Prying and prying… "I’ve come to know one thing and that is that i know nothing’’
Knowledge where did it stem from? There was a maker of fine arts so modest when spoken to about the nature of knowledge. The nature of art was just as precious it is to express what you ‘FEEL’ is beautiful. Sometimes what we feel to be beauty isn’t always something admired and cared for as much as others not always portrayed as good and evil yet is just is and only just. The Bible was an early component and profound influence on Blake Williams, and remained a source of inspiration throughout his life. Blake’s childhood, according to him, included [mystical] religious experiences such as “beholding God’s face pressed against his window, seeing angels among the haystacks, and being visited by the Old Testament prophet [Ezekiel].”
The doors of perception was a great book for me to look back on now after opening my mind to new things, back in the day it felt like i hadn’t opened my eyes until I started reading it. The 19th-century scholar [William Michael Rossetti] characterized him as a “glorious luminary”. The Doors of Perception discussed the paintings of [Vermeer] and the Nain brothers, and previously in The Perennial Philosophy, once in relation to the use of mortification as a means to remove persistent spiritual myopia and secondly to refer to the absence of separation in spiritual vision. the German-American [Heinrich Klüver] was the first to systematically study its psychological effects in a small book called Mescal and Mechanisms of Hallucinations published in 1928. Huxley’s friend and spiritual mentor, the Vedantic monk [Swami Prabhavananda], thought that mescaline was an illegitimate path to enlightenment, and so this drug was outlawed and surveyed. The psychological effects at a time were deemed unfit to trail forward in regards to realistic functions other than tripping. Though he saw consciousness in this ability to find more out about reality. As a means to open the doors of perception toward new wonders. Definitely it was a study enjoyed by professors and thought it may be a new opening for scientific study and continued research. A science and cognition not yet discovered in the mind at that time or so we think. Our brains are like a sponge, We absorb about 70% of what raw material we know absolutely nothing about only to wring out the rest and that leaves us with 10% a based observation not applicable to use, because of practical reality. Yet knowledge ruled the world… course knowledge existed only in contemporized notions, in increments. The buffet, to suppose, didn’t end yet we only sated appetites with which we could from it. Absu was ab=‘water’ zu=‘deep’ deep waters. The cosmic ocean of knowledge toward sustaining, procuring, and nurturing what is now life. Abzu (apsû ) is depicted as a [deity], taken from the library of [Assurbanipal] (c. 630 BCE) but which is about 500 years older. In this story, he was a primal being made of fresh water and a lover to another primal deity, [Tiamat], a creature of salt water. The Enūma Eliš begins: “When above the heavens (e-nu-ma e-liš ) did not yet exist nor the earth below, Apsu the freshwater ocean was there, the first, the begetter, and Tiamat, the saltwater sea, she who bore them all; they were still mixing their waters, and no pasture land had yet been formed, nor even a reed marsh.” This resulted in the birth of the younger gods, one, [Enki], would later contain Apsu when he plotted to kill them because of their noise. Enraged, Tiamat gives birth to monsters, filling their bodies with “venom instead of blood”, and made war upon her treacherous children, only to be slain by Enki’s son [Marduk] the god of Storms, who then forms the heavens and earth from her corpse. Although Blake was considered mad by contemporaries for his [idiosyncratic] views, such-as Humorism beginning to fall out of favor in the 17th century and it was definitively disproved in the 1850s with the advent of [germ theory], which was able to show that many diseases previously thought to be humoral were in fact caused by microbes. This palette of dysfunctional yet functional nodes or tidbits of knowledge as i suppose rose from ashes of predisposed earlier versions of ourselves. Humans have undergone the study of knowledge throughout the ages only to find sure existence of debriefed philosophy already expounded onto them through footpaths or trails if you will. Winding through space and time they reemerge only to find themselves studying the very foundation of knowledge never actually acquainting themselves with such invention. If we actually found the birth place of knowers how would we as a humankind accept and cherish it like in all actuality? Plus how would we want to acquire it’s all immense teachings to preserve and protect such nature of insured knowledge?
Knowledge = data, information.
Stored in memory.
Data = patterned interactivity, collected and stored in memory - used to guide future willful interactivities.
Understanding = perception of patterns in the patterned interactivity.
Making connections of meaning.
Ok HAL, thanks for the explanation 
but that doesn’t explain, fully explain, ‘where it came from’.
Your question presupposes what you cannot justify.
Knowledge doesn’t “come from” nowhere and nothing…knowledge is how a conscious organism relates with existence.
It awakens to its own existence, starting a process of collecting and storing patterned energies.
