Models of Knowledge

The podcast explore all of this ending.

Hello everyone, this is JJ, and welcome back to another episode of Southern Demonology. I apologize for being away for a while, but even though I'm working from home, it does not mean that the work has lessened. Which has been great. It's allowed me to get my mind off from everything and actually focus on work. So in that regard, it's been it's been good. Um and plus, as they say, I've been socially distancing well before it was ever mandatory, so it hasn't required exactly a huge amount of readjustment for me.

But still, it's you know it's an entirely different mindset that one has to adjust to. But anyway, we are now back, and today I wanted to talk about a few different topics, but we're gonna start off with knowledge, which is kind of appropriate because for anyone that's been listening for a while, you know that my first love um in the academic sense wasn't religion, but rather philosophy. And I actually came to philosophy from a very practical perspective. In high school I fell into the lap of Lincoln Douglas debate, which is all um value debate or philosophical debate.

And honestly, you know, there's a few different formats for debates out there. Uh you have your pure policy debates, you have some amalgamations, but to me it's always been Lincoln Douglas because, and I'm not going to go too in-depth in this, don't worry, I'm not trying to bore anyone out there any more than I already do. But um Lincoln Douglas debate is all about um you have a value proposition, and then each uh you always prepare both an affirmative and a negative, and you're randomly assigned to either side of those.

Um but in order to focus your arguments, you always have a value and a criterion. And the value is some philosophical concept or goal. So for example, morality or utilitarianism, and then your criterion would be essentially how you will accomplish that philosophical value. So if it is utilitarianism, then you're looking at a you know criterion of maybe um Lops utilitarianism uh or um uh act utilitarianism or whatever it may be. And then you would build your cases all off from that. So I I fell in love with philosophy.

Um and so when I got into college I knew that was one of the things that I was going to study. And I love it, I still love it, I still read as much as I can, which hasn't been nearly as much as of late, but so anyway, the point of me actually rambling about that, and I apologize, is I had a I had come up with a theory of th philosophy itself, of these cycles that philosophy can go through.

And I had I was so proud of this theory, and I'm rather ashamed to say that now, but um I remember going on to one of my favorite tech uh blogs that I usually read at least once a day or so, uh called Slash Stop, and it's been around forever, and there was some um article that was posted that was related to philosophy, and for some reason I decided to share.

I rarely share, but and that's kind of ironic coming from a podcaster, but regardless, I decided to share this theory, and I was you know, so proud of it, typing it all out, came out to be uh, you know, a huge article in and of itself, and I hit submit, and I I really don't know what was going through my head. Was I expecting people to fall over in the utter brilliance that I had just postulated? Well needless to say, the exact opposite happened.

Um people that had a much um I I don't know if it was narrow or what, but um had a much broader sense of things than I did, rightfully ripped my idea apart. And I went through the stages of, you know, anger, how dare someone do this, to sadness, to of course, eventually just completely forgot about it. And it wasn't until a few days ago I was sitting around thinking about models of knowledge. And for some reason that whole cyclical concept came back to me.

And I wanted to share it, not just to share an embarrassing story about me and myself, but rather to show uh I wanted to get to the point of showing the limits of knowledge. Especially when we come up with these theories about how things work and the limitations that those theories can face. So, for example, you know, I I had this idea of philosophy moving in cycles and things can repeat and things don't repeat, and but you always go to an upper bound of progress, of trying to reach somewhere toward if not the truth, then a truth. And that is patently ridiculous.

You know, there is no overarching guidance that's out there, you know, plucking this thought here or shaping this thought there in order to get humanity slowly but surely more advanced in its theories of how things work. Now you could say that I mean there is definite progress. I mean the the old quotation of standing on the shoulders of giants is very true. You know, you humanity can build upon knowledge that previous generations have generated. But that doesn't mean that that progression is always awkward or even correct.

When you're standing outside of a field and you're looking down, you're not seeing the way that it was in various time periods. Yes, you do have a bird's eye view, but that bird's eye view does not mean that objectivity is on your side. You know, if you're studying something about history, then you're not just taking an amalgamation of facts, you're taking a series of events that have been reported. Those reports are typically filtered through the situation at hand, you know another old equation, you know, old uh quotation of history is written by the victors.

