Knowing

What does it mean, when someone says "they know" or they "fail to know"? Is there a limit to one's capacity to know? Or are there some things that are actually unknowable?

If we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit we are all sometimes mistaken in our beliefs, which means some of them are true, whilst others are false. There are times where we construct beliefs to create a positive state of mind or conversely to hoodwink ourselves and what becomes apparent from this is that some of these beliefs do not relay the way things actually are.

Is there an unerring way of arriving at beliefs?

Knowing, for the Greeks was a revelation. A reality is unveiled, for the senses to perceive.

If we consider that nature is another way of saying the past (sum of all nurturing), manifesting in the present (the presence), then knowing is a (re)membering of what we feel in ourselves and we (re)cognize, as it speaks to our deepest spirit...on a cellular level.
(Forgetting is a dismembering...a fragmentation towards chaos)
Genes are a form of memory, stored in code.

Knowledge is stored experiences - stored in memory, the brain (first-hand), or in code, in tradition, song, written text (second-hand).
In modern times, because brains are made to feel insecure, inadequate, detached from their past/nature, and dependent on others, knowledge is almost always second-hand.
Authorities tell us what to know, sometimes contradicting our own experiences, our own senses.  

To understand, on the other hand, is to bring this unveiling into focus - to connect it with other knowledge/data/information and find patterns within it.
Understanding is a rationalization of what has been experienced, or adopted from an other's experiences.

Understanding must refer back to the sensed, the experienced, otherwise it is theoretical, and can be used to manipulate the mind, as is done in the modern west.

I am reading that intuition, perception and reasoning play a part in "knowing and understanding".

I will change that.

If truth is a condition of knowledge, is there a place for intuition in all of this?

Isn't knowing mere submission?

reasonvemotion wrote:

I am reading that intuition, perception and reasoning play a part in "knowing and understanding".

I will change that.

If truth is a condition of knowledge, is there a place for intuition in all of this?  

Intuition is the cellular 9organic) knowledge, stimulated by sensual input where the brain senses something but cannot pinpoint its source, or clarify its reasons - it knows without understanding.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Intuition is the cellular 9organic) knowledge, stimulated by sensual input where the brain senses something but cannot pinpoint its source, or clarify its reasons - it knows without understanding.

Yes, I understood that, but still wondered how it came about.  From what I understand, from knowledge comes intuition, which originates from unconscious sensory impressions, a combination of perceptions and impressions, which probably would only be stored if they had affected us in some way and makes what we call intuition tell us something.

Is all knowledge built on instinctive beliefs?  

Plato believed in the pre-existence of the soul, which tied in with his innatism. He thought that we are born with knowledge from a previous life that is subdued at birth and must be relearned. He saw all attainment of knowledge not as acquiring new information, but as remembering previously known information. Before we were born, we existed in a perfect world where we knew everything.

Genes are stored data...stored experiences.
The brain is a conduit, a nexus between the internal physical processes (including every organ, and every cell within that organ as they all interact) - psychology being a product of organ weakness/strength - and the sensual input, flooding into the brain in a simplified/generalized abstracted form.

Not all the data can be consciously perceived, brought up into focus. Most of it lingers as unprocessed sensations, sometimes coming forth in the night when the brain does its de-fragmenting.
But before the unprocessed data is pushed back into unconsciousness, only to be expunged later, it produces sensations, in conjunction with the more lucid parts of our experiences.

This is intuition.
A sensation we feel but cannot pinpoint, cannot explain.
Intuition is not necessarily correct. we only remember the correct intuitions and quickly forget all the ones that went nowhere.
Nevertheless, intuition is more informed, as more data is not processed, and we pick-up on details which are never brought into focus.

Some have confused this for an external source directing their opinions.
Bicameral mind?

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Bicameral mind?

Julian Jayne's Theory

"The weight of original thought in it is so great that it makes me uneasy for the author's well-being: the human mind is not built to support such a burden."

The reaction of most people would be "that his theory is over the top".   I am interested in his theory and think he was a man way before his time.

It remains to be seen if it is pursued and explored.