The Threshold Of Ignorance

TheThreshold of Ignorance. D Despite all technological discoveries and scientific progress knowledge is still unable to give answers to fundamental questions. Our Living Universe in its presence, form, structure, development and change, its constituent elements, its laws and control, its origin and finality remain totally enigmatic inaccessible to knowledge. Life, in its presence form, structure, development, change, origin and finality is still a total mysterious phenomenon. The role of person is limited to observation.

He does not play any role within the presence, change and development of anything. He only observes and concludes, trying to unsolved the dilemma and at greatest creates use of what is. What is reason and what is time, remain unsolvable queries. The nature of an object remains mysterious. The universe and its billions f galaxies; life and its billions of manifestations are still des enigmas posing best difficulties for knowledge.

The nature of things, its presence, its origins and its finalities are still puzzling questions. Our knowledge, at the present time, appertains to superficial observation of what is. The presence, origin and finality are still within the website regarding the unknown. We are attaining a descriptive notion regarding the manifestations regarding the mysterious. The atom, simple element of matter, is still unknown in its nature, presence, origin and behaviour as well as its finality.

How did the Universe return about and what forces manage its form, structure and development, are still unexplored. What is life and where does it return from and howcome should there be life remain unsolvable questions. What force, whether an internal or an external finality, decide the presence, the nature, the origin and the shape and structure as well as the finality regarding the universe and its constituent elements?. Science is still unable to answer these questions. What the scientist deals with is how an object is and can make use of it in one way.

The scientist does not apply the howcome question in his work, consequently subject to this question in his personal outlook. Every lone asks himself these fundamental questions and awaiting science or philosophy to give satisfactory answers he recoils about his own survival. Our purpose in this work is to try and establish this very question of howcome is knowledge of fundamental questions should be limited to observational-utility dimension and not attain ultimate knowledge of things? In other words we attempt to examine the question of a likely presumption of a threshold of ignorance' that is essentially steadfast. In our perspective we shall attempt to investigate into the nature of an object sequential to look whether or not it has limits. We explore at similar time whether or not there exists limits for our comprehension.

It should be distant argued whether or not an assumed state of mind limits as well as object limits to divulge its enigma that are subject to inaccessible knowledge labelled as ultimate knowledge'. Only, we assume, by examining minutely an object and our consciousness of it we are can establish such hypothetical limits. The importance of such approach is to attempt to investigate such probability. We are not pretending to establish the arguments of one college of thought or another sceptic, doubtful, nihilism, religion, sophist, metaphysics, spiritualism, mysticism, Gnosticism, agnosticism. Whether knowledge should be attained or not serves, in our perspective, a very precise end, namely that unattainable knowledge has a succinct purpose.

This unattainable knowledge leads us to probabilities and conjecture only. The precise purpose is to let the lone person to decide between probabilities of causes, of which one probability claims a cause-creator or an external finality. Such a probability, for lack of evidence, is reveal to free decision that the lone person has to make during his life. Canalising philosophical thought. The mainstreams of philosophical thought focus is created on identifying an object, the uncertainty of knowing, metaphysical problems and linguistic communication of ideas, illusion and reality.

If philosophy inquires into the nature of things, their origin and their finalities, we try in our effort to release sense to these questions. This sense resides in man's decision between 3 choices namely to trust or disbelieve in an external finality. We are assuming here that all knowledge and its criticism lead to a state of an obligatory choice. The very uncertainty of knowledge, lack of proof, leads in its turn to man's own decision dictated by his own convictions. The very fact that things in their nature, origin and finality are inaccessible to ultimate knowledge opens the question to denote significance of this inaccessibility.

We are assuming that the precise significance is to leave to person the freedom of creating up his own mind. Philosophers throughout the ages, endeavouring to release sense for things, their existence, their nature, their origin and finalities, did not, so far, uncover any solid reality for anything. They basically had to make a choice, reaching a dead end where the wall of ignorance imposes itself on their minds. Every and each one regarding the known philosophers and thinkers from Buddha to Confucianism, to Protegra, Aristotle and Plato, to St. Augustine, to Laplace, Leibniz and Descartes, to Nietzsche Kant, Hegel, to Heidegger, Sartre and Russell, all had to make a decision between belief and disbelief in an external finality, a God-cause.

