The effects and uses of knowledge and enlightenment

[Lucidarian]

Recently I've started to be more interested in pragmatism and chaos magic again so I thought I'd start a discussion on the subject.
Do you prioritize the mental effects of knowledge and belief over the uses of knowledge in explaining experience? Is knowledge gained from reality or is reality gained from knowledge, why or why not?

 

[Politesse]

My take on this is that knowledge reveals reality. Reality is there whether we will or no, and we know this because it sometimes swoops in and behaves like no one's consensus opinion would anticipate - but we cannot use what we cannot see or understand. I suppose you could say that we "gain knowledge from reality", but I'm not sure reality should be assumed the only source of knowledge, especially since some realities (like one's mental paradigms) don't become "real" until you "know" them, and others may well originate beyond the scope of the real.

I suppose I see the relationship as more like a book and and a set of eyeglasses sitting on a table, where "reality" is the book and "knowledge" is the eyeglasses. You may encounter them in either order, or one without the other, or neither. But the book is meaningless without the eyeglasses, and the eyeglasses lack purpose without the book. For a magician, there is no option. Reality is responsive to us, but only if we see it and know it, so you must have knowledge to proceed; it is the key to our own instrumentality.

I'm not a chaos magician, and the above is a major reason why not.

 

[Lucidarian]

My take on this is that knowledge reveals reality. Reality is there whether we will or no, and we know this because it sometimes swoops in and behaves like no one's consensus opinion would anticipate - but we cannot use what we cannot see or understand. I suppose you could say that we "gain knowledge from reality", but I'm not sure reality should be assumed the only source of knowledge, especially since some realities (like one's mental paradigms) don't become "real" until you "know" them, and others may well originate beyond the scope of the real.

I suppose I see the relationship as more like a book and and a set of eyeglasses sitting on a table, where "reality" is the book and "knowledge" is the eyeglasses. You may encounter them in either order, or one without the other, or neither. But the book is meaningless without the eyeglasses, and the eyeglasses lack purpose without the book. For a magician, there is no option. Reality is responsive to us, but only if we see it and know it, so you must have knowledge to proceed; it is the key to our own instrumentality.

I'm not a chaos magician, and the above is a major reason why not.

Interesting, would you disagree with the idea that knowledge not reflective of an objective reality changes the self in relation to an external reality? If the self is used to experience reality, wouldn't knowledge not reflective of reality change reality for the self but not necessarily for realities happening external to yourself? I get the impression that chaos magic is more the magic of realizing control of yourself through perceived reality.
Hope what I said was understandable.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Is knowledge gained from reality or is reality gained from knowledge, why or why not?

Reality is reality, it doesn't change. (As far as any of us know anyways...)
But our perceptions of reality do change with events taking place in our lives.

So I'll say knowledge is gained from reality and our perception of reality is gained from knowledge.

 

[Banjankri]

Reality is reality, it doesn't change. (As far as any of us know anyways...)

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Since We can only perceive change, we wouldn't know about it, if it wouldn't change.
It all depends on how we define reality. It's not as easy as it may seem.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Since We can only perceive change, we wouldn't know about it, if it wouldn't change.

There a few philosophical ideas that cover such a position.
I am operating on the idea that reality is reality is reality, that reality is a constant.
How we perceive that constant is up to how our lives unfold.
I also believe in reality being a constant because we have no evidence that it isn't and a lot that it is.

So on that standpoint I'll also say, I do not believe in such a thing as a 'true subjective reality'.
I believe reality can only be truly conveyed objectively, lest it be known in opinions (your reality/my reality).

There are things such as ultimate reality, normally described as the "afterlife".
That this reality is just a middle point to the real one, though I do not subscribe to that idea.

 

[Banjankri]

I am operating on the idea that reality is reality is reality, that reality is a constant.

If reality is constant, then we have no way of perceiving it. It's something we never experienced and have no knowledge about.
I would call it death.

There are things such as ultimate reality, normally described as the "afterlife".

Once more, death comes to my mind.

Is knowledge gained from reality or is reality gained from knowledge, why or why not?

What is your definition of "reality" and "knowledge"?

 

[Deathbydefault]

I define reality in two ways, personal reality and objective reality.

Personal reality would be the reality that you perceive, as in how you see people, and the world on an, for lack of a better word, emotional level.
There are people who are really optimistic and see the best in people, that is the reality they perceive, "everyone is good in some way".
It differs per personality. Optimistic, pessimistic, sociopathic, mentally unstable, and so on. (Though those are just base terms).

Objective reality is much more difficult to define, however, describing it as the material world would be easiest.
Same method as earlier, different situation. A rock-is a rock-is a rock, that is the basis.
Is the rock in your backyard a rock even when you aren't looking? Are the tree's always tree's?
I think so, so I use objective reality it that context; the context that a rock is always a rock.

If reality is constant, then we have no way of perceiving it. It's something we never experienced and have no knowledge about.
I would call it death.

Of course we do. Reality is normally defined as "the way things really are".
Wouldn't it make sense to describe "the way things really are" as a constant?
You can perceive a constant on an emotional level, it's dependent on knowledge and a few other things.
Many people describe scenes in nature as beautiful, there are many examples.

Also, not to be annoying but... Perceive.
I could have used it at the beginning but I normally prefer person to person understanding in philosophical debates.
Makes the topics more interesting.

Once more, death comes to my mind.

I also believe that death is a constant, due to obvious and very overwhelming evidence.
"So long as you live you will die, and you will die because you must die. Death is what makes us equal"
That unclaimed quote is what I based my name, Deathbydefault, on.

