator, and you will build identity with Knowledge and perpetually gain in essence of Knowledge thereof; that is ego or I-ism. Your doctrine of Knowledge is validated by your doctrine of Knowledge etc...a penitentiary of Knowledge. No disdain intended, this is the essence of animal and is what sustains essence in/of animal. What keeps a Realist an offspring of Realism is not-knowing on a solved mind/Mind Problem. What keeps a Lion a Lion is not-knowing on wrath/pride. What keeps a person subjugated by lust is a person not-knowing on lust and so forth. Knowing is transcendence...

"when a Knowledge doctrine is anointed with the title of truth, Knowledge has triumphed knowing; knowing is dead" - somanywhys.com

This epochs 2500 year Knowledge doctrine is Realism and truth is thus named in its honour, 'Real'...


Conclusion
The Primordial Genesis of Epistemology, the true-er essence of human is to absolutely flee essence to which is ‘being of Knowledge’, via knowing. Knowing veneration keeps identification by/of Knowledge at bay.

Almost all eastern/western religious and philosophical esoteric motifs come back to the idea of the divine choice of Knowledge or knowing. Are you the creator, the omniscient (the all-knowing) or will you forever become to omniscience (knowing)? Dead knowing (Knowledge) on the mind/Mind Problem has created a 2500 year epoch denominated in and of Mind (a solved mind/Mind Problem) termed Realism. This is no-more-or-less a triumph of Mind veneration over mind veneration, a belief that has spawned Knowledge (dead knowing) which forms a penitentiary to all it’s believers. So-much-so the current orthodox reality (or penitentiary) is self titled ‘Reality’ after its belief doctrine Realism. It is hard to argue how Knowledge (dead knowing) veneration conjures a truer truth….

Knowing encourages cooperation and discourages hierarchical sectarianism or pro-portion-ism via incorporation (Knowledge). What is human is knowing, that is to fleet essence, dissolve difference borders and remain steadfast on the path of omniscience. It is a safe net good truth to say knowing is the essence of human and is the essential grand virtue of good.


Ryan
somanywhys.com
(audio available here https://somanywhys.com/2020/04/22/the-p ... stemology/)

[Impenitent]

welcome to the boards

interesting thesis...

is a non-verbal child with autism not human?

-Imp

[RyanDeBENNETT]

This article is not a judge nor is its purpose to bestow judgement. It is a hope and a purpose of the article/author that, should it triumph as good truth, it agents quite the opposite.

From an infinite potential of questions, you have elected this one. You may acquire more value out of asking yourself if your question is a/your foregone conclusion.

[Age]

The Primordial Genesis of Epistemology

A mind warmup, an experiment then a question will take you closer to the origin of epistemology; and shed nuanced light on the questions, what is human? What is life?


Note for this article: alternate terms for knowing are thinking, pondering, cogitation, mentation, contemplation, learning, transcendence, philosophy


Prelude
Where does mind start and end? To all offspring of Realism, please do not ‘confines of brain’ me...
I need to know (have Knowledge of) as this incorporates Person/Self/’the I’; this is the first axiom or perhaps ‘Super Axiom’ if you will. This is the first hard problem of Philosophy that I have termed The mind/Mind Problem (caps intended). Verily, that which unequivocally precedes the Mind/Body problem...Today, the conceited specious erroneous Knowledge of Mind (caps intended) Super Axiom denominates today's orthodox Reality...

“preceding I think therefore I am, one must “think in an I” ” – somanywhys.com

Knowing is a divine essence of human, is divine per se. Knowledge of knowing evades all humanity hitherto. The offspring of a solved mind/Mind Problem (Mind-ists if you will) will decree and barrak otherwise, a belief choice which embodies case in point...read on. With Knowledge of the mind/Mind Problem, one divinely acknowledges that all Knowledge is predicated on belief. One then acknowledges the true-er essence of human is knowing and Knowledge is and should rightfully be its product, it’s servant.

To me, 'knowing', and, 'thinking' are two very different things.

One of them implies knowing for sure what is true or false and right or wrong, whereas, the other only thinks it knows what is true or false and right or wrong. I will let you imagine and work out which one relates to which one.

If you can not work it out, and you are interested, then just let me know.

Thought Experiment
Let me take you for a chronological walk of reason. Is it reasonably safe in stating:

Knowing is completely unequivocally divine. Knowledge is a product of knowing, the effect of knowing. Knowledge is an objective moment of the subject knowing. Knowledge is the cessation of knowing or Knowledge is static knowing or discrete all-knowing (omniscience). When one is ‘pro’ Knowledge or posits Knowledge, one professes a ‘position’, makes a ‘point’; one is a Knowledge professor... These terms etymologically are all implications of discretisation/objectification of the indiscrete/subject knowing.

Knowledge, is dead knowing…

The knowledge once held by most of that species known as the human species was that the sun revolves around the earth. I would not call this type of knowledge "divine" at all. There are countless other examples of this type of so called "knowledge" as well.

