notes on being

NOTES ON BEING II

ANIL MITRA PHD, © 1999 – 2000
REFORMATTED AND STATUS SET June 4, 2003

Document status: June 4, 2003

Outdated: maintained out of interest

No further action

Essence absorbed

Although I agree with the final conclusion “Human being knows no limits in Being or Knowledge,” the conditional part of the statement “Human being knows…” is unnecessary and I now find the arguments to be weak. That is natural since I knew my arguments were weak while I continued to hold the position and search for a better foundation… and this is an excellent point for even though I sometimes feel I have stumbled on the arguments in Journey in Being, I would not come across them if I had not held the belief while searching

ON BEING

As a being I am interested in Being. Being, the ultimate, is the potential of being. What is our potential for Being?

The universe is made up of Being. One could say that the universe is made up of being, knowledge and value; but knowledge and value are part of Being. One could say that the universe requires being, process and relationship; but process and relationship are part of Being

We saw through examples from the history of knowledge that what was considered by canon to be absolutely known, to be real for long periods of time could be replaced by a new canon. The old canon, firmly part of everyday life, retains a domain of validity but even inside that domain the new canon is more accurate; outside that domain the new canon succeeds where the old fails. The limits to the domain of the old canon is not only for large times and distances, but also for small times and distances, for matters sufficiently complex or otherwise removed

Therefore, if our understanding of Being is insufficient to explain and understand the facts of Being - why we are here, where we come from, why is there something rather than nothing, how mind arises from matter, the relationship between our being and ultimate Being - it may be that the canonical understanding of Being is insufficient

What is the source of the limit of understanding of Being? One source is in what we know and can know about Being and, more generally in the nature of knowledge. What is knowledge? A second source is in our experience of Being as beings. Putting together experiment and knowledge we discover the nature of Being and of our nature and limits in Being

First, consider how such questions may be answered. We begin by considering some common ideas the concept to be understood. We find that this brings into questions about related concepts; we cannot talk of one concept in isolation but must talk in terms of a field of concepts. We apply this field to the world. What is the subject matter of knowledge? It includes the history of knowledge - the concepts are not developed in isolation; but just as knowledge develops in contact with the world so the concept of knowledge must develop in contact with the enterprise and disciplines of knowledge and secondarily in contact with the world

A first concept of knowledge is that it corresponds in some sense to the real. At the human level we make discoveries about the world and this knowledge is expressed in descriptions [descriptions make communication possible; discovered knowledge is communicable.] A first concept of knowledge is that it is firmly anchored in the real. Though satisfying this is a satisfying idea. It is the source of the “justified true belief” concept of knowledge - supposedly maintained for two thousand years. This points to the problem of the industry of academic philosophy developing apart from the other academic disciplines. “Justified true belief” is an idea of Aristotle, forgotten for a thousand years, revived, regurgitated in texts and lecture halls, recited by battalions of academics and pupils, not even held by real philosophers, alienated from the world. The concept of justification has never been grounded independently; the examples from the history of knowledge show that truth is an ideal rather than an actual state of affairs; and the same examples show that belief is not at all a necessary component of knowledge. Truly, belief appeals to the heart of man but the real teaches that to knowledge is like quicksand; belief appeals to the ego, to the insecure. The example of “justified true belief” shows that we should not seek only an instrumental definition… and that the Gettier issue is a waste of time… and that we should distrust concepts of knowledge based on our immediate subjective experience of knowledge. So, let us step back from positing a concept and ask about the nature of knowledge rather than inquiring directly “What is knowledge?”

Already, the individual examples from the history of knowledge show that knowledge proceeds in successive degrees of approximation of successively wider ranges of application. Combine this with the idea that knowledge originates as a function rather than an institution and we see knowledge as adaptation. Knowledge, though subjectively about understanding, is also objectively about action. This is the first step back from the subjective experience of knowledge

The second step back comes from combining the origin of knowledge in action and in growth of being. Knowledge is an adaptive relationship of being. Human being knows no limits in Being or Knowledge