Pure Knowledge

One key issue connected with the scope and limits of human knowledge and human belief systems is the ontological relationship between human consciousness and the physical world. Within the study of human knowledge there has been ongoing inquiry and debate regarding the methods that should be used to acquire and validate human knowledge. In this article I address both these philosophical issues.

Knowing always involves a knower knowing something. It involves a relationship between a knower and the known. It is an act which joins a mind with an object in a relationship which is unique and incomparable with any other. There is no such thing as knowledge without something known and a knowing subject knowing it. Each and every act of knowing is a synthesis of object and subject. Because of the relation between two beings, the knower and the known, man does not remain a closed being, like a block of granite or a piece of red brick. Rather, he is able to "open himself up" so to say to the world around him; he is able to transcend himself, to go "out of himself" and enter into communication with other beings. However, the act of knowing is something inverse; it is the extra-mental thing that, in a certain manner which we shall explain, is received into the human subject, as knowledge is a preeminently immanent action, taking place, not outside but within the knowing subject.

In this paper I propose a new definition for knowledge as an exclusive conscious mental state – a justified purposeful belief for most practical purposes and a justified true belief in clearly defined special cases. The paper first clarifies what a conscious mental state is according to the neuropsychoanalytical framework, uses this base to redefine knowledge, and then looks at some possible ramifications of this change in definition such as on skepticism, Gettier cases and the colloquial use of the term. One of the implications of this redefinition is that knowledge looses its meaning outside of the conscious awareness of a subject – such as the existence of knowledge in itself (in the abstract) or in any form of visual, written or verbal representation. This change comes at the price of also loosing its true value for most practical purposes, except for very few special cases.

2020

The brain produces the mind through cultivation. Thus, the structure of the mind is not a priori, but culturally developed. The logic, semantics, and conceptual framework of a mind are all cultivated. While feeling is a natural function of the mind, all feelings of a mind are concept-laden or concept-mediated. A person is educated to think better, to feel in a certain way, and to have a better taste; the mind educated and civilized is better than the mind uneducated and barbarian. The key here is that a knowing mind is a constructor and a constructing space, not merely a knower akin to a mirror or a camera in the process of knowing

Transcendental realism, Non sensual and irrational forms of knowing towards a transcendental nature or a transcendental naturalism) Bobby Black Pure Experience of Transcendental Natures of Reality No one has ever captured the true or complete dynamics of a total or partial transcendental reality. Many people have tried. It is an exploration of reality through Art that is needed, rather than a mathematics or religion. Animating and creating systems of expression and inspiration. With physics and mathematics, you have a one-to-one relationship with objective realities. Mathematics you have a Metaphysical understanding of reality fallowing rules of logic and reason that have been structured over thousands of years. Dealing with one of the most general ways to represent anything in a symbolic form. Everything becomes quantifiable. There is no problem with math or science. But we will continuously change our ideas about reality and our ability to model reality will continue to get more dynamic. The difficult thing to explain in my mind is all the systems based on transcendental and metaphysical realities related to the mind. How the mind interacts with nature and reality.

The intuition that knowledge is more valuable than true belief generates the value problem in epistemology. The aim in this paper is to focus on the intuitive notion of knowledge itself, in the context of the value problem, and to attempt to bring out just what it is that we intuitively judge to be valuable. It seems to me that the value problem brings to the fore certain commitments we have to the intuitive notion of knowledge, which, if we take seriously, reveal that we actually think of knowledge as an irreducible factive mental state.

Gilbert Ryle paid close attention to the difference between "knowing that" and "knowing how" in his book "The Concept of Mind." In this study, I focus primarily on the definition of “knowing that”, with the remark that the two concepts of knowledge, in my view, form a strongly dual epistemic relationship. The curiosity of the chosen philosophical problem is given by the talk of lively philosophical-logical debates that emerged after Edmund L. Gettier's short article published in 1963. . (Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?) The "information theory" foundations of knowledge in my view - which have significant ontological implications - are as follows: - Information is not just a socio-cultural phenomenon, but primarily a physical quantity. - The static part of information can be characterized as the Shannon information quantity. - The dynamic of information is generated by the stability and complexity of the space-time structures. - Information is therefore an ’emergent’ quantity. - Information-performance (strength) as a physical quantity can be represented by in the human-social region also as a ‘multivector’ that has components of ‘real-knowledge’ and ‘emotional-impact’. - The knowledge is the ’time-invariant part’ of information-strength. - The ‘separation criteria’ between the ‘real-knowledge’ and the ‘emotional-impact’ can be the stability/instability of the information source, and the evaporation time of the emotional content.

Education & Pedagogy Journal, 2021

The article reveals such concepts as "metis", "body techniques", "practical skill", "kinesthetic intelligence", and "movement skill". These concepts are united by the fact that the accumulation of knowledge is presented as a largely unconscious process in which muscles play the same role as the brain. The essence of these concepts can be expressed in the term "bodily knowledge", which contrasts itself in the epistemological sense with codified practical knowledge, instructions, and rules-techne. Bodily knowledge is based on movements and muscle sensations. Russian physiologist I.M. Sechenov called this sensation "dark", pointing out that such sensations are almost impossible to comprehend, describe, and analyze. However, such feelings cannot be entirely opposed to thought. This "clever skill", as poet and writer Varlam Shalamov called it, can be considered a separate type of cognition. This article is an attempt to comprehensively discuss the concept of "body knowledge".

Sagesse du Corps, Aylmer: Éditions du Scribe, 2001