At this point, think about what view best represents you?
A:
I reject your proposition. I know what knowing is, that is, i have Knowledge of knowing.

B:
Yes Knowledge is the cessation of knowing. Knowledge is and can only exists in a moment of dead knowing


If you chose,
A:
You believe Knowledge, pointedly yours or contemporary Knowledge is absolute. You or your peers are thus the primordial creator of all proceeding Knowledge. You and your Knowledge are the providence, the dispensator, the pontificate. As the creator, you are the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent demiurge and thus can always determine/validate absolutely. All Knowledge through your lens of Knowledge is deterministic. You embody the very definition of self-validation and yes indeed, you will validate a reality, a consciousness, the question ‘what is human’ with your own Knowledge and; inevitably feel a sense of truth, self worth, righteousness. In this choice, Knowledge, pointedly your Knowledge, is annointed over knowing and you will exist in a Knowledge penitentiary of your own Knowledge doctrine. You will more-than-likely self-profess omniscience by labelling products with the prefix “Smart”; a metric for self-omniscience (dead knowing) decree and anointment...You venerate/believe in Knowledge over knowing.

B:
You believe knowing agents Knowledge and Knowledge is and-only-is a cessation of knowing. You believe Knowledge can be useful though not venerated or to be identified with. Via knowing, you can contemplate Knowledge, juxtapose Knowledge to build its worth or collapse it’s fallacy. You see all Knowledge radicals in Knowledge, Knowledge axioms that are predicated on belief. You acknowledge that Knowledge is all predicated on belief. Further, you acknowledge the first hard problem of Philosophy, a solved mind/Mind Problem (Mind) and you acknowledge its dendritic proceeds, its children, as today's orthodox Knowledge. You venerate/believe in knowing over Knowledge and your knowing on Knowledge conjures more knowing triumph and veneration over Knowledge.

I do not choose either.

Discussion
The quintessential question to ‘what is human’ is embodied in the question do you anoint knowing or Knowledge? The point you choose Knowledge, knowing is triumphed, you become the net creator, and you will build identity with Knowledge and perpetually gain in essence of Knowledge thereof; that is ego or I-ism. Your doctrine of Knowledge is validated by your doctrine of Knowledge etc...a penitentiary of Knowledge. No disdain intended, this is the essence of animal and is what sustains essence in/of animal. What keeps a Realist an offspring of Realism is not-knowing on a solved mind/Mind Problem. What keeps a Lion a Lion is not-knowing on wrath/pride. What keeps a person subjugated by lust is a person not-knowing on lust and so forth. Knowing is transcendence...

To me there is no 'problem' here at all.

"when a Knowledge doctrine is anointed with the title of truth, Knowledge has triumphed knowing; knowing is dead" - somanywhys.com

This epochs 2500 year Knowledge doctrine is Realism and truth is thus named in its honour, 'Real'...


Conclusion
The Primordial Genesis of Epistemology, the true-er essence of human is to absolutely flee essence to which is ‘being of Knowledge’, via knowing. Knowing veneration keeps identification by/of Knowledge at bay.

Almost all eastern/western religious and philosophical esoteric motifs come back to the idea of the divine choice of Knowledge or knowing. Are you the creator, the omniscient (the all-knowing) or will you forever become to omniscience (knowing)? Dead knowing (Knowledge) on the mind/Mind Problem has created a 2500 year epoch denominated in and of Mind (a solved mind/Mind Problem) termed Realism. This is no-more-or-less a triumph of Mind veneration over mind veneration, a belief that has spawned Knowledge (dead knowing) which forms a penitentiary to all it’s believers. So-much-so the current orthodox reality (or penitentiary) is self titled ‘Reality’ after its belief doctrine Realism. It is hard to argue how Knowledge (dead knowing) veneration conjures a truer truth….

Knowing encourages cooperation and discourages hierarchical sectarianism or pro-portion-ism via incorporation (Knowledge). What is human is knowing, that is to fleet essence, dissolve difference borders and remain steadfast on the path of omniscience. It is a safe net good truth to say knowing is the essence of human and is the essential grand virtue of good.


Ryan
somanywhys.com
(audio available here https://somanywhys.com/2020/04/22/the-p ... stemology/)

There are way to many words that you use that to ask for clarification of the definitions of them, in the way you use them, would just take up to much time.

So, I will just stick with the basics;
What is 'mind' to you?
What is 'Mind' to you?
What is 'human' to you?

To me;

The essence of being a 'human being' is in having the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing. No other animal even comes anywhere close to having this human only ability.

There is only one Mind, and this Mind is always fully OPEN.

[Skepdick]

I was agreeing with the prelude, but then it went off the rails...

"Knowing is completely unequivocally divine. Knowledge is a product of knowing, the effect of knowing"

No. Knowledge is the product/effect of learning.

What is learning?
What is mind?

The best answers we have to these questions are in the form of scientific models.

1. What is a "mind"? It's a Turing machine - a language recogniser.
2. What is learning? We have Machine learning algorithms that cover this.

Naturally, all models are reductionist in nature, but that's science for you.

