Dear Roger McEvilly:
I would like to say at the outset that I respect your perseverance in your intellectual pursuit. Also, I appreciate any ideas you have shared or comments you have made directed at my proposition. Clearly, in my vision, the competition was designed for thinkers like you. I will add that I will have no problem whatsoever in giving way to anyone who more reasonably overcomes Proposition 1.
Regarding your message, I will make a few informal comments in the spirit of intellectual discussion:
First, though Einstein and other have shown that time and space are mathematically one and the same, it has not been (more reasonably) shown by anyone that time and space are completely the same.
Second, my statement, “There is no meaning in ‘knowledge’”, means that there is apparently no complete meaning in knowledge.
Of course, there is incomplete meaning in knowledge, and most of us use it everyday in our lives. (I.e. in my view, the basis for knowledge is (incomplete) conscious meaning from our perspective.)
Third, though knowledge and being are interchangeable, in the sense that (conscious) knowledge is contingent on being, and being is partly contingent on knowledge, it does not necessarily follow that knowledge is completely the same as being.
Also, related to Proposition 1, you have not more reasonably demonstrated that we completely know what we know as knowledge or even as being—Viz., how you do more reasonably completely know that being and knowledge as interchangeable, just as how do you or Einstein or anyone else more reasonably know that time and space are completely interchangeable?
Fourth, the direction of society or even the direction of world, is not necessarily evidence of complete knowledge. It is evidence of trend, movement in a certain way…. World-unanimity is not necessarily grounds for complete knowledge, just as perceived biological evolution is not necessarily grounds for complete knowledge…..
In response to:
In physics, Einstein and others showed that time and space are mathematically one and the same thing. Matter and energy are also interchangeable, ie matter is just a form of energy, and vice versa. (ie the basis for the nuclear bomb). I would suggest that 'being' and 'knowing' are one and the same thing also, one is just a form of the other. Although it seems odd at first, this renders the proposition invalid, and some of its conclusions. eg Mr Garvey states 'There is no meaning in 'knowledge'', this is true- if by 'meaning' one means unchanging absolutes (eg ideology), but there is no meaning in 'being' either, if by 'being' one means eternal soul, or such like. Because knowledge and being are interchangeable, the proposition is invalid-they are *always* one and the same thing. Being is a projection, as is knowledge. Once one understands this, meaning, (that lost term in the modern age), may come from recognition of ones biological place, which includes: work, love, family, recreation, happiness, sex, music, fun, quest, cause, knowledge with uncertainty, money, etc etc and etc. This is the way society is going. Sorry Mr Garvey.
|
