Interconnectedness and context

[LoBagola]

Chapter 4 Objectivity

'Knowledge as Contextual'

 

The relational nature of knowledge derives from two roots, one pertaining to the nature of existence, the other, to the nature of consciousness.

 

Metaphysically, there is only one universe. This means that everything in reality is interconnected.13 Every entity is related in some way to the others; each somehow affects and is affected by the others. Nothing is a completely isolated fact, without causes or effects; no aspect of the total can exist ultimately apart from the total. Knowledge, therefore, which seeks to grasp reality, must also be a total; its elements must be interconnected to form a unified whole reflecting the whole which is the universe.

 

Up to a point, a consciousness has no option in this regard. It cannot consistently disregard relationships among its contents because consciousness by its nature involves the discovery of relationships. This is true even on the preconceptual level. For instance, if one were exposed for life only to an undifferentiated expanse of blue sky, he would not perceive it; he would perceive nothing. But if an object of a different color were introduced, then he could differentiate and thus perceive. To achieve awareness, even on the perceptual level, a child must differentiate (and integrate); he must relate data.

 

 

The first thing I thought of reading the first paragraph was about people who tell me 'We're all connected' and 'We're all just vibrations / energy'. 

What kind of connection does everything have to everything else? If I lift my hand in the air right now, did that affect you? How?

I understand that concepts must have a context, and nothing can be treated as isolated and in a vacuum. But I don't see why a thing is connected to and affects every other thing.

 

 

Second paragraph. How do we logically deduce that if we were exposed to an undifferentiated expanse of blue we wouldn't be able to see it? Isn't this context dropping? Since it ignores everything that would be required for us to be in a place where one only saw blue. If your saying well yes, that's the point. But why not say.... if one were exposed to a .... he wouldn't exist. there would be nothing. 

[dream_weaver]

If you lift you hand in the air right now, and I can see you, I would see you lift your hand into the air.

 

As to the undifferentiated expanse of blue, look into the phenomenon called "Troxler's fading". The senses register difference. If the sense doesn't identify a difference, it doesn't transmit a signal.

[Grames]

"Unity in Ethics and Epistemology" is significant enough of a topic in Dr. Peikoff's opinion that he created one of his lecture courses around it.  See the link in my signature for my notes on what he covered there.

[StrictlyLogical]

Physical isolation of an existent from every other existent is for all intents and purposes impossible.  Things have momentum, often electrical charge, weight, mass, etc. which impacts other things.  An atom in interstellar space may not interact with anything for a time, but it would and will when conditions are right.

 

It is useful to think of the converse, suppose a person postulated a something which does not interact with anything in "our universe" (note the quotations).  It could not be discovered by any means but purportedly nonetheless exists.  This something is of course meaningless.  A thing of which we not only have no evidence but for which we could never have any evidence of its existence through multiple direct and/or indirect interactions, is not an existent but a fabrication, a mere imagining.  As such the unity of existence reminds us that purported existents which are "outside" of our universe or beyond interaction with it, are literally meaningless.