Knowing a chair or even a single crystal
By urbandekay
@urbandekay (18278)
October 22, 2008 2:39am CST
What would it be to have all knowledge of a simple object, say a chair or even something simpler like a single crystal? Even to behold an object before me, to rotate it and view it from every side, still my presentation is adumbrational.
So, this is not really an epistemic question but rather an existential one. What I would like to hear are your ideas, however fanciful or far-flung, as to what total knowledge of a simple object be like?
all the best urban
3 people like this
4 responses
@zigzagbuddha (4601)
• United States
23 Oct 08
Hahahahahaha! Do you talk like this in your everyday life urb, or only when you're tripping??
If you knew an object completely and entirely from the inside out you would become that object. That object would forevermore be part of the vibration that you know as yourself.
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
•
23 Oct 08
Wooo Hooooo! I hadn't expected anyone to get that, least of all you
all the best urban
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
•
23 Oct 08
Oh, I was so excited I didn't read the last sentence, that rather spoiled it, still all the same...
all the best urban
1 person likes this
@zigzagbuddha (4601)
• United States
23 Oct 08
Yeah, I figured that last remark would go flying right over your head, but that's OK, because like most people you are just caught up in the Grand Illusion of separateness.
PS: Has anybody ever told you that you bear an uncanny resemblance to Robert De Niro??
1 person likes this
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
22 Oct 08
To me that would include the shape, dimensions, etc.. and what it is made up of, and also what it's uses and potentials are.. what is its purpose.. and also how does it work or perform.. even if it appears to us to just 'sit there' or we are unaware of its purpose.. But I'm sure I likely have not thought of everything when it comes to "total knowledge" of something!
@urbandekay (18278)
•
22 Oct 08
And perhaps we can add that all these various facets must be known in each moment of all time?
all the best urban
1 person likes this
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
23 Oct 08
If I really want to know it I guess.. Usually I seek an understanding that "rings true" to me and my understanding, then I move on to other things.. However, I am quite a stickler when things don't "ring true" or reverberate as true.. then I am most determined to iron out that wrinkle.. Works very well for me. Can't rest til I find the truth of a matter.. then I move on.. But complete understanding.. I'm willing to wait for that..
@cdparazo (5765)
• Philippines
3 Nov 08
For me, to have knowledge of an object would mean being one with that object or be that object. One couldn't know completely just by looking at it and examining all its details. One could not completely completely know even if one would break it down to its composition. It's too complex because composition is just one consideration. How about its feelings? Could one really say that the cube has no feelings? Well, science may argue that it doesn't because its inanimate and will proceed to define what a emotion should be. But one isn't completely sure since one isn't a cube.
@jimbomuso (950)
•
22 Oct 08
Hi urban!
all knowledge is perspective contained within experience. your analogy of the crystal is almost like 'information theory' in quantum pyhsics, an object contains all the information of what it was and all it could be in varying states. there are philisophical ideas that try to encapsulate this.. I'll be back when I can provide an accurate source..
try this for an exercise .. imagine a 'tree' then think of one you havent ever seen... is it still a tree? more than likely because of the information you've 'drawn' on to create it!
