THE ORIGIN OF KNOWLEDGE

A Rationalistic Investigation

by Stephen Garvey

Because we can't get outside of our minds and know that we are, we are limited to what we know from within our minds. So, even though what we know in our minds appears connected, through unconscious sensory, to what is outside of our minds, we have no way of identifying what is outside of our minds, thus we have no way of rationalizing it. In other words, we can't rationalize what we do not know, because there would be no basis to rationalize it, except to imagine we can. Even if we rationalize from what we know in our minds about what is outside of our minds, we are still rationalizing only what is in our minds. We are left with rationalizing only what refers to in our minds. ¹

To counter this position, we could argue that what we know in our minds is partly from outside of our minds, so there is a possibility that we can rationalize outside of our minds without really knowing that we are. However, as long as we cannot get outside of our minds, we will always be left with doubt as to whether or not we can reason outside of our minds. Further, by the mere fact that we are reasoning, we are in our minds. Therefore, it appears impossible for us to reason outside of them.

From the axiom that we can't know knowledge solely through.itself, it appears that what we know cannot be knowledge itself, which means that what we know must be an empty form. It implies that we ourselves give illusory existence to knowledge itself, since from our perspective, knowledge cannot come from outside of us nor is it a self-creation.

Yet, the form of knowledge, in the state of an appearance in our minds, may be a self-creation. Also, it is unclear how a form, like a thought, could be empty, when it exists? We face the existence of something that exists, without actually existing. In other words, we face that the form of knowledge appears to be a product of our imagination.

Where does our imagination come from?

To answer this question, we turn to who we are, unconscious sensory, thought process, and the notion that not all things and life-forms have intrinsic value like dead life-forms, man-made objects, and thoughts themselves. However, even if we accept that there must be something innate behind the form of knowledge, we must ask ourselves where does knowledge independent of who we are come from?

We could respond that knowledge is an intrinsic extension of who we are, so that it is inherently the same as who we are. Though this argument cannot explain how we can know without intrinsic separation, nor can it explain how we can know anything without us existing prior to knowledge. I conclude that the origin of knowledge is after our own existence and that because it appears that we cannot know who we are while being who we are, (ie. we cannot know who we are), and that we cannot know knowledge itself solely through itself (ie. knowledge is an empty form) that knowledge must be an imaginary product of who we are.

In consideration of the progressive nature of knowledge (ie. we invent knowledge over-time), there must have been a moment when we were without knowledge. So the origin of knowledge appears to come from an assertion by us, without prior knowledge or assumption, that conscious meaning exists. Though I don't have to assume this starting point, because the fact that our knowledge itself appears to be progressive and an empty form implies that we must have imagined knowledge through an unconscious assertion.²  Although, I concede that unconscious assertion is a limited concept because it is from our minds, while referring to something beyond on our minds. Yet, in my view that does not diminish the concept, because all knowledge appears to face the same epistemic limitation. The question we must ask is whether or not unconscious assertion is sound and consistent in relation to itself and all other opposing views.

In this brief essay, I have shown the fundamental reasons why I believe that unconscious assertion is a sound and consistent explanation of the origin of knowledge.

Stephen Garvey attended The University of British Columbia, in which he earned a BA in political science, and completed course work in philosophy. He then attended The University of Cambridge receiving a MA in Environment and Development with thesis emphasis on philosophy. He has written six philosophical works: I Am Existence(1996), The Anti-self(1996), Beyond Weakness(1997), The Inexpressible and The Unknown(1998), Why I Am Right, A Philosophical Investigation of Consciousness(1998), and The Superman Philosophy (1999). Upcoming work of Garvey is The Critique of Reasonableness, A Method to End Partiality.

To discuss this article, go here.

To submit a rebuttal to this article, go here.

Notes:

1. The idea of focusing only on what refers to in our minds is from the ongoing discussion between Ken Bell and Stephen Garvey, Response 27, at www.inexpressible.com. [back to article]

2. Concept of "unconscious assertion" is from the book entitled, Beyond Weakness, by Stephen Garvey. The concept is defined as follows: Assertion: the basis for our imagination.

Asserted knowledge: fabrications through who we are, unconscious sensory, and thought process, which pertain in a limited way to whatever makes up inside and outside of our minds.

Conscious meaning: a state of being non-existent while having form through an external source (ie. who we are) attaching imaginary significance to it.

Imagination: the non-rational basis for our fabrications.

Unconscious: a state of being without asserted knowledge.

Unconscious assertion: the moment of exerting oneself in the empty formation of conscious meaning (ie. the birth of knowledge). [back to article]