There's uh if there's a conflict, there's obviously going to be one side that wins out. So you're taking that filtered concept, and now you have an amalgamation of those things, and then not only are you treating that to be, oh, that's the way it really was, you're also having your own personal concepts, whether that be truth or misconception or somewhere in between, thrown into the mix. So if you're studying something, you're getting unless you start delving extremely deep and extremely carefully, you're not getting true knowledge. You are creating a model so that you can understand it.

And we develop these models continuously. If you look at the models that a child develops as they're trying to understand the world, you know, it first starts off with a whole bunch of questions, and then you know, as they start to to piece things together, then those models are extremely simplistic. And then as you grow older, you learn more, you're able to add on to those models, and they grow ever more sophisticated. But yet at the end of the day, they're still models. You're not grasping the thing itself. Right?

Instead, you're as Heidegger would put it, you're taking this historicity, this um I hate saying the word amalgamation another time. I'm I'm really sorry. I'm not trying to repeat myself over and over here. Um But you're dragging along not only your knowledge and your being, but also all of these things that have been glued upon it from your own history. And not only you dragging it behind you, but it's also weirdly flipped forward as well, because that is what is encountering every single thing that you experience. And that experience is being filtered through that historicity.

And I I say this because there are moments that you experience which shines a flashlight on the artif artificialness of what you know. Those moments that just take you by the neck and go, see, you thought you were so smart, but you're just getting a dimension, or maybe even a few dimensions, of what this really is, but how do you know that's happening? How do you know what you know is actually true or not? And it's humbling, but it's also highly refreshing.

Not that I've you know I'm turning into a nihilist and saying, oh, you know, nothing has meaning whatsoever, nor am I turning into a postmodern. You know, postmodernism is freeing in some sense. It's this idea that you know there may be or may not be an objective truth out there, truth with a capital T. So because of that, I'm just going to play. I'm going to sit here and you know take all of these concepts, all of these ideas, and just constantly reinvent them within a sandbox and have fun doing it. I I understand that concept.

I agree that actually getting to know something is extremely difficult, if not impossible, but uh if you keep going far enough, you wind up to either complete randomness or you take it and you jump the shark into complete ridiculousness. For example, I may have actually said this before, and if I have I apologize. My mind is really not with me as of late. Plus, it's kind of late when I'm actually recording this because it was the only quiet time that I could find.

There was a when I was in college and I was studying uh philosophy and actually postmodernism, there was an article that was written all about the idea of play, and that concept is fine. I don't have any problems with that whatsoever. I mean not that my opinion is gonna matter to anybody, but regardless. And there was um the professor who started comparing desert and desert. And I I remember just looking at the book, closing it, and throwing it against the ring.

It's kind of the exact same thing that you get when you watch something that's supposed to be funny, but the entire humor is derived from absolute randomness. Um, if you ever watched half of the shows on Adult Swim, that's pretty much the exact same thing. There's no talent involved, there's no like true humor involved, it's rather I'm just gonna combine a whole bunch of random ideas and pray to goodness that someone out there takes that to be true comedy.

And I'm not saying anything against Adult Swim, I actually like a lot of their shows, um but it's when i a show thinks that it can substitute ultimate randomness for something more interesting. That's when I kind of draw the line. Anyway, I have gotten completely over into left field. Why in the world am I talking about this? And I actually am gonna bring this back to someone somewhat that's uh related to the topic at hand, I promise you.

Uh as I said, I've been uh attending these uh psalm classes from that my uh former professor from Hampton Sydney College is uh continuing to teach, and it's virtual. And it's great. It's actually the high point of my week.

And after class, if I don't have like meetings that are butting up before and against, I get to stay after and you know, talk to uh my professor and his wife, and not only just reconnect, but also you know, find out how they're doing, how everything's going, but then to bounce some ideas that you know I've had through the readings or just preconceptions that I've had that I've wanted to bounce against somebody else. And I've I for almost had forgotten this feeling, but have you ever encountered someone who is just so damn good at what they do that it humbles you.

I mean, I like to think that I'm really, really good at my job. I mean, I better been. I've been doing it for twenty-one plus years now, and I I love it. I continuously study, I do everything I can to, you know, be at the top of my game, but that doesn't mean that I'm the best anywhere. Um I have ran across quite a few people in which if you talk to them, you know that their skill at the very least is equal to yours, and they probably exceed it by a decent bit. And you know, there's a moment of sadness in that realization, but more than that, those are opportunities to learn.

