An Explanation
Home Up Site Map

Religious Insights


hinking is a process.  It yields subjective or relational content.  We catalogue this content linearly (or temporally) giving each difference a successive location in the time of ourselves.  This causes our ability to know to be limited.  This limitation is necessary for us to recognize our difference, which we qualify relative to the sameness that our absence would cause to exist -- both 'pre' as well as 'post' self.

'Pre' self contains one's possibility yet to be realized.  'Post' self contains the results of that realization.  Everyone's history is necessarily incorporated into the latter, giving both a sense of relative duration, even though both potentials remain unknowable for us.  The reason is because we cannot conceptualize the extent of temporality applicable to them in the process of making differentiation between them.  This inability is noted by the open-endedness of the infinity symbols in the above diagram.

In spite of this failing, we function quite adequately between these two unknowables, laying order to everything that falls within our ability to know.  Hence we are quite capable of logically confirming the validity of 'order within the unknowable,' since it amounts to who we are by way of what we know.  This process serves as the qualifier for all forms of self, be they of a lesser or more universal nature.

Consistent with this thinking, Steven Hawking (the renowned astrophysicist from Cambridge) recently made a relevant conclusion. He said:

"Even though we might presume that everything in this universe could eventually be known, that which preceded its beginning is undoubtedly unknowable, because our current reality sufficiently obscures the specifics by which it might otherwise be known."

By qualifying the origin of the universe as an unknowable, Hawking inadvertently confirmed that the origin of consciousness is likewise unknowable.  And, since the two must necessarily be different, the basis for considering the unknowable as a multiplicity has now been established by one of science's most important thinkers.

Although it's normal for scientists to support the idea that the universe had a beginning, since it exhibits motion and appears to be losing energy, it is infinitely more difficult for them to agree upon whether it might end.  Nonetheless, what we can and do know is that our unique individual rendering of the universe has both a beginning and an end. It starts with our initial realization of its existence and ends with our death.  This is more than evident, because death deprives us of the physical capability from which our original conceptualization springs.  Therefore, when we die, so goes our specific depiction of the universe.  In scale, the difference between these two happenings is obviously incalculable. In result however, to the deceased, they are one and the same.

So by qualifying an 'unknowable' with which science can't take issue, one that is directly related to the universe (and hence ourselves), Hawking has in effect confirmed the force of the above proof.  Like it or not, his 'unknowable' must necessarily give way to a second unknowable as the means by which the prior gains access to the field of knowing. It can't occur otherwise, since relativity for us, necessarily depends upon dichotomy as the 'form' for its function.

It therefore follows that we not only can but do know that we exist between two different forms of the unknowable; because, that is what is required to circumscribe all possibility inherent within our idea of the unknowable.  This in turn causes the idea of 'order within the unknowable' to become fundamental to everything else.  Were it otherwise, we would be unable to characterize the place in which we thereafter function.  And, if we couldn't do that, we would be unable to conceptualize the difference by which successive approximations of our potential assume to form.  In other words, we would be unable to conceptualize "time."  This is why the primal association between order and the several forms of the unknowable, as they are explicated above, cannot be logically denied.

Back to Top