I agree with you in large part. It strikes me that knowledge becomes wise only when it learns restraint, a “reasonable” reason as opposed to, say, a “pure” reason.

On the other hand, discoveries are made precisely on this borderline you mentioned, between the known and the unknown. As Hegel might say, to think this boundary is already to cross it.

The consciousness of failure is already theoretical. The apparent hubris which makes us so unwilling to submit to a religious explanation is also the burning heart of the scientific revolution, an enlightenment which corresponds to the deactivation of a mythology machine some thousands of years in the making.

The thing is that science has a machine of its own, which on the surface looks nothing like that of religion, but beneath this calm veneer of “rationality” we find this same, spiritual desire to purify and become-purified, to gain access to pure knowledge or truth. Cosmic wisdom, both the youngest and most ancient species of mysticism, becomes wrapped up with modern scientific theory. The desire for an “answer,” a formula which explains everything, has driven the modern scientific revolution. The dream of a unified field theory haunted Einstein until his death.

There is a certain amount of “organic reunification” we should be ready and willing to accept, in order for the transformation of art, science and philosophy to continue. On the other hand, caution and restraint must be our watchwords, the basis of our experimental rigor. It is so easy to botch it, to wake up hollowed out, petrified — and precisely at the moment we think we are free…

Thanks so much for your thoughts!

Joe

In my humble opinion, it requires the removal or, at least, the minimization of man’s debilitating desire to make finite the infinite; to define space and time for the purpose of making himself more comfortable within it; and to know the unknown and unknowable.

I see the value in watches and calendars for making connections efficiently with other people and marking significant events that are worth remembering, but I try my best to avoid the temptation of compartmentalizing time into decades, centuries, and millenniums (at least in my own mind).

The difference between the last moment of the 20th century, and all that it holds, and the first moment of the 21st century, and all that it has to offer, is not 100 years. As for what that difference is, I will leave for other philosophers to argue while I live my life…

I understand the human curiosity but I also understand the human ignorance, which is rooted in the failure to know what we do not know and the failure or inability to admit and submit to the fact that there is not an answer to everything… and be content with that…

“Freedom from the desire for an answer is essential to the understanding of a problem.” Jiddu Krishnamurti

Thanks for provoking thought. I am a fan of your blog…

Cheers…

Kent (The Financial Philosopher)