Sometimes we mean by “knowledge” the whole, the totality of all known data, models, theories, laws, and so on. At other times, however, speaking of “knowledge” refers to single elements, even tiny little facts, measured values, the length of a rod, for example.
In analogy to physical concepts we may talk here of bodies of knowledge in the space of knowledge.
The abstract physical space can be defined by generalizing the concept of extent, a characteristic feature of the concretely perceptible physical objects. But the objects of knowledge? Do they also have kind of length or anything comparable, being abstractable to some corresponding space?
Well, whatever that may be, normaly we do not seem to really need it. Facts, at least, should better be exact, measured values should be as precise as possible, truth must not be possibly wrong. Such kinds of extents would be rather distracting.
Which, by the way, generally applies to physical objects, too. In mechanics, for instance, we are used to ignore any potential or real extents, treating the bodies as mere point masses. Their motions are transitions between distinct occurances at definite points in space.
So, seen in the light of physical science, the physical objects actually are objects of knowledge. They do not verifiably exist but in their observable, especially measurable, appearances. These are the facts. The rest is interpretation. Of course, we know that they exist in between. Experience proves it. But all that definitely counts are the facts, the data, the knowledge particles.
On the other hand, however, it is just the in-between that matters. The pure facts are poor facts, actually no facts at all. Standing isolated for themselves they do not make any sense. They must form a body. This body never comes from the facts alone. It is knowledge. Widespread though widely unprovable knowledge. This is the real substance of every body. It makes its volume, it is spatial, extended.
So after all every thing is extended, even the seemingly most infinitesimal tiny little fact. Because it is knowledge.
The space of knowledge affords and demands a new logic, a logic of knowing; whereas traditional logic deals with truth, particularly with truth values, that means in general with true and false. These necessarily exclude one another: what is true cannot be false, and vice versa.
To knowledge, however, this does not apply in the same manner. Its potential embodiments, spanning a much broader spectrum, can exist side by side, even if they partially contradict one another. This coexistence is crucial, it constitutes a field of tension, a network of relations that are indispensible for all kinds of knowing. So knowledge in all its possible formings is extended and full of inner tension. While each of these appearances again combines with others to form always new figures of knowledge.
By no means is it ready, time and time again something new is added. Normaly things are first published in the blog Prospects, where they may also be commented and discussed. Then most of these posts are inserted in the appropriate chapters, while their contents as well as the classification and almost every other stuff can permanently be developed and modified.
The revised versions are accessible by corresponding links in the footers of the original posts. For backwards reference the headlines of the paragraphs should be clicked.
Conventional logic and thereupon based scientific systems largely lack the ability to express dynamic contents adequately. They are too rigid, building on never changing conditions. New things are just added, not created by conversing the old. Fundamental changes would destroy the foundations of the whole system.
To avoid this, the basics were more and more abstracted and miniaturized, down to smallest building blocks and most general rules. Of these all sorts of things may be constructed. Meanwhile, however, the road from the most elementary preconditions to the real outcome has become unmanageably long and complex.
In practice nobody goes the whole way. For single purposes specific models are in use. Although these should principally be reducible to those generally accepted foundations, this is actually not practicable at all. What ultimately counts is to find and to establish the methods fitting for a particular purpose.
The problem is that this common – and, besides, the only realistic – practice misses well-founded theoretical reasons. So there is no common ground for communicating about it. There exists no certain plan covering larger areas.
Knowledge puts various things together — and makes them be one thing.
Knowledge determines how the things act and interact. That they behave according to certain rules, expressing constant relationship. It is this regular behavior, recurring always in the same manner, that constitutes the new certain thing of knowledge, the fact. Thus crystallized it becomes graspable and handy, making it a gain in knowledge.
So we have just described the key process of knowledge. We should replay it frequently before our mind’s eye, recapitulate it, internalize it. Only so we can really understand it.
In particular it is most important to realize this to be actually a process; something is happening, a change. Activity takes place. Without that there were no realization, no understanding, no knowledge. For it is this activity that brings together what formerly seemed to be totally unrelated. A transition takes place. And only when this transition becomes an unalterable habit the represented relation is firmly established. From now on it automatically replicates itself. Now it is clearly evident, without a doubt, that those things belong that way together — in this sense being one thing.