And I I relish those. And I have often seen that not just in what I do in my job, but uh academically as well. And my professor is like the shining example of that. What this man can do with ideas is amazing. And I think this is kind of the best part. He does not play. What he when he has a concept, he will he will exact such rigor in determining if there's any value to it. There is, then he will pursue it. I mean, dear lord, the man has been working on a project since 1995 and he just completed phase one. That is the sheer amount of rigor that he does.

And it's actually that's what inspired me to go into graduate school. Because I thought, God, if there's any way in the world that I could get my brain to function on even a remote wavelength closer than what his does, then I would be golden. Uh you know, finally realize that no, that's just sheer innate talent, and there's no way I'm ever gonna be able to emulate that. Um I'm taken with concepts, with ideas, I love to explore them, I love to take what knowledge I have and what research I can do and figure out if there's merit and then go from there.

But I also enjoy the play, but whatever I do is I'm not even sure if you can really call it a shadow compared to what my professor can do. Uh but anyway, I you know, I've been bouncing ideas off from him and seeking his con you know, his um what his perspective is and uh it it it's really kind of shone a light on how tenuous my knowledge is. And it's not because I'm intimidated by the man. I am.

I mean, I even though you know he always tells people, oh, call me by my first name, but I don't know if it's just my upbringing or I can I just I still know that there's such a gap between us that I can't do it. I it's always doctor your last name. I I I just cannot give bring myself to call him by his first name, even though I would really like to, because I mean I I still consider, you know, a f I I've always considered him a fri a friend, but more than that a mentor. So but anyway, that fragility of knowledge I I think it's just a good thing to remind everyone of.

And it's not because I want you to be insecure of your knowledge. I mean, those those moments where you truly question could this be right, could this be wrong? They're terrifying, and I don't want anyone else to go through that. Especially, you know, when you're putting into an environment of such rigor and you have to defend those concepts, it's kind of a scary place, but it's also exhilarating. So the whole point of this is, you know, I know I've said in the past that I I don't know nothing. Equally true, if not more so, you know, me saying it now than when I have in the past.

Um But I I really just wanted to point out that all of these concepts that I have been talking about in in previous episodes, I believe them. I thoroughly believe them. But have I had a lifetime to research them? No, I have not. Um are some of my ideas probably, you know, batshit crazy? Maybe. Not saying they're not.

But take everything with a grain of salt, and don't ever let anyone trounce your ideas, or don't get discouraged if you know you run across somebody who's had you know a few more years of study, and of course I'm the ultimate sinner on that front because that's exactly what I've been describing for the past 10 minutes now. Oh god, it's 22 minutes into this episode. Dear Lord, I've been babbling for a long time.

Anyway, I'm gonna wrap this particular piece up, but um the thing that I wanted to go through is, and I actually have gotten some validation and doing some additional research, and with talking with some for former professors that I've had the luxury to be able to reach out and make sure that they're okay, but also get to relate to them in ways that I haven't been able to in quite a while, and i i it really has been wonderful.

But the the last piece that I wanted to talk about in this entire mixed up web, and forgive me for not being nearly as organized about this as I wanted to but one of the pieces that is so important to grasp and it's so hard to is what academics call the sits and leavens, the you know, the situation. So for example, in if you you know go onto YouTube, you watch a whole bunch of videos, unless it's news, most um people that are creating content will not mention the pandemic by name.

And that's because YouTube does some pretty severe things to you know the the revenue models and prioritization and all that kind of stuff the moment that you mention, you know, the pandemic. And I was thinking, how strange is that going to be in, you know, ten, fifteen years, and new teenagers are coming up and they happen to be watching older content, and they're gonna hear people talk about the nineteen or the situation or something else along those lines and not knowing what in the ever-living world these people are not directly talking about.

And it's the exact same thing with these ancient tets. Most often they dance around simply because of the fact that everyone knew exactly what was being talked about. And there is no reason to go into these nitty gritty details of every single dearly held concept, because not only would it be unfathomable to do so, but even more importantly, their theory of knowledge was much more simplified, their model was much more simplified. You know, there was not these, you know, competing and contrasting um ideas about how knowledge is stored.

