The Ontology of Babel – Plato was Wrong!

Introduction

In this article I present Proknowlerate. With this tool, I will prove how Plato/Aristotle was wrong. In fact, the last 2500 years of knowledge is brilliantly clandestinely specious; wrong, in that mind (lowercase) defined Mind (uppercase), namely the 2500 year old Epoch of the Defined Mind. This will be one of the hardest papers for you to read as the rules of ‘sense/rationale/reason’ will be adhered to though your Mind will – predictively, insightfully and self-evidently – resist persuasion (2500 years a quite some time…).*

*In this article, mind/thought/conscience/idea are all implicates of the same meaning and are interchanged throughout this article. Also capitalisation of Mind and mind is, insightfully, purposed.

How can one make such a megalithic claim; 2500 years of proclive, of human inclination? By recognising that mind, defined, Mind – period.

“Buildings can fly, if its footings can defy gravity. The Tower of Babel can fly, and routinely does when examining the history of Mind”

Once mind has axiomatically dogmatically decreed the knowledge of Mind; once mind has determined (or predetermined) Mind, all knowledge proceeding this is/becomes/became axiomatic, that is, self-evident; a self-postulating edifice. A case of a truth determinant determining truth…and truth determinant determining determinants (for e.g. Freud’s Conscious/Subconscious framework) and so on…

Pointedly, this axiom by definition, or perhaps aptly termed ‘Super Axiom’, this piece of predetermined knowledge becomes the rudimentary building block (literally) of all Knowledge whilst ever it is in/with existence (…termed ‘Problems‘ in conventional Knowledge). It is the ‘Rome to where all roads lead too’. This Knowledge thereof and all of its homogenical productions, it’s tributaries, one defines as Proknowlerate (or Anthro-proknowlerate from the term Anthropocentric or ‘Phylocentric‘) and this articles purpose is to expose the existence of Proknowlerate, excavate to find it’s ‘Super-Axiom’ and advise on a Proknowlerate alternative that is, the truer, the ‘what is good Knowledge’. Oh yes lest one forget, and also prove that Plato/Aristotle produced/used Proknowlerate and were thus, more wrong than right (with the utmost respect to fellow Minds of coarse).

What is Proknowlerate

Mind is epi-Knowledge, Knowledge is a Mind substance, an of-Mind phenomena, the progeny of Mind. Proknowleration is the proliferation of Knowledge from Mind, Proknowlerate is Mind produce.

Definition: Proliferation – to multiply, to reproduce, burgeon, de-velope, to grow some Thing. 

The Proknowlerate is a substance of Mind, originating from a dogmatic axiom ,so effectual that it seemingly surplants and augments mind essence; that is, it colonises mind and alures mind (lowercase) into defining (literally) even itself; that is, Mind (uppercase). So luminantly specious that an epoch of minds will hypnotically fly towards the light (and seemingly we have over the last 2500 years)!! Proknowlerate is the Knowledge that proliferates from a sole source, a Super Axiom, to which is extraneously, speciously dogmatic or super-Nullthoughted. (see Essay – Living Knowledge and the Meaning of Life).

What is the difference between wrong Knowledge and Pronknowlerate? Knowledge that is wrong is proven wrong and resultantly withers into insignificance and death. Proknowlerate is wrong Knowledge though is so specious, super-specious, that it has existed as ‘right Knowledge’ for more than 1000 (arbitrarily chosen) years. That is, Knowledge that has maintained its existence, above the Proknowlerate Super Axiom (or dogmatic axiom) for more than 1000 years. Proknowlerate is self-righteous, is a false argument, is a true fallacy, a super fallacy; and what’s more, maintains its existence via its prophetic agents; it’s pontificates and all the ‘flame seeking moths’ (no contempt intended).

How does Proknowleration work? How does it progen/multiply/produce? Proknowletation occurs when name is appointed/decree’d/denominate to phenomena (or noumena). This naming is to Nomen (Latin for name or Nama (Upanishad)) or Nom (Latin root word for name and Greek word Nomos is Law and Law is a decree of Objective…) phenomena, specifically, to denominate phenomena expressedly in/into word.

How is Proknowlerate

Proknowlerate procreates via Nom, via name. What is it thus to Nom? What is it to name?

