Knowledge IS Limited
Is knowledge limited?
If so, why?
According to this inquiry we can modify further our postulate:
If ignorance is attained only through knowledge, where the ‘inaccessibility’ to ‘ultimate knowledge’ indicates ‘limits’ of ‘mind’ and also limits of our perception of what things really are.
What is considered as ‘knowledge’ here is an impressionistic subjective image of the perceptible. The exact nature of what perceives in our brain and what is perceived is still unknown. The relationship between the two is also unknown. The why of what should we perceive is drives us into more unanswered dilemmas. We are assuming that exact sciences are superficial and inadequate assessments. The perception of what is true can be falsely presented as a criterion for knowledge. Whereas our knowledge can be a criterion for ‘ultimate knowledge’.
We assume that ‘ultimate knowledge’ is concerned with the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of an object, its form, structure, change, manifestations, and qualities. These fields belong to science as well as philosophy and other branches of awareness. However, we maintain that when we enquire into the nature of an object, its presence, its origin and its finality we are faced with ultimate knowledge, which is inaccessible to sciences so far. For matter, substance, time, space and all its manifestations remain enigmatic. If the composing constituents of the universe can be isolated from one another, which can not be the case, then objects become subject to the following questions: What are objects? How did they come about? And why should there objects?
Anything perceptible or intelligible becomes subject to questioning.
How accurate can our perception and conclusion can be valid. Conceptual perception is commonly shared by symbolic representation (means of communication, letters, numbers, lines, colours, notes, noise). This is where gradual awareness of our present limits and hence our present so-called ignorance constitutes a shift from ‘knowledge’ to ‘ignorance’. Inquiring into the nature, presence, origin and reason of being of things attains finally a ‘threshold of the unknown’ where man is suspended, whether temporarily or permanently.
Nothing confirms what the mind’s eye can perceive, or conceive, concerning its reality.
Here we do not advance any meditative state nor advocate any spirituality or religious state. We simply confront what is and depart from it in our quest for truth, whatever the truth is. We attempt to drive reason and our knowledge to its limits if such limits exist.
Finality, for example, is rejected by most sciences since it is not subject to scientific empiricism; but can science really do away with the question toward which a thing is finalized, in form and function?
If we attempt to persistently inquire into the presence, nature, origin and finality of an object then we come to limits of knowledge and the limits of our feable minds.
We can safely assume that ‘the reality of an object lacks solid criterion of identification’.
If awareness can be attained by the mind’s eye, a highly complex enigmatic operation of ‘how’ an object is perceived, and then we are confronted with awareness as a problematic.
