terminal 0
unfinished
NEFX - McKickererts.txt ? And here too the meaning of such concepts is kept elusive, even deliberately, yet also out of the fact that the being presupposing their meaning cannot fully conceptualize and articulate it themselves. ? For the cause of being-as-such ever behooves us to survive and thrive, and quite often many seeming conceptions of matters such as the ultimate, knowing, and objectivity are themselves (often deliberately) culturally cultivated and engineered on a mass level purely along lines of that which is harsh towards a stigmatized Other, and which puts on an air of being beyond the vagaries of mortal emotion while itself being a product of such (albeit generally that which it has not codified as emotion). ? For that matter, one must guard against these exercises from within and without as efforts to appear serious about science while at the same time shirking it. ? Given all this, analysis of knowing as a supposed means of driving at the ultimate can be rather superfluous. ? In the first place, however, one must aim at the precise meaning of such concepts as knowing and the ultimate, let alone knowing of the ultimate or the ultimate of knowing, for they are often invoked a way that presupposes their meaning as established and commonly understood even where the user cannot properly define them. ? It may also view that which is technically wrong as something needing to be entirely discarded or shut out, rather than as a negative piece in one of several truth-relations that adds up to a more total (if not the ultimate) truth. ? Furthermore this thoughtform may see knowing as ultimately futile for the truth of the ultimate, which is to say truth itself, of which all mortal knowing is but insufficient mirages; in a sense, it may see knowing as just another type of truth. ? Accordingly it may see knowing as likewise distinctive from the ultimate, or as proceeding in a mortally untenable and countless series of steps to it, rather than containing within itself some aspect of the ultimate; thereby engendering an ultimately insufficiently curious and honest relation with truth that is perhaps rather functionary. ? Such thoughtforms may not recognize our knowledge as being a child of the context in which we find ourselves in, but rather as a separate thing which is uniform, objectively perceived, and which we meet with. ? Yet by the same token we can find further parts of the truth in the fearful mistrusting folly which meets with the truth process, if in no other sense than in its self-styled skepticism revealing presuppositions of its own that likewise bear investigation. ? Ultimately knowledge is a means of truth that we come into contact with, dispersed as it is from the latter and without which mere absence or inclination would be noted where it otherwise would be. ? That is to say that the thought is part of the dialogic structure adding up to the whole of truth, which includes the contradictions and the falsehoods as well as their answers and contracontradictions; and it is a test of the spirit and quality of investigative work acting upon it and the truth itself and processes which the mistrust inherently calls into question. ? One consequence of this paradox can be a mistrust of any such processes as inherently doomed or dangerous, yet this unto itself is to be taken onboard as a response to be corrected rather than treated likewise, if for no other reason than the imposed duties of truth pursuit and science. ? One paradox of use of instrumental and mortal means of perceiving the ultimate is that it is both necessary as a step for this end and yet rife with traps for self-deception and ultimately misperception.