“In the beginning was The ‘WORD’ ” – Gen1:1

To name is to forge Form from the Formless (a ‘formality’), the object from the subject, finite from the infinite. To name is to resolve/convict/proport/nominate/noun Thing and to thus instantiate Not Thing. Then, at the moment of this occurrence, Duality (Thing/No Thing) of Form begins (form in this case, Knowledge). To be-gin is to be-tenebitur planta (Latin) to be-snare, that is to circumscribe/border/coalesce/delineate/pronounce/decree Thing and ergo its (Dualistic) Not Thing; the result, ‘apparent’ Knowledge.

So proceeding the Nom, Knowledge bes in Dualistic counterpart bes/is (it ‘becames’ all-so), the The and not The. We are in the 2500 year epoch of Duality produce, Mind/Not Mind produce, Thing or Not Thing produce, 1 or 0 produce, The/Not The produce. But what does Duality mean, what are the predicates of Duality and where does it relate to Nom? 

When there is Thing, there must be a Not Thing yes (classic Duality), but formostely, there must be a psycho-circumscription of Thing, a ‘conviction border’ declared around Thing, a nom-ination of Thing, a pronouncement of Thing; a (perhaps, spirited egoistic) decreed Nom. 

To examine the substrates of this process, let’s call the aforementioned circumscription border the Equi-thing Delineate (the ‘Middle Way’ in Buddhism; Maat in Egyptology), that is, the border that defines/delineates Thing and Not Thing from the ‘Equi-Thing/Not Thing potential’.

At this very point in moment, Thing (and it’s Dualistic counterpart) have been birthed via Nom into dogmatic existence (yes indeed dogmatic), with frontiers, maxims of essence and outermost property defined/circumscribed by the Equi-thing Delineate. In terms of linguistics, this is the point where a subjective notion becomes objective and is awarded capitalisation (Insightfully, etymology of words Capital/Capitol convey motifs of fortification, defence of sovereignties, protrude-ment, pronouncement and so forth).

Knowledge is born and is thus proceeded by Nom. Proknowleration then proceeds Nom and Proknowleration, by definition ‘rapidly’ multiplies Dualistical Equi-thing Delineated Knowledge; termed (in article – What is Thought, Where is Mind) Noun Mitosis (almost always in Dendritic form, resembling a ‘Tree of Knowledge’ (articulated in Existence Bes in the Triumph of Not Thinking over Thinking article)). It multiplies to the point (and beyond) at which the Proknowlerated Knowledge (often the Knowledge Superlatives in Existence Bes in the Triumph of Not Thinking over Thinking article) fashions the very essence of Mind speciously. That is, this Proknowlerated Knowledge ‘self-righteously’, spawns Proknowlerate, that is Mind; and in today’s case, it has bordered Mind to the confines of phenomena Thing, of finiteness, of discrete Form, of Realism’s material that is Brain.

The Lantana becomes bush; and proceeds to define what is Bush in-and-of-itself”

Proknowlerate Expose’  

Evidence of Proknowleration is clear when examining almost all text written within the last 2500 years. Perhaps the entire epoch – thus – can be defined by this Proknowlerates’ very existence; pointedly, the existence of our belief (by definition) that Mind is finite, discernible and is, in definancy.

“Give humanity one free miracle and humanity will explain the rest” – “ Give humanity one free Super Axiom and humanity will Proknowlerate the rest”

Forget the Cartesian dichotomy of Mind/body; at what point in history did ‘we/mind/Pronowlerate’ declare Mind? Perhaps aptly termed the ‘Super Axiom mind/Mind Discernment’ (note the intent in the capitalisation) or ‘Mindism’? That is, at what point did mind Nom Mind; and consequently Not Mind?

Forget Mind over Matter; try Mind over mind…

You see, even when one names the profound phenomena of Mind, Not Mind bes in consequential counterpart. So via Proknowleration to Nom Mind is to decree it an It and a not It, to pronounce it’s it-ness/not it-ness, to progen it (it and not it) into pseudo mind sovereignty that is’s/’becames’ known (a Known). Clear evidence of ‘oversight’/dogma though has stood as a (at least) 2500 year old Super Axiom, underpinning all orthodoxical Knowledge up until today!

“ give mind one free axiom to believe, and Mind will Proknowlerate the rest”

When playing with seemingly immortal, infallible, 2500 year epoch lasting Super Ideas and their ‘Super Axioms’ and the conceptual tool of Proknowleration, dogma should reveal itself (if the Psych tool of Proknowlerate is useful). If Proknowlerate is useful then applying this epistemological tool of Proknowlerate to Orthodox Knowledge should reveal the Super Axiom Mind.