What is human? All the things I encounter in the world which are sufficiently like me. We tend to be somewhat of meatbag chauvinists though, so even though something may pass our bar for intelligence (e.g pass the Turing test) we may not classify it as "being human" if it looks differently to us.

So the question "What is human?" really reduces to: What am I? I don't know - it's one of the things I am trying to learn about myself.

[RyanDeBENNETT]

The Primordial Genesis of Epistemology

A mind warmup, an experiment then a question will take you closer to the origin of epistemology; and shed nuanced light on the questions, what is human? What is life?


Note for this article: alternate terms for knowing are thinking, pondering, cogitation, mentation, contemplation, learning, transcendence, philosophy


Prelude
Where does mind start and end? To all offspring of Realism, please do not ‘confines of brain’ me...
I need to know (have Knowledge of) as this incorporates Person/Self/’the I’; this is the first axiom or perhaps ‘Super Axiom’ if you will. This is the first hard problem of Philosophy that I have termed The mind/Mind Problem (caps intended). Verily, that which unequivocally precedes the Mind/Body problem...Today, the conceited specious erroneous Knowledge of Mind (caps intended) Super Axiom denominates today's orthodox Reality...

“preceding I think therefore I am, one must “think in an I” ” – somanywhys.com

Knowing is a divine essence of human, is divine per se. Knowledge of knowing evades all humanity hitherto. The offspring of a solved mind/Mind Problem (Mind-ists if you will) will decree and barrak otherwise, a belief choice which embodies case in point...read on. With Knowledge of the mind/Mind Problem, one divinely acknowledges that all Knowledge is predicated on belief. One then acknowledges the true-er essence of human is knowing and Knowledge is and should rightfully be its product, it’s servant.

To me, 'knowing', and, 'thinking' are two very different things.

One of them implies knowing for sure what is true or false and right or wrong, whereas, the other only thinks it knows what is true or false and right or wrong. I will let you imagine and work out which one relates to which one.

If you can not work it out, and you are interested, then just let me know.

Thank you Age. Yes semantics are a challenge (case in point). May I suggest reading the article again with "knowing" substituted for "thinking" or "thought-ing" or "contemplating" or "pondering" as per top note in the article.

"Note for this article: alternate terms for knowing are thinking, pondering, cogitation, mentation, contemplation, learning, transcendence, philosophy"

...additional note. I do acknowledge that the burden of communication is on the communicator...your feedback is greatly appreciated

[Age]

The Primordial Genesis of Epistemology

A mind warmup, an experiment then a question will take you closer to the origin of epistemology; and shed nuanced light on the questions, what is human? What is life?


Note for this article: alternate terms for knowing are thinking, pondering, cogitation, mentation, contemplation, learning, transcendence, philosophy


Prelude
Where does mind start and end? To all offspring of Realism, please do not ‘confines of brain’ me...
I need to know (have Knowledge of) as this incorporates Person/Self/’the I’; this is the first axiom or perhaps ‘Super Axiom’ if you will. This is the first hard problem of Philosophy that I have termed The mind/Mind Problem (caps intended). Verily, that which unequivocally precedes the Mind/Body problem...Today, the conceited specious erroneous Knowledge of Mind (caps intended) Super Axiom denominates today's orthodox Reality...

“preceding I think therefore I am, one must “think in an I” ” – somanywhys.com

Knowing is a divine essence of human, is divine per se. Knowledge of knowing evades all humanity hitherto. The offspring of a solved mind/Mind Problem (Mind-ists if you will) will decree and barrak otherwise, a belief choice which embodies case in point...read on. With Knowledge of the mind/Mind Problem, one divinely acknowledges that all Knowledge is predicated on belief. One then acknowledges the true-er essence of human is knowing and Knowledge is and should rightfully be its product, it’s servant.

To me, 'knowing', and, 'thinking' are two very different things.

One of them implies knowing for sure what is true or false and right or wrong, whereas, the other only thinks it knows what is true or false and right or wrong. I will let you imagine and work out which one relates to which one.

If you can not work it out, and you are interested, then just let me know.

Thank you Age. Yes semantics are a challenge (case in point). May I suggest reading the article again with "knowing" substituted for "thinking" or "thought-ing" or "contemplating" or "pondering" as per top note in the article.

"Note for this article: alternate terms for knowing are thinking, pondering, cogitation, mentation, contemplation, learning, transcendence, philosophy"

...additional note. I do acknowledge that the burden of communication is on the communicator...your feedback is greatly appreciated

I already read the article with those alternate terms. But what is the ultimate purpose of your post here with those alternate terms?

What is the outcome you are seeking or want achieved with this?

[Atla]

The Primordial Genesis of Epistemology

Yes, the "I" was mistaken for 2500 years. But the mind is both a part of the Mind, and one with it.

Knowing still basically occurs within minds (/brains), it doesn't really occur elsewhere within the Mind. It may be the most.. "important" trait of humans, but it's not divine, not omniscience, not a true essence, and not necessarily good.