01-30-2018, 09:58 AM
You may recall that the fancy word "epistemology" essentially deals with one basic question: "What can we say we know about reality, such that we can act on it?" The whole point is not simply knowing facts, but having useful information about what we face in our daily existence. Of course, I realize that most pure science aims to harvest useful data, such that science often leads to technology, but that's part of my point. People keep trying to make sense of what others discover.
I do that with an eye to social science; "social science" is basically the study of human nature. But I subject my science to the test of revelation, and revelation comes via the heart of conviction, not through human intellectual pursuits. Revelation says much about human nature and reality (epistemology). A fundamental assumption I make is that no two of us can possibly agree to the exact same answer to those fundamental questions, precisely because no two of us have the exact same demands on us. I don't call people "stupid" or "ignorant" because they tell a different life narrative.
But then again, if what people tell me indicates they have yet to subject their minds to their hearts, then it does place them on a different ground from those who are apparently heart-led. I take them all seriously in the sense they claim to truly believe what they say, but I don't take seriously the likelihood most will be anywhere near the path I walk. It's not a question of truth in me, but the truth in which I stand. I have all confidence in this sense of calling, and it's apparent purpose has nothing to do with success as most humans measure such things. I am utterly certain that I must take the path before me, and I'm sorrowful when they can't share any part of my journey. Their story doesn't offer any useful answers for me, because their epistemology asks the wrong questions, and is based on the wrong assumptions before the questions are asked.
Their assumptions about human nature and reality are all wrong for me. I can't walk where they walk.
I do that with an eye to social science; "social science" is basically the study of human nature. But I subject my science to the test of revelation, and revelation comes via the heart of conviction, not through human intellectual pursuits. Revelation says much about human nature and reality (epistemology). A fundamental assumption I make is that no two of us can possibly agree to the exact same answer to those fundamental questions, precisely because no two of us have the exact same demands on us. I don't call people "stupid" or "ignorant" because they tell a different life narrative.
But then again, if what people tell me indicates they have yet to subject their minds to their hearts, then it does place them on a different ground from those who are apparently heart-led. I take them all seriously in the sense they claim to truly believe what they say, but I don't take seriously the likelihood most will be anywhere near the path I walk. It's not a question of truth in me, but the truth in which I stand. I have all confidence in this sense of calling, and it's apparent purpose has nothing to do with success as most humans measure such things. I am utterly certain that I must take the path before me, and I'm sorrowful when they can't share any part of my journey. Their story doesn't offer any useful answers for me, because their epistemology asks the wrong questions, and is based on the wrong assumptions before the questions are asked.
Their assumptions about human nature and reality are all wrong for me. I can't walk where they walk.