Some examples:

1. Idealism (Plato) and Realism (Aristotle)

  • Realism is predicated on a Nom’d mind, a nomited Mind. The ideas of Phenomena (of mind, object) and Noumena (independent of mind, object) are Proknowlerates pregnant with the finite defined Mind axiom. And with a defined Mind, Forms are thus denominated in Mind. For example:
    1. “I” -> Mind
    2. “I am” -> Mind is-ing
    3. “You” -> Noumenos (Not Mind)
    4. “Apple” -> Noumenos (Not Mind)
  • Idealism is predicated – seemingly – on a not-Nom’d mind, an infinite mind, an ‘Omni-Mind’. ‘All is Mind and Mind is all’ seems paradoxically fitting. Now Proknowlerate can still cultivate in an infinite not-Nom’d mind ‘canvas’ via the idea of cascading, regressional, cyclic etc… punctuated Mind (synonymous to that of Epistemology Problems)… That is, Idealism forms Knowledge by punctuating/circumscribing phenomena, with an Equi-thing Delineate to form a (let’s term) Demi-Mind (Demimind) Nom, from the Omni-mind (where ‘mind’ in Omni-mind is neither capitalised or not capitalised) . At that point, Proknowlerate proliferates denominated/predicated/de-nucleated from the Demimind, denominated in Demimind. It is from this origin/nucleus/punctuate, that the Proknowlerate of Idealism progens. Pointedly and like that of Realism, we are – similarly – progenerating Proknowlerate from the Nom’d, regardless of its ‘primordial infinity source’ that is, Omnimind (Idealism) or Universe (Realism).

Mind is the parent of the children Realism and Idealism. That is, both notions involve a Nom’d Mind parent. Both are thus Proknowlerates above the Super Axiom of Mind (Nom’d) and are thus denominated in Mind.

Introducing the Super Axiom of Infinity Omni (a nescesary digression)

An additional notion to toughen the above argument is the Axiom of Omni Type that both Realism and Idealism ‘habitate’/reside in; in both cases, introducing the Infinity Omni. Realism has the Infinity Omni – Universe. Idealism has the Infinity Omni – Omnimind…in and of themselves self defining self and the antithetical ‘not-self’ habitat; exposing the mind/Mind problem and existence of Proknowlerate.

George Berkeley’s : “To be is to be perceived”; predicates a Nom’d mind; regardless of Ideal/Real-ism genealogy. Pointedly, it is regardless of the ‘Infinity Omni’ you place it in.

The mind/Mind Problem shows that Realism and Idealism are not a dichotomy. They are in and of the same types in that they are both constructs of a erroneous solved mind/Mind Problem. Specifically, they are both constructed with/from the following chronology:

  1. Presume mind/Mind Problem is solved. That is, mind is Mind.
  2. Choose your Infinity Omni Super Axiom – Universe (Realism) or Omnimind (Idealism)
    • Define: Infinity Omni is a Type of Super Axiom or most essentially is another name for Super Axiom.
  3. Nom a mind – Mind (Realism) or Demimind (Idealism)
  4. Begin Proknowleration…

Both Realism and Idealism contain the Super Axiom of a solved mind/Mind Problem (the ‘i’ in the article ‘Oh wow…Atheists have a God‘). The rest is just Proknowlerate, with ‘i’ – a solved mind/Mind problem – as the Super Axiom.

Of further note here is that of the Upanishads ‘Thou Art That’. This statement is a juxtaposition of Self (Thou) and not-Self (That) or; a nom’d Mind (Thou) and not-Mind (That) or; an Infinity Omni (That) and a Mind (Thou). Verily, the moment Mind or That exists, That or Mind must also counter-exist respectively. And for notable completeness here (and in a humble attempt of ‘That-ing’ a divine venerate, I.e. Brahma), the Upanishad’s Brahma is neither existence of Thou or That; preceding Thou Art That; not two concepts but the undefined, uncircumscribed un-Nom’d Thought fleeting One or Oneness.

As long as you still experience the stars as something above the head you lack the eye of knowledge” – Fredrick Nietzsche

As above so below…as out-side so in-side” – somanywhys.com

2. Time

A product of Realism. Whether it pertains to the periodic succession of day and night Earth around Sun, or “the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two heroine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom” (wiki); time is a solved mind/Mind Problem construct. When one decrees Mind, its Mind denominants be (dogmatically) in time; they gain tempus (Latin for time) or momentum (Latin for time), the verb (expression of existence) of moment.