Few scientists, neurologists and philosophers, attempt to explore what thinking is. What are ideas? Where do they return from? What are their processes? What constitute ideas? How are they formed and how are they communicated between people? Howcome should they incite consciousness in our minds? What are the rules governing there presence, relations and processes? Are they inborn or acquired? And for what purpose do plans exist? Are plans limited only to our being?. The reality of an object and our perception of it:. Mathematics, like a thorough science that symbolises the how but does not explain the why, is considered, by some scientists, to have an external reality' and is limited only to reason. Meanwhile; most terms external' and reality' remain to be defined, or at fewest identified superficially.

It is an intelligible abstract conceptualisation of what is perceived as sensible and ultimately its intelligible, representation. The sensible is removed from what it is to website or representation. It is displaced twice; first from its presence on its own and apart from the observer and 2nd from its conceptualisation in its sensible shape to a symbolic representation on an alternate level. The essence of this logic assumes that the object itself has an existence of its own. This existence has its dimensions and characteristics to be what it is on its own.

Our perception of it depends totally on our capacities of perception itself subject to our faculties of understanding and perceiving. We perceive the object through our filter of perception and cannot assess whether or not the object itself can exist on its own outside our perception. There exists no criteria for measuring the exactitude of our perception. In this method whatever is perceived shall or shall not represent the reality of an object. How do we have knowledge of an apple is an apple? What creates an apple an apple? What creates us sure that our perception is real? Means of identification of an object not ever exist.

Thus; we remain suspended on the threshold of ignorance. First, we not ever have knowledge of what an object is, and 2nd we have no access to identify its validity. The object itself, during this operation, loses its reality of its own being and becomes a subject to interpretation of our mind. Likewise; most the sensible' and the intelligible' remain to be identified an impossibility, view the unknown nature of substance or matter; the illusionary and uncertainty regarding the character of symbolic representation as means of communication. Humans communicate with sounds or symbolic utterances, voiced or unvoiced representation, but these means are themselves enigmatic in presence, in origin and in finality of its representation-communication utility.

What is the purpose of communicating with others? What are sounds symbols that represent communication? Does not communication of thought indicate purpose?. In our perspective we not ever allude to an illusionary existence, but we inquire into things, its presence, its origin and likely finalities. By questioning the nature of things and the purpose of its being we are assuming that we can obtain better insight into knowledge. It is this very realisation that we should discover, and perhaps confirm! If terms for example nature' and essence' not ever identify a thing' as it is, then neither that these terms are useless or approximate of meaning or that the nature or essence of an item is inaccessible to thinking in its multifaceted dimensions as reasoning, imagining, being conscious and ultimate knowledge becomes unattainable, at fewest up to moment. Assuming that thought leads to knowledge that is not at all a certainty, for most thinking and knowledge remain enigmas.

The terms enigma' and mystery' refer to a state of inaccessibility regarding the person mind' to ultimate knowledge', where the meaning of presence, origin as well as finality, of an object, is not established. Lack of such a solid meaning is produced not only by the enigma of reason and time, but also by the origin and evolution of our living universe. No one can explain, until this moment, what is this universe that we live in, neither its origin nor its cause. Life itself, manifested by multiple dimensions like appearance, development, evolution, movement, change, life and disappearance, is a done enigma. Furthermore, how did life appear, what is life, howcome should it appear and howcome should there be life? All these queries are still within the website of total mystery.

We claim that person does not invent knowledge but discovers it and creates use of it, at a superficial exploiting position only. At best, person remains an observer-user. There exists all requirements to ponder and interact and finally make a decision: objects to observe, mind to think, communicating symbols and shall and freedom to decide. A provided example regarding the inaccessibility to mysterious presence of languages linguists at present, accept the hypothesis of twelve families of languages but as to their origin, development and nature, they can be still unknown. How a language is born and how does it develop is still unknown.

Is the respiratory system is can bring about a sound that denotes the name of a tree when observing an object for example the tree?. When mind confronts reason represented in a shape and a structure of an object, limits regarding the subject itself, within the ultimate analysis, grow to enfranchised. What is matter? What is time? What is energy? What is life? What is movement? What is change? These are unknown term-references of unknown objects. Should we reduce the constituting substance of reason to atoms, we are return closer to a dead end regarding the mystery, but in terms of scientific exigency. If we do accept scientific discoveries related to characteristics regarding the atom itself and its potentialities, we are bound to enquire into what the atom is, and how did it return about, how do its laws maintain its presence in its varied forms, structures, and manifestations e.

energy, gravitation, radiation ? Distant questioning leads to enquire into the how question and also into the howcome question. When scientific speculation reduces the atom distant to its constituent known components for example protons, neutrons, neurons, neufrons, electrons, and by some scientists to particle-substances for example quarks substances estimated at 3 hundred thousand times smaller than the proton or neutron-whether super or normal, and strings active substances estimated at 2-3 million times smaller than quarks- whether straight or in a lock, we are at the threshold regarding the unknown. What is beyond the Wall of Max Planck remains conjectural imaginary hypotheses. If an M-Theory or an All-Theory, e. Theory of Strings that claims to explain everything prescribes the elemental constituents regarding the universe from micro to macro dimensions, we are faced here with uncertainty since there is no evidence but merely acceptance or rejection, as within the Large Bang or Black holes and multiple or parallel universe hypotheses.

