The Dark Hole

The Dark Hole [+ favourites]

"Humans can never not know what they can never know."

Does that solve the dilemma of the ever expanding amount of information required to reach enlightenment creating an endless void?

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

sorry about the previous post, I was being childish. Can you elaborate? I'm having difficulty understanding what you're trying to say. Who said that quote anyways?

"I try my best to be just like I am but everybody wants you to be just like them."

Somehow I doubt your intentions are as genuinely inquisitive as you present them to be.

Nonetheless...

The author of the quote is irrelevent if you do not first understand what it means.

It is stating, in essence, that we can never contemplate any knowledge or information in our imagination that we cannot discover.

Tying this to the "endless void" concept that follows thinking that humans can never figure out the "big picture" negates it...

In essence, if we can conceptualize of a "God" and have the capacity within our minds to imagine it, then we have the ability to discover what it is (if it indeed does exist).

Hence, the search for knowledge for us, as humans in our currently evolved state, could be finite in a sense of the word.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

What is our definition of God, Decius? A creature with full understanding? And understanding of what? Everything? God is such a vague term, I've come to realize. Hence, if God were full understanding of everything, wouldn't a finite universe allow every human to become God?

"I try my best to be just like I am but everybody wants you to be just like them."

A definition of God isn't relevent... that was an example of what humans can imagine.

But since you've defined "God" in your post I'll use that definition to answer... and therefore yes, if "God" is a reservoir of infinite knowledge and humans can contemplate such an entity, then humans can indeed discover the real exitence of such an entity. And perhaps, in doing so, become "like" or even realize that they are a part of "God".

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Why would it hurt to say who the quote is by? If not, why indicate its a quote in the first place?

"I try my best to be just like I am but everybody wants you to be just like them."

"Human beings can never know that they can never know".

Are you sure it means what you think it means? Apart from that, are you suggesting that the imagination is essentially chimerical? That its claims to creativity are bogus? In short, do all 'ideas' spring directly from the emipirical world?

firstly, in order to verify that indeed everything we can think of can exist, you have to delve into what the imagination truly is.
Infacy, perhaps thought is a basis of reality, but there are limits to how far thought or imagination can take us, in matters of God or magic for example thought has very little to do....though imagination maybe a different matter.

"I'll heal ur woundz I'll set u free, I m jesus christ on xtacy"

Okay, lets put the imagination aside. Perhaps that isn't a good way to define what that quote is meant to say.

Lets look at it this way: We can never know of not knowing the existence of something without being able to find out that it exists.

Hence, humans will never miss what they don't know exists.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

hmmm, well may be true to some extent, but it is the very desire and feeling that we know very little about the universe that we strive to understand it better-even though we may not know what it is we are looking for or will discover.

"I'll heal ur woundz I'll set u free, I m jesus christ on xtacy"

"Humans can never not know what they can never know."


The most I can make of it, is that we will always be aware of things that are unanswerable. We can never not know (about) what we can never know. It would also then seem to insinuate that the existance of the unanswerable exists. [Edit] And that it always will exist - "what they can never know."

I have read your interpretation of course, Decius, and so I know that my interpretation seems to be the opposite. Is it because of the value that we place on the word "know"? How far is the insinuation of "know" meant to extend? Is it simply as far as awareness and nothing else? Or does the word reach further in and grasp at the state of us having complete knowlegde?

By itself, the quote seems to be too vauge. It needs to have definites in the meanings of the words it uses, or else it does not have one definite meaning.

[  Edited by truth_ephemeral at   ]

As for the concept in the thread itself - that we can comprehend the answers to all of our questions.

Can you even comprehend/accept the idea of definite answers to every single one of mankinds' nagging questions?

Are there definite conclusions to our questions?
Or are there only endless possibilities? (if we believe that our minds cannot comprehend everything)

Can one only answer these questions with a "yes" or a "no"?

Lets say they are yes or no questions.

If you say yes and you believe that there are definite answers, then you go about comfortably searching for those answers and believing that they exist to be found. But how is it possible for us to believe in definites without solid proof in the first place? You have to have faith in that concept. (and yes, what a terribly difficult thing that is to have, when you have such an inquisitive and doubting nature)

If you don't believe that there are any definite conclusions to the questions we ask ourselves, then you are living (partially?) in a world of endless possibilities - it seems to me that you would have to accept that you are not actually ever going to learn anything, because everything loops around in possibility - you simply float through all existing theories. Although your scope on life would be broadened, in a sense, you do not really learn anything, because you would deny that there is any definite lesson/conclusion to be learnt in the first place. And is that really very healthy?