Time is thus provable Proknowlerate.

3. Descartes Mind/Body Problem: 

The Mind Body problem proceeds a solved mind/Mind Problem. That’s is, Mind is Nom’d and thus there is Not Mind; and within this Not Mind region, there is Body … and then in Body, experience; stupendously extrapolated, that is, Proknowlerate.

It is worthy of note that Atomism started in Ancient Greece. Atom’s, the material axiom, lasted up until the 18th century to where their dogmatic axiomatic status was thwarted by Quanta. 

4. A Priori and Posteriori

A Priori – Knowledge before experience

Posteriori – experience before Knowledge

It is hard to argue that experience is not a construct of Mind… Thenceforth, the A Priori/Posteriori model assumes a defined Mind and is thus Proknowlerate.

5. Objective and Subjective 

Similar to that of Realism/Idealism, Objective/Subjective are large ideas with a vast range of interpretations and definables, though evidence of Proknowlerate emerges when one plays with some contemporary Objective/Subjective ordinances. For example,

  1. Objective/Subjective Form: The idea that Noumena and Phenomena have Form, that to which is the ‘same’ perceived through/via multiple Minds. An argument implying discrete Minds – Proknowlerate unveiled!
  2. Objective/Subjective Ideas: To have an Objective idea is to have an idea void of personal flavour. An argument implying a discrete Mind to which is furnished with flavour thereof – Proknowlerate unveiled!
  3. Objective/Subjective Mathematics: Apparently Mathematics is Objective. A Realist argument for this is simple Proknowlerate though an Idealist is camouflaged well. For example, if Mind is not ‘confided to skull’ and we are all of one mind, then the apparent Objectivity of Mathematics is nothing more than a ‘self-righteous’ thought; that is, a self-validating thought where self is the entirety of humanity (the ‘compositional communal mind’ or Omnimind). 1 + 1 is only and absurdly 2 proceeding a Nom’d Mind… – Proknowlerate unveiled!
  4. A thought experiment in the form paradox: does god have Objective thoughts?

Objective/Subjective are also Existence Dualism terms (see article) where one can only exists with the existence of the other. Thus, ‘absolute Subjective’ will always have a counterpart or Objective at its essence therefore.

6. Science and Independent Verification

(See article Science’s New Clothes), a ‘Left Brain Sense Religion’.

7. Self and Not Self (Others)

 “Student: Why do we exist? 

Lecturer: Well, who’s asking?”

What is Self? Well, not Not Self. What therefore delineates this Duality? EquiThing Delineate where Super Axioms are Mind/Not Mind; thus Proknowlerate. 

8. Numbers (amendment)

Numbers be, post belief in the Super Axiom of One-ness.

Philolaus argued that at the foundation of everything is the part played by the limiting and limitless, which combine together in a harmony (wiki).

Philolaus (c. 475 BC) systematized the number theory of Pythagoras. He stressed the importance of numerical groupings and the divine properties of number. He conceived number ‘one’ or the Monad as ‘the first principle of all things’. The Monad is the unified principle in the center of the sphere identified with the central fire: the hearth.” (ref: https://www.philosophy.gr/presocratics/philolaus.htm)

Yes indeed that is fine to “conceive number one or the Monad as the first principle of all things”, so long as you acknowledge or re-cognise that it is a Super Axiom of Mind Mode Belief. Additionally, all Super Axioms become the ‘first principle’ of all ‘Things’ (Proknowlerate) yes indeed, to which in-fact are denominated in the said Super Axiom.

9. Argument Against Infinite Regress and Infinite Circulatory (amendment)

The Münchhausen Trilemma, a profound postulate on the origins of Knowledge. This article shows that the trilemma is superfluous and cleans the trilemma into an absolute, a foundation of foundations with the notion of Super Axiom. Pointedly, it presents Knowledge that irrefutably precedes the trilemma; in-fact a Knowledge requisite for the trilemma and thus proves the trilemma as obfuscated Knowledge; a progeny of Knowledge that by definition precedes it, that-is it shows that the Münchhausen Trilemma Proknowlerate.

