'The Great Mystery is that we cannot ever tell whether something mysterious exceeds our knowledge or not — no matter what we experience or feel.'
'EVER'?! :) This seems like a limit on your project here.
How about:
'The Greater Mystery is that: APPARENTLY we cannot CURRENTLY tell whether something mysterious exceeds our knowledge or not — no matter what we experience or feel; AND we don't know whether there exists a "..." that can make that discernment. (And in fact, whether some of "those" claiming to make such discernments were/are actually "...".)'
I'm really really sympathetic to the line you're advancing here.
Another dimension concerns the tendency to reason from local-Universe to general-Cosmos, when - relative to the conjectured Supreme Benevolence of the putative Ultimate Ground - this Universe already looks like a pretty extreme departure from that Ground.
Yes I understand all the narratives about this departure. But while we're looking for 'at least two *hypotheses*' as a basis for intelligent enquiry, how about *starting* from:
1. Our Universe is a representative-enough exemplar of Cosmos that it's safe to transfer Universe-deductions to properties-of-the-Cosmos
2. Not-1 :)
3. Neither 1 nor 2 :):):)
So then - for example, to return to my opening point - the current apparent-absence of the putative "..." which can make knowledge/mystery discernments may in fact be a symptom of a pathological rather than representative status of our local sub-Reality, (Aka 'Universe'.)
My comments https://johnstokdijk538.substack.com/p/june-3-2025
You say:
'The Great Mystery is that we cannot ever tell whether something mysterious exceeds our knowledge or not — no matter what we experience or feel.'
'EVER'?! :) This seems like a limit on your project here.
How about:
'The Greater Mystery is that: APPARENTLY we cannot CURRENTLY tell whether something mysterious exceeds our knowledge or not — no matter what we experience or feel; AND we don't know whether there exists a "..." that can make that discernment. (And in fact, whether some of "those" claiming to make such discernments were/are actually "...".)'
I'm really really sympathetic to the line you're advancing here.
Another dimension concerns the tendency to reason from local-Universe to general-Cosmos, when - relative to the conjectured Supreme Benevolence of the putative Ultimate Ground - this Universe already looks like a pretty extreme departure from that Ground.
Yes I understand all the narratives about this departure. But while we're looking for 'at least two *hypotheses*' as a basis for intelligent enquiry, how about *starting* from:
1. Our Universe is a representative-enough exemplar of Cosmos that it's safe to transfer Universe-deductions to properties-of-the-Cosmos
2. Not-1 :)
3. Neither 1 nor 2 :):):)
So then - for example, to return to my opening point - the current apparent-absence of the putative "..." which can make knowledge/mystery discernments may in fact be a symptom of a pathological rather than representative status of our local sub-Reality, (Aka 'Universe'.)
Or not. (But see 'at least two ...'.)
Thanks for the post!
And like a ninja you slain me
The complexity of…creates the primary problem
Or it does it so it blows up and turns into bubble gum
all the fucking smoke in air has me looking for mirrors....
my eyes are sore
the biology of adjacency is getting scary.