 

[Banjankri]

I think so, so I use objective reality it that context; the context that a rock is always a rock.

First you name something "a rock", and then you say that rock is always a rock. That doesn't reveal much. Moreover, what if someone smashes it into dust, what then?

Reality is normally defined as "the way things really are".

That's just another way of saying the same thing, which doesn't explain anything.

Wouldn't it make sense to describe "the way things really are" as a constant?

"Constant" in what sense? What is unchanging? If you take this path, you will end up with predictability, as a way of measurement, which will introduce probability, and randomness.
We can go the other way and say, things are always as they really are. That's somehow obvious. The problem arises when they appear differently then they really are, for example, "I took this piece of metal for a coin". Here, we have to introduce another component which is "meaning", and its relationship with reality.
We are stuck, unless we have both, reality and meaning, well defined.

You can perceive a constant on an emotional level, it's dependent on knowledge and a few other things.
Many people describe scenes in nature as beautiful, there are many examples.

"Scene" implies change. What is constant here? Beauty?

Also, not to be annoying but... Perceive.

Yes, and?

 

[Deathbydefault]

First you name something "a rock", and then you say that rock is always a rock. That doesn't reveal much. Moreover, what if someone smashes it into dust, what then?

That isn't the point I was trying to make.
I feel as though I have explained this pretty thoroughly so I will not do so again.
You being able to understand my point isn't my issue.

"Constant" in what sense? What is unchanging? If you take this path, you will end up with predictability, as a way of measurement, which will introduce probability, and randomness.
We can go the other way and say, things are always as they really are. That's somehow obvious. The problem arises when they appear differently then they really are, for example, "I took this piece of metal for a coin". Here, we have to introduce another component which is "meaning", and its relationship with reality.
We are stuck, unless we have both, reality and meaning, well defined.

Again, I am playing on words.
Try not to take what I say so literally, I'm organizing words in a way that explains my point and nothing else.
If you take it out of context from my point then it becomes more explanations, which gets more annoying.
I can go a few rounds with those questions but I do not have a teachers mentality.

 

[Banjankri]

You being able to understand my point isn't my issue.

Again, I am playing on words.
Try not to take what I say so literally.

So, you are playing on words, not using the literal meaning, and it's my issue to guess what you meant?
No, not my issue at all.

I can go a few rounds with those questions but I do not have a teachers mentality.

Don't try to teach me, try to present your understanding using literal meaning. This is not a poetry class.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Don't try to teach me, try to present your understanding using literal meaning. This is not a poetry class.

Objective reality is science. It's our cold observations of the world we live in and how it works. No addons or attachments.
What you get is what you see, how it works is how it works.

That is the easiest way to explain it.

Subjective reality is a lot more difficult in the literal sense, I don't quite have the vocabulary to describe it shortly.
Basically it's a secondary reality someone makes as a kind of blanket over the objective one.
It is found in a more emotional and innerpersonal sense. It's how YOU view the world you live in, I suppose.

 

[Banjankri]

Objective reality is science. It's our cold observations of the world we live in and how it works. No addons or attachments.

Cold observation is not science. Science is this blanket you were talking about, just verified by repetition.

Basically it's a secondary reality someone makes as a kind of blanket over the objective one.

There is sensory input, and there is memory. Newborn baby sees the world without addons. With time, it collects memories, and learns to use them. We all have sensory data surrounded by a cloud of knowledge. This knowledge may be more, or less accurate, but if its application is repeatable, we call it science. Science is knowledge coming out of observation.

Now the problem of reality is much more complicated than that, because we cannot say that views are not part of reality. Everything that is present, is real, and views are undoubtedly present. Nevertheless, their meaning can be missing. They may point to thing that aren't there, have no presence. We call that mistakes, and lies when they are used with premeditation.
I would say, that things are real if they impact other things. This way, even pink unicorn is real, because how can we say it's unreal if it's already changing the world?

 

[Deathbydefault]

Cold observation is not science. Science is this blanket you were talking about, just verified by repetition.

There is sensory input, and there is memory. Newborn baby sees the world without addons. With time, it collects memories, and learns to use them. We all have sensory data surrounded by a cloud of knowledge. This knowledge may be more, or less accurate, but if its application is repeatable, we call it science. Science is knowledge coming out of observation.

Now the problem of reality is much more complicated than that, because we cannot say that views are not part of reality. Everything that is present, is real, and views are undoubtedly present. Nevertheless, their meaning can be missing. They may point to thing that aren't there, have no presence. We call that mistakes, and lies when they are used with premeditation.
I would say, that things are real if they impact other things. This way, even pink unicorn is real, because how can we say it's unreal if it's already changing the world?

You asked me to explain it in the a literal sense. I took off my filter.
So, to me, what I just read does not match at all with any form of accurate response to what I posted.
They are different things because we are thinking in different ways.

That is why I didn't want to explain this to you, because I would have to do so as a teacher.
I would have to teach you the way I am thinking for you to understand my point.
I don't have that kind of patience or free time, so I'll just let you rubix cube out the solution to this equation.

I would essentially have to give a definition for every other word I use, such as science.
I see science as what we use to study the world in all it's different forms.
There are many forms of science and many people progressing the world through them.
But they all have one thing in common, as a group, they don't adhere to subjectivity when doing their tasks.
That's why I say science is cold, it's uncaring and it tells you how it is without any filter.
It is what it is, and you get what you see. It gives us facts, it gives us an objective view.

Enough on that, though.
Thanks for the discussion.