21/01/1985
have come to the conclusion that we do know
the problem though is how to describe this knowledge
what goes as knowledge is just this – our description of what it is we know
science is such a description – philosophy – philosophies – religions – are likewise such descriptions
if we strip all this away – all this ‘knowledge’ – what do we have?
we have the unknown – that which ‘knowledge’ addresses itself to
this we know –
but in order to speak of it we must characterize it –
the moment this occurs – we lose knowledge
that is we lose the unknown – forget – a philosophical forgetfulness – an attempt at oblivion – oblivion in the face of the unknown – the known
the real known – the unknown – we have always known
it is a knowledge we cannot live with
the purity of it is too much to face
it is the essence that only mystics can stand – and then only just
there is a picture of the growth of knowledge that is universally accepted by all philosophes – religions – sciences – and other world views
it is that there is growth of knowledge
even those world views that hols that there are universal truths – unchanging and eternal truths – it will be found accept some form of the growth of knowledge – that is that some kinds of knowledge grow – most will accept that empirical knowledge is this kind of knowledge – though they may hold that this is not certain – given – or real knowledge – it is nevertheless a form of knowledge that grows
to my mind no-one has seriously challenged this view – this basic tenet that knowledge grows
not even the most radical skeptic has seriously argued against this
to say that there is no knowledge at all – is one thing – to account for the apparent growth of knowledge is another
