to know vs to be (notes)

i got lazy and decided not to write a real blog entry. so, you're stuck with my notes. follow them like a math proof and see if they make sense.

a) knowing of to know:

assumes there are universals that can be translated for each person to arrive at same universals within each person's set of particulars

universals are either abstract or language

language is metaphysical translation and subjective (post-structuralist)

each person's linguistic interpretation (input) and explanation (output) are subjective

therefore, universal must be abstract

only way to know how to know is through abstraction

if abstraction represents metaphysics, then it subject to cultural/collective individual interpretation

therefore, abstraction of pure abstraction is only way to know how to know (theoretically; in practice, metaphysics does negligibly interfere)

b) to know = ryle's regress (of to know)

to know-to be spectrum:

to know: epistemological consciousness theoretical endpoint 1st person ontology (in reality there exists negligible third person ontology in addition to primary 1st person ontology)

to know-be: brain state reflecting conscious state 1st and 3rd person ontology

to be: body state reflecting brain state 1st and 3rd person ontology (emphasis on 3rd person)

to know as part of collective consciousness: to know how to know; since can't be done without pure abstraction (in practice), 3rd person ontology is required for being as translator between two 1st person epistemologies

in order for compatibility, 1st person and 3rd person must be present in some amount at each level; spectrum assumes gradual change/relativity of ontologies instead of points of discrete chance from one to another

therefore, both *to know* and *to be* both have 1st and 3rd person ontologies; consciousness is both individual and social

there never exists absolute states of *to know* and *to be*, just relative degrees of both

c) ramifications for academic disciplines:

impossible to know how to know without also knowing how to be

because of only being compatible with property dualism and quantum consciousness/social science, goal can never be knowing how to know

goal is either to know or ryle's regress

pre-cultural states, the goal started as to be (existence = survival)

post-cultural states (person alone with matter/ai), the goal is to know

relativity of to know/to be for disciplines inversely proportional to metaphysical domain (social science of knowing how to know has smaller domain than knowing how to be)

philosophy covers entire spectrum

goal is either to know or ryle's regress, but goal is impossible to realize without mind-body problem being solved

since the goal is impossible to realize, enlightenment amounts to an individual's ability to obtain the correct proportions and amounts of to know and to be through intentionality

intentionality amounts to an "internal" knowing/being of to know/to be for the realizing an "external" (external reative to the internal, but still inside the body) knowing/being of to know/to be (not mutually exclusive because it is not an either/or proposition)

since "internal" knowing/being is dependent and intertwined with the "external" knowing/being, one can never be aware of when/if they are ever enlightened

d) humanity is defined ultimately by being, not knowing because it started out that way and evolved because to know can exist as a person alone, but to be requires validation of existence from external people

humanity can be taken away when group of people all believe they do not know; they are then reduced to just being, and if this state of being is not compatible with previous ideas of being intertwined with to know, then lack of humanity will be reflected in regression of behavior exhibiting to know

culture is simply the evolution of to know integrated with to be

culture is not more than the sum of its parts (analogy: culture is often interpreted as being a sort of larger consciousness of a population growing out of human interactions; this line of thought is specious and is not equivalent to the idea of the "collective consciousness"); it's simply a layman's term for accounting for an infinite number of states defined by a set of rules regarding a group of individuals, a set of rules reflective their respective to know/to be states

the idea of culture is regressive in that it ultimately amounts to distorted interpretations of to know; to be is favored over to know

the defiance of culture is done by minority of people who attempt to obtain a more accurate version of to know

humanity of those who attempt to obtain a more accurate version of to know is compromised and forces them to view self in elitist status; this is assuaged by associations with small groups and relationships with people with similar ideas of to know, thus creating a new uncompromised humanity with respect to those groups and relationships, but still failing to reconcile compromise of humanity with the rest of the population