What man calls “knowledge” is the accumulated data converted to semiotics.
Memories converted to oral and then written language.
Language represents mental abstractions - thoughts, feelings, images, concepts in the mind.
these are the product of conscious interactivity.
DNA is a form of stored memories - knowledge.
So, we inherit memories - knowledge - and we add to it, passing it onward through our offspring, or via oral or written language.
So you’re telling me knowledge stemmed from nothing but data collected over time and had no real precursor?
Knowledge comes from that which is known, or more precisely it comes from your interaction between what you know and your own mind which comprehends and understands. This isn’t difficult.
I know about trees. Where did this knowledge come from? From 1) the reality of trees themselves, what they are, and 2) my experiences with that.
Yes…
The obsession with what precedes is a concealed desire for non-existence.
All that exists, can be explained from within existence.
Corrupted language is the root of many of these “philosophical issues”.
Yest already postulated ideas abstract or not [such as trees] are no more intrisic in the mind than in actual reality yes or no? in basic thought [not pre-existing]?
or are formulas to be thought of and not taught? by a [teacher]?
A ‘tree’ is ‘abstracted’ - simplified, generalized - to a form the mind can process and store in memory.
The mind “interprets” the energy patterns that constitute the “organism” tree.
These patterns are perceived as form, colour, texture, scent etc.
This is the data…
Knowledge is their collection and storage.
Two forms of knowledge:
First and second hand.
First-hand experiences, via sensory input.
Second-Hand experiences, via a teacher, or text, or empathy.
This first and second-hand knowledge can be organized and even synthesized…some can even be defined our oof experienced existence, in the form of concepts that refer to nothing but texts, completely contradicting experienced reality.
So what we thought to be true ie. [Trees] we’re only in abstractions, ‘thought’ in mind. Was that not an imprint on the the reality toward actuality? Could not a blind man recognize a mythological creature like a Pegasus in the same manner not by reading or learning about it? But simply think of a Pegasus? Or could not the man simply think [Pegasus] from acquainting itself to it?
All knowledge is first hand. If not then it isn’t knowledge to begin with, but merely belief or speculation.
The image is only in mind a concept a concept in mind is only a thought and true proof or perception of said inanimate object is based on true experience?
The image is a representation of how the mind collects, reacts, to sensory input.
I see a ‘tree’…the process is twofold.
First my sensory rogan converts (translates) the stimulation into a form it can process and direct to the brain where it is processed, again, into an image.
The image is a representaiton…based on a priori methods of interpreting sensorial data.
Proven effective.
so, the image of the tree in my head is a representation of the “thing in itself”…which is patterned energies.
Schopenhauer called it Will.
I call it energies…patterned energies with a shared objective - in harmony - unified.
“There’s a mental to first, creation, and than physical or second creation to all things.”
“Take the construction of a home, for example. You create it in every detail before you ever hammer the first nail into place. . . ."
“Then you reduce it to blueprint and develop construction plans. . . ."
“You have to make sure that the blueprint, the first creation, is really what you want, that you’ve thought everything through. Then you put it into bricks and mortar. . . . You begin with the end in mind."
“Through imagination, we can visualize the uncreated worlds of potential that lie within us.”
Was not the thought of physics taught but yet earlier invented by an inventor or did man think in place and it became, physics?
Knowledge of the tree is the appreciation or recognition of the trees predictable behaviours - associated with the minds interpretation of it as image.
As form, scent, colour, sound, texture, movement etc.
I know a tree by is image and its predictable behaviour, which I’ve accumulated over time and stored in memory.
First came the act, not the word.
Man first perceived world as interactivity, and then formulated ‘laws’ as representations of his understanding.
As I said…understanding is the appreciation and recognition of patterns within the perceived energy patterns.
a pirori methods of interpreting reality into form, texture, sound, scent etc., evolved over time.
First was the Act…not the word…not the idea.
The act becomes idea…
You are an Abrahamic…so this is a futile conversation.
This entire conversation is futile, lol.
It’s the taming of a beast one of which is his concern with primarily on the individual dealing with mostly unformalizable discontinues not a she said he said but a who could say it the best not an attest to men but to attest for them in humanism it’s best to offer condolences rather than shout at them in anger… recognizability is within the eye of the beholder not the actual one he’s attested to. Even when man is foley there’s no better will than that which can think for himself. so if one was to say and think we had a key to open a door had not that key ever existed in reality it would not attain to actual scope of perception or reality? which means one’s doors to perception was not attained by any means through interpretation but by thought control? ie. [percieved energies] not the word - into an act - into an idea?