How can one refute the notion of Super Axiom? You see for both:

  1. Circular arguments and,
  2. Regressive arguments, (both postulated in the Münchhausen Trilemma)

…one must – at first – primordially state Knowledge that-is point-in-fact decree a Super Axiom, an origin to regress or circulate or ‘sylogate’ from…simple. Furthermore, all is progeny from this point, regardless of shape (circle or line) and contains the Super Axiomatic radical.

You see, the first decree/anointment/punctuate/declaration is in-and-of-itself a Chief Corner Stone, a Super Axiom to which;

  1. Circle arguments circulate from and,
  2. Regressive arguments regress or even induct from…

Further, with a Circular argument it is said that the premise is the conclusion, the cause is the effect and yes indeed it inevitably is; a Super Axiom. It’s orbitals, or co-circular predicates contain the Super Axiomatic radical.

A Regressive argument and unlike a circle, never circulates to connect premise with conclusion, cause with effect, Super Axiom with Super Axiom. Though indeed, it’s ‘progeny tail’ does contain the Super Axiomatic radical. Further, it is said to require termination/punctuation/authority by it’s ad-infinite digressive/un-punctuated/un-terminated nature…it requires Thought Toil (and thus subsists by NullThought) though ultimately and therefore, is – Mind Mode – ‘Believed in’. Exonerated by its romance/entanglement with Infinity, by its determinant of ad-infinity. Quint-essential-ly, the notion of Regression contains all the tenets, the descriptors, the essence of a Super Axiom, just un-aggregated and with more spirit/Will, more obfuscate. Perhaps a ‘dirty’ Super Axiom if you will.

As discussed in the article, The Religion of Plato and Aristotle, a Super Axiom is of type Oneness. A true Thought fleeting notion that can only be preminised, glimpsed at to which has no other, no counter-part, and can only be ultimately – Mind Mode – believed in. 

A Super Axiom precedes the Münchhausen Trilemma. The Münchhausen Trilemma is a product of the Super Axiom to which is punctuated by an Infinity Omni (a Super Axiom declaration type defined in the article The Ontology of Babel – Plato was Wrong!.). The simplified Münchhausen Trilemma is a Super Axiom, is not three but One-ness.

Modus of Proknowleration (the Formative or the Spirit of Proknowlerate)

Money (in this epoch). Phenomena given form, by definition, inherits the quality of scarcity. Now any Thing, (that has been Nom’d into form) is scarce (‘finite’) and is – by definition- a commodity and can be thus monetised; that is, denominated in money. So money augments Proknowlerate; a vine is augmented or ‘pro-guided’ by its Trellis; synonymously, money is the ‘Knowledge Trellis’ and Proknowlerate is ‘pro-guided or sponsored’ by money; Proknowlerate is contingent on money. Perhaps more aptly termed, the spirit or agent of Proknowlerate is money (inherent in Marx Superstructure theory).

Alas Money; I pity …(see article Money, the Grand Malevolence Metric)

“there is no money in doing a presentation where one does not talk…”

“Capitalism ceases to exist if we all share, and so does Me-ism…”

“cooperate not incorporate! ”

and if, money is the primary spirit of Proknowlerate, what/who therefore, controls money? Well, the Primordial Agents of Money (see article) of coarse.

A Thought on Oneness

Me-ism , capitalism, money all progen/encourage/proliferate more Thing. More commodities, more Proknowleration, more to ‘scarcify’, more nouns/names/Noms, more above Oneness. It is not a wonder that most Gnostical text contain the archetype or motif of returning to Oneness – essentially implying, there is no use (literally) in Proknowlerate….discard it and return to Oneness (in phonetics) the primordial “Aum”, “Om”. Allegorically represented in the article What is Existence – The Quest that I is On where I (in this case) and its products can be thought of as Proknowlerate. 

This motif is evident through all great texts, words, linguistics, phonetics etc. Consider the following:

One (reference to self), Oneness, Hom-osapien, Hom-oestasis, Individual (In-divisible-Dual; i.e One), Atom (in divisible), Monad (one, atom), Uni-verse, Aum or Om (when zeroth progenned one), at the divine moment of human procreation (sensual orgasm) often participants tone a “ohhhhhm”, indeed a vocalised repetition of the “ohhhhhm” by a women inexorably conjures the divine sensual energy in a man (an auto innate response similar to that of hissing at a cat) , and so forth and so on...

What is in fact is to Nom (Latin) is to name, to which is strikingly phonetically similar to Om (or Aum), the Vedic/Hindu sacred sound, the seed of universal life, perhaps the On in On-tological, the Hom in Homosapien/Homology, the Om in Omniscience. Similarly, Proknowleration gives life to Knowledge (see Essay – Living Knowledge and the Meaning of Life).

A Thought on Psychedelics

Psychedelics (to which one is not condoning use of) endow a ‘mind alternative’ experience to which we juxtapose with our typical ordinances. Psychedelics are said to “relax ones beliefs”. In similarity to dreams, they forge upon us ‘reality alternatives’ to which can be reality nuance, amplification of known reality, or combinate/permutate of our known reality ordinances. Psychedelics are proof of the existence of alternatives, including antithetical Proknowlerate, perhaps in the form of better truths ‘out there’ in the Infinity Omni alternatives. One is not professing what a better truth is, one is (perhaps apagogically) professing what a better truth isn’t; Proknowlerate (or perhaps epithetically, ‘Phsyco-Ordinances’) and Super Axioms. Psychedelics seemingly prove the existence of potential source for proliferating better truths.

“Psychedelics, the enemy of Proknowlerate…”

“The Proknowlerate Framework is the Magic Mushroom of Epistemology”

What is not Proknowlerate, what is Good Knowledge?

What is therefore Knowledge you might ask? One will not decree though what one does know is NullThought (see Essay – Living Knowledge and the Meaning of Life) is seemingly not using the splendour of mind, increases the likelihood of Proknowleration and can be stated as futile or not good, not truth. What we can state, free from proclive is that to Thought, to contemplate is good and will, decrease, the likelihood of Super-Axiom emergence and thus the commoditization of Knowledge in the form of Proknowlerate.

Conclusion

Was Plato/Aristotle wrong? Well, is it more wrong than right to decree a Super Axiom and Proknowlerate (proliferate false Knowledge) from it? Denominate Knowledge from a Philosophical Hard Problem, from a said Super Axiom? Perhaps if you are aware (‘of Mind’) that it is a Super Axiom then you are Proknowlerating with intention, that is obfuscating, your products are Babel, and this is wrong. It is wrong in that one is wrongfully proliferating a path of Knowledge, that others must deplete in order to refute and you see most minds have not the capability or the stamina to do so thus the Knowledge remains in existence by its ‘extreme-itical’ nature (see Essay – Living Knowledge and the Meaning of Life and the metaphor of the World Champion Squash Player on the top of Mount Everest). Further, apperceptively extending and even juxtaposing said Knowledge and its permutations, left and right, liberal and conservative, endless gerrymandering, is seemingly fruitless; fruitless in the sense that the collective ‘mankind Mind energy’ spent on conversing, debating, arguing Proknowlerate is futile; will progenerate more Proknowleration and stave off a better truth. Mind’s (capital M) Proknowlerate subjugates the divinity of mind (no capital m).

“I do not know what Truth is but I do know what it isn’t…Proknowlerate!

Knowledge should exist in simple palatable form for all Minds to prosecute, to Thought (see Essay – Living Knowledge and the Meaning of Life). Knowledge should strive to avoid the Knowledge classification termed in this article, Proknowlerate and its doing, termed Proknowleration. Prosecution of Super Axioms (the mind/Mind Problem) should be championed by mankind, discovered via Thought (see Essay – Living Knowledge and the Meaning of Life), and eradicated to make way for a greater, more sensible/rational/reasonable Knowledge;void of ego, earnest, credulance, tyranny, conceit, reliance, Super Axiom and so on…

For those holding positions that Philosophy holds no value, one hopes this article demonstrates its value and its revelatory essence of ‘what is man’. Pointedly, the place of the self-righteous Knowledge detector, the self validating Knowledge detector; the place of the Knowledge Police on the prowl for the Knowledge Villain; Proknowlerate. Perhaps Philosophy can be thought of as a Science to which jurisdiction lies outside the confides of what orthodox Science decrees admissibly sense-able (pun intended with vigour).

The last 2500 years can be defined as ‘The Epoch of the Defined mind’. This article serves as an expose’ of Proknowlerate; as a prosecution of this epoch’s Super Axiom. If it has served its purpose well, ‘we’, now know this, we are ‘mindful’ of it, we understand it, it has been illuminated. Now in light of it, let’s dispose of this 2500 year old Proknowlerate of Babel, let’s think in a better good, let’s converse a higher truth and continue the transcendental proliferation of ‘what is Homo Sapien’.

12 Comments

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s