Being Too Judgmental About Epistemlogy

 In this era where the human species has realized that being too judgmental may be an unnecessary prelude to fomenting conflict (and that superfluous conflict may be counterproductive and present steep opportunity costs) it might be noted that social media and science have found the field of epistemology-theory of knowledge, to be ripe for disputations. Perhaps those actually interested in philosophy might be concerned with de-conflicting the points of view that might be 180 degrees apart (I would say at loggerheads except the term is somewhat anachronistic and logging is unpopular vs popular itself with partisans tending toward extremes). Epistemological conflict has even entered the field of religion where some seek to make epistemological questions and test a necessary element of soteriological concern.

 One epistemological issue of note is that of subjectivism vs objectivism including ontology. A theory of being and a theory of knowledge concurring simultaneously; the observer and knower in-the-field yet not of it, or in-the-field and aware, or in-the-field (the field comprising the Universe) and not aware of what the field really is for-itself.

 Some people believe (actually a majority perhaps of philosophers) that naive empiricism is obsolete. It bears the same relation to perception of reality that Newton’s theory of gravity had; conditionally and temporarily the best truth available yet surpassed by Einstein’s General Theory of Gravity that is waiting to be surpassed by a newer better theory that could be very strange or arise from myriad directions. Others believe that science is obsolete and that ontological mathematics is reality for-itself. Inexpert in the field myself, I would guess it is something like the criterion described by Max Tegmark in his decade old book named ‘The Mathematical Universe’. Tegmark described a Multiverse constructed solely of math. Math descriptions of quanta and how they are-in what state they are in, would not only be a representative portrayal of the Universe, it would actually be what the Universe is made of.

 I believe the point of various subtle mathematical descriptions of primary quanta is to make the representation the Universe-for-itself. Obviously it is also a construct by sentient human knowers perceiving sensations, learning about the quanta comprising the sensations and formulating a math theory to explain it all even including their own mind. Plainly though the theory is artificial and not a necessary component of every human mind today.

 Religious mystics describe their own encounter with God in an experience transcending reality. Reality opens up to experience. I had an experience something like that driving a Honda Civic downhill on a freeway through Utah that lasted a few moments. It is so unusual and life transforming (to a limited extent) that it is memorable.

 Religious mysticism though is traditional regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church as well it might be. I think the experience though paranormal shouldn’t necessarily be regarded as an encounter with God. Instead it is an encounter with a subjective-objective experience briefly transcending the mundane world of experience. May there are a few who would describe an experience like that as an encounter with God, and perhaps theirs was, I cannot say, yet it is not in any way requisite for salvation nor even a good idea. Scripture provides the strait and simple path through the narrow gate to eternal life with God; and that is through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 I mention religious mysticism here because some people have attacked Abrahamic faith as a kind of mysticism in their effort to attack science, Kantianism and sundry forms of ways of thinking about the Universe’s mechanics. The end of the subject-object distinction developed by philosophers like W.V.O. Quine, P.F. Strawson and others joined with the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle and other quantum mechanical concepts has prompted a new generation of intellectual cosmological mysticism with believers regarding themselves as not mystics.

 The idea of pure math comprising the Universe things leads one to reflect upon Plato’s realm of forms where real forms exist of which everything in the observed world is a copy. That idea is an example of intellectual mysticism even if it provided baskets of differential equations and eigenvalues to all that ask freely. It is an interesting era.