To the ancient mind, the ide you know like for example in Hebrew, the word debber, it can mean thing. I mean, it can mean word, but it can also mean thing or event. And it's because of the fact that you know, to our modern sensibilities, even though we have a concept of the word, that vocabulary term is describing a category of knowledge within our head. It's describing all of the social phenomena that surrounds that term in a language. However, we know now that it's not describing, as Plato would say, the thingness of the thing. It's not getting to that ultimate core truth of that item.

It's rather describing everything that that time period, that culture, that language, and that person happened to conceptualize about that thing. But in the ancient world that was not the case. It was, oh, you know, when we talk about a thing, then we are really describing that thing. However, the ancients also did not presuppose that they understood everything. That was only the realm for God. So instead, if they were talking about an item, they would only have the barest recollection of what that thing truly was, because truly knowing was for the realm of the divine.

So I have talked a lot about not knowing, not being able to know insecurity and what you do happen to know, but I don't want to leave it on that note. I'm instead going to finish up with Kant. Uh Emmanuel Kant was my favorite philosopher uh all throughout high school uh and going into college. I read his works, even though they're very difficult and very boring half the time. The ideas that lay behind his words were amazing. And then one day I discovered that the man could be a poet. He wrote about a huge variable range of topics.

He was a true philosopher in the sense that it wasn't just ideas that he played around with, he also looked at um natural science, at astronomy. In fact, he was one of the early uh hypothesizers about there being other galaxies outside of our own. But the piece that really has always intrigued me um was um um a a small piece that he wrote called um Um on the Beautiful and the Sublime. And it actually earned him a position of poetry at the University of Berlin, if my mind is actually serving me right.

So for a man who is known for writing philosophical treatises that have been known to put people, even the most diligent of students, rapidly to sleep, to know that he could he could truly be a poet was kind of a revelation, but one of the things that I've always taken away from him is just um two little words that he wrote, and I don't remember where, but it was Sapoyado Dare to know or if you want to be a little bit more verb verbose, have the courage to use your own intelligence.

Never let your intellect intellectual curiosity be stymied lay stagnant pick it up, charge with it because it's only by learning do we grow. Thank you very much for joining me one more time. Um I promise the next episode will actually be about uh plague and the uh cathanic gods, which I hope would be a lot more interesting than me rambling about knowledge for 30 minutes or so. But um I do want to say to everybody, thank you very much for listening and for joining in. Um, if you've followed us on Facebook, thank you. If you've written me a message through our website, southerndemonology.

com, or pinged me through another avenue, thank you for that as well. Uh y'all keep me going. It's been fantastic getting to have personal conversations with y'all. In fact, I I really want to urge you, if you're even remotely interested, even if it's not to have like full active participation, but just to be on a fly on the wall and listen in, join our Discord server. The details are both on our Facebook page, uh, which is facebook.com slash southern demonology, or on our website, southerndemonology.com. But we I have right at the very top I have a link uh to our Discord server.

Uh we were small, but we've had quite you know a few really fascinating people join in. We've had some great conversations, and it's been a lot of fun getting to connect with everybody, you know, get ideas for what other people want to hear about. I I've loved every single moment of it. In fact, I would say it's not me babbling out into the void that has been the greatest part about this entire podcast experience, but it's rather getting to connect with everyone and listening to you and you listening to me and forming you know a community.

It's it has been truly heartwarming, and I really can't thank y'all enough. It's been humbling and one of the best things I've ever gotten to do. Um, so thank you. And if I will say one last thing and then I'm gonna stop. If you wouldn't mind, would you rate this podcast however you listen to it, whether it's SoundCloud, if you send a like, if it's on Facebook, send a like, uh, through Spotify, or however else you happen to get your sp your podcast.

If you wouldn't just mind liking it or you know, giving it a rating, and I'm not talking about an artificially high one, whatever you feel is adequate, um, but it would mean a lot to me. Uh, because actually, that was a great suggestion by one of our Discord members um you know, urging me to actually get off my duff and try to grow this experience out a little bit more. So thank you for that recommendation. It was I thought it was really well done. So hope everyone stays safe. And if I can ever do anything, feel free to ping me, and um, we'll sit down on top. So have a great week, y'all.

I will talk to y'all later.