The enigmatic presence and origin regarding the atom itself as well as first carbon particle dated return to 4. 7 billion years remains a mystery pending solution. We think about in this learn that the term symbolism refers to representation of our minds of an item in sign. A sign should be a sound as well like a line or a colour a letter or a character, a term or a number, or any other denotative representative indicator that can refer to an object, an item or a phenomenon. Scientific language uses letters and numbers to denote the sensible world as well as the intelligible.

A mathematician uses numbers and signs to communicate his ideas. A painter uses line and colour and a musician uses music notes and sounds. Our consciousness regarding the sensible is presented through plans which are in turn expressed into terms or numbers and letters and should be expressed in line and colour and sounds. Our conception of an object should be represented in linguistic terms that represent the system regarding the object itself. We have no access to viability regarding the object itself, only our consciousness of it.

Whether the object exists or not outside our comprehension is not at all easy to assess. It can have an existence separate from our consciousness of it. This opens largely the question of whether or not our conception of an object is true or not real or unreal. From this illusionary consciousness emerges to destabilize our comprehension with regard to object in question. What creates a tree a tree? What creates a planet a planet?.

How do we have knowledge of a tree is a tree? How do we have knowledge of a planet is a planet? What are the criteria of our judgement? Who decides these criteria?. If we decide for example to strip off language from the identifiable and return to primitiveness of its being we realise immediately the weakness regarding the language itself. This is with no problems established when we use a term denoting similar object but in an alternate language that we not ever know. The term tree in English refers to a specified object. It is not human, nor pet or mineral, but a plant.

Yet, consequently this is enough to classify it below the flora identity it is distant from representing a consensus between all speakers regarding the English language. If we ask students of art to draw similar tree facing them within the garden we are bound to have as many representations regarding the tree as there exists students within the classroom. No 3 impressions should be identical within the representation of 3 artists. When science expresses symbolically an atom of h2o in terms of OH2 then this represents an identical representation accepted by all scientists. Here, there exists no impressions but facts representation.

Einstein's formula E= cm2 represents facts that should be measured and assessed concretely. But within the example regarding the tree, the h2o molecule or the relationship between reason and life remain within the realm structure of atom if we inquire subsequent to its presence, its origin and its governing laws and the fabric that creates these substances what they are. These component facts can reach its illusionary status should we inquire into the howcome questions. It can even attain its absurdity position if its presence is place to question. A pine tree represents a sure category of trees, itself representative regarding the tree symbol and floras; ultimately the life-cycle.

Should we reduce it to its constituent elements of roots, trunk, branches, leaves, flowers and fruits, we are analysing its symbolic structure. For at every position of its development we are faced with symbolic processes that should be compared and contrasted with other categories of trees. At the position of its cellular structure and processes of survival means of nutritional-soil-air-light-sun that hold it alive and developing in a critical manner stemming in earth and flourishing into the atmosphere, we are always facing a representative of a tree. Our image of this tree represents our symbolic representation wanted for identification and communication. There is nothing within the pine tree that tells us it is a tree of pine.

It is basically our agreement to identify it as such. It is a form, a shape that impinges its presence on our perception in line and colour. Problematic of identification. Our challenge is to identify an object. How do we identify an object? What are the criteria compulsory to identify an object? How do we have knowledge of an object is an object? What are the characteristics compulsory for identification?.

The real challenge is that neither the means of identification, whether the mind or the life-sign are identifiable. The object itself, whether an apple a rose, a planet or a galaxy in terms of its presence, constituent-components, form, structure, origin and finality remain totality enigmatic, so far. In this perspective the observed is unidentifiable. In other words unknown objects are inaccessible to knowledge. Matter remains an enigmatic unidentifiable element and unknown in its presence, its development, its form, its structure and its origin.

It is inaccessible to this ultimate knowledge'. Sometimes it is reduced to atoms, and recently to quarks and strings, but it remains an obscure object, inaccessible to our knowledge.