Knowledge, Understanding, and Self Actualization

Knowledge and Understanding, many people get them confused, or use them interchangeably, but there is a distinct difference between the two, for example if you look up 'what is knowledge' this is the first thing you see "Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject." and if you look up understanding you will see this "The ability to understand something; comprehension", They both basically mean the same thing, and when people wonder what knowledge or understanding is, they usually just accept the first definition that they see, but those two definitions aren't really explaining enough, it isn't really clear what these two things actually are, so in order to better explain them, I'll elaborate on my theory of what I believe them to be, as well as my theory on self actualization . Knowledge is collection of thoughts ideas, and memories in your mind that merge together to form a more complex thought with a distinct meaning in your perception of reality that is commonly accepted or can be proven to be or have been. For example, the earth is shaped like sphere, it exists in space, it is also roughly seventy percent water, that water is made up of molecules, those molecules are made up three atoms, two hydrogen and one oxygen, those atoms of made up of protons, neurons and electrons, these subatomic particles are made up of baryons which are made of quarks and anti-quarks, and so on, that is considered knowledge because much it (up to subatomic particles such as protons) is accepted as valid information to most people in developed countries, or educated developing countries; all of it is accepted beliefs within specific groups, like chemists and yet the average person, cannot prove any of it. The shape of the earth, atoms, protons, none of that can proven on the street with a stranger, without a microscope, or telescope or spaceship, its just accepted thoughts and believes that are commonly accepted as a reality within the perception of reality of a specific group. Then there is knowledge that can be proven easily, like snow is cold, mountains are big, and if you jump you will come back down because of gravity. None of this has to be experienced though, you can simply observe or be taught these thoughts, ideas and beliefs, that is knowledge. You know these things, simply because you were told them. Fire will burn you, getting burned hurts, common knowledge; Now, say a five year old has the knowledge that fire will burn you, and getting burned hurts, and has seen his mother get burned so he has a good idea of what that means, he has that knowledge, but what does that really mean? he knows what getting hurt means, he has fallen, scrapped his leg, he is familiar with pain, and he knows what hot is, and that burning is related to heat. So by combining heat and pain, in his mind, that is how he sees the word burn, but why? well because those are two things he understands, the knowledge doesn't carry a real meaning without the understanding, getting this gist of something, but to truly know what the word burn really means, that five year old, filled with curiosity and desperation to achieve this higher level, this mental state greater than knowledge, he wants to understand what he knows, so he touches the fire with his finger, and boom, it clicks, burn is no longer just 'heat' and 'pain' merged together; 'Burn' carries a distinct meaning, when someone says 'burn' he understands what that means, that specific pain of which they speak, he relates to it, he connects more with the people talking about, not because of knowledge, but the understanding of it. So what is it that makes understanding distinct from knowledge? Experience, to understand something, one must experience it. So then one might ask, well do you need knowledge to have understanding? No, you can understand an emotion like say, happiness, but what is it? define happiness, prove it exists, without applying experiences to it, and without trying to help people 'understand it'. We understand what the number 5, but try to explain what it is, try to combine your understanding of happiness, or the number 5, with the knowledge of what it is so that it can be taught. Knowledge with understanding, that is actualization, and in the truest since, it would be all perceived knowledge from Reality, and understanding the Actuality of a subject, the connection between perception of reality, and actuality, thus making it perception or perceived actuality. Though perceiving actuality would be impossible in most instances, because to perceive actuality would take away its objectivity, which is what makes Actuality, different from Reality and perceived reality, so then how can actualization exist? I believe the only actualization perceivable by humans is Self Actualization, which is a state of being, this is not only knowing your self, and it is not understanding yourself, it is both, which then translates into your perception, but the only reason I belief you can actualize yourself, is because you are perceiving the world you perceive, in other words, it is the knowledge and understanding of your perception of reality, seeing, how you see, which is in my theory possible, and thus, you can actually see the aspect of actuality that is yourself, the only world we see is our own, but when can see the actuality of our world, every aspect of it is obtainable, so, achieving self actualization is key to unlocking the mysteries and wonders of worlds we can perceive, because we are aware of how they are being interpreted, and therefore, we are able to see all that we can about a given phenomena.

Emotions and The 9 States of Being

I belief that there is a difference between certain phenomena that we label as emotions, love, hate, happiness, sorrow, depression, confidence, envy, these are not the same, there is a difference, some are basic emotions, and some are complex emotions, and some are states of being. But what is that difference right, what is an emotion? and what is a state of being? To answer that I would first have to explain the different types of emotion. There are two types of emotions, Basic Emotions or moods, and Complex Emotions or cognitive emotions. A Basic Emotion is a feeling that is evoked from a thought or stimulus directly affecting a person without interpretation, directly from Reality, for there is no perception of a basic emotion, it simply is. To better understand this think of it this way if get stabbed or kissed, you can feel pain or pleasure via your sense of touch, you don't have to know or understand anything to feel pain, you simply have to exist and have a sense of touch, you don't even have to be human, pain or pleasure is just something you feel. Basic Emotions are extremely similar to this, they are the 'heart's' sense of touch. Basic Emotions are one level deeper than physical touch though they are alike, what I mean by this is that I don't believe emotions are simply chemical reactions and electrical impulses in the brain, it doesn't make sense, the neurons and synaptic connections in the brain may allow something to happen, in the case of a thought or emotion, but it is not in and of its self, all aspects of that thought or emotion, that would be like saying that a guitar is music, it simply give one the means to experience that thought or emotion, it plays a role, but the actual thought or emotion is something completely different, it isn't physical and it doesn't have a simple tangible existence, it is much more complex, with more than just the brain playing a part in its existence, although, the brain does play a part. But a basic emotion is still a basic emotion, your perception of reality, although does play a role in what thoughts or stimuli evoke the basic emotion you feel as well as the intensity of it, does not actually effect the most basic aspect of experiencing that emotion, no matter how you perceive reality, if you don't have food you feel hunger, your friend feels hunger, your pet feels hunger, it is the exact same thing for everyone and everything, you feel a certain type of pain, and you desire food, that is what hunger is, and hunger is a basic emotion. A Complex Emotion is a little bit different, and many of which are unique to humans. In the case of a complex emotion, your perception of reality does play a role in the experience of the emotion, it becomes much more of an individual occurrence, you have to have some level of cognitive ability, knowledge and understanding to feel a complex emotion, a perceived thought combined with an emotion. Regret, compassion, envy, these are all complex emotions, in the case of regret for example, you would have to know what right and wrong are, or what the alternate outcome could have been, you would also have to understand why what you did was wrong or ruined your chance at the better outcome, and you would have had to reflect on the event or occurrence and think about it applying all the things you learned in order to experience that emotion, as far as we know, a male lion does not regret killing the children of his desired mate, he does not reflect on what he has done or three years later imagine what life would have been like, has he not killed his mate's children, he simply acted on the basis of instinct or a basic emotion, and continued on through the forest of life, where as a human being would have been feeling all kinds of regret and other complex emotions. Perception of Reality, thought, and some level of a basic emotion, as far as my knowledge, comprise these mysterious phenