I’m going to prove to you that Knowledge is considered truth from more not-contemplation (knowing) then contemplation (knowing).
Teacher: It is very hard to argue that Knowledge is not recognised by a bundle of words. Consider a word like a literal brick. Now a brick in this case also metaphorically represents a finite object of the infinite subject; a finite in the infinite.
Student: ok got it.
Teacher: Now i want you to explain to me a circle in four words/bricks.
Student: ok, “something that is round”
Teacher: Nice try but isn’t the word “round” somewhat closely associated or related to circle? Or, round is a constituent of the constitution circle. If so, you cannot explicitly use a constituent to define a constitution (of multiple constituents)
Student: yes i guess so. Ok i won’t use that word though if i do not use the word “round”, i am will need a heap more words to describe a circle
Teacher: Yes correct. Do you agree that if you were to use – let’s say – 20 words it would look something like this?
Student: Yes, hard to argue otherwise
Teacher: ok give it a try.
Teacher: ok good try, i can start to see the circle. Let’s make it more accurate… what is a curve?
Teacher: ok very clever. For higher ‘circle resolution’, we proceed to ask what is an image? Continues function? Interval? Topological Space and so-forth-and-so-on…
Do you agree that the more accurate we would like to define a circle (more ‘circle resolution’), the more words (word bricks) are required? For example, a high ‘circle resolution’ ,circle definition looks like this
Student: Yes agree
Teacher: ok now for more ‘circle resolution w e would use a ‘thick textbook’ or ‘University Degree’ amount of words, and it would look like this?
Student: Yes agree. Theoretically, to define a circle to its maximum (limit) of definability, like you have shown, one would have to state a definition (words) and then state all constituents of each word etc etc until all axioms were allegorated in words. If one were to do this, the word bricks would be so small, it would look very circle-ish. The more words, the greater the ‘circle resolution’ literally and metaphorically.
Teacher: Agree. Now if I zoomed in though, could I see the bricks?
Student: Yes you could
Teacher: Great. Now consider a circle to be infinity and the ‘word brick’ to be the finite (rectangle or square in shape)
Teacher: Via contemplation (knowing), we coalesce infinity into finite; we attempt to construe circle into square. We recognise that one square cannot represent a circle so one tries with four, with 20, with 100, with a university degree, quantum mathematics, escoterics etc.. until one reaches one’s contemplation (knowing) limit, one’s superlative Knowledge. At this point, one proclaims/decrees Knowledge.
We are then left with a divine quandary:
the more word bricks (finite) give a more defined circle (infinite); though the more word bricks, the more contemplation (knowing) requisite, the more sequestered Knowledge, Knowledge scarcity, Knowledge speciality and thus less ‘peer knowing’.
Student: ooo yes i see. Knowlng (contemplation) creates Knowledge (the finite) of the infinite though proportionally gives rise to knowing (contemplation) scarcity…Basically, the more specialty Knowledge created, the less peers or humans can contemplate (knowing) it, hence Knowledge gaining scarcity. And ‘speciality Knowledge’ is and can only be a portion of the circle or infinity such as the magnifying glass in the above diagram.
Teacher: Yes indeed. To little words (squares) is Infinite (circle) rape; to many words (squares) and infinity (circle) is obfuscated/sequested into specialization.
Student: Then what is the virtues balance?
Teacher: Yes great question. Ego is a metric. When an epoch has net ego, Knowledge (square) veneration is in triumph. Conversely, when an epoch is lacking ego, knowing (contemplation/not-Knowledge) veneration is in triumph. This is an expose’, a metric of a direction an epoch is facing; towards knowing or Knowledge.
Student: So when people are calling Knowledge ‘fact’, that means that the finite/square, that Knowledge is being venerated and knowing therefore is dead (on said Knowledge)? Ha, and fact means absolute/total yes i get it. Absolute Knowledge is dead knowing…
Teacher: You got it. Indeed what we can safely say is that Knowledge is good, amass it via knowing (contemplation) though never anoint it; never coronate it to divine absolute status ‘fact’. You see, it is neither ‘circle’ (infinity/knowing/contemplation) or square (finite/Knowledge/dead-knowing) veneration, this is a invirtues dichotomy. It is the following:
“Knowing (contemplation) is a virtue; Knowledge is a virtue. Via knowing, one ammasses Knowledge and should never anoint it to which is to cease knowing on it. Knowledge is the produce of the divine knowing” – somanywhys.com
Teacher: Sadly today, there is more specialist Knowledge requested in the hands of specialists; out of reach of peer use. We can safely state therefore that today’s orthodox Knowledge is more survived by not-knowing, dead knowing; that is, beyond the reach of peer knowing (contemplation). Most of today’s Knowledge is a product of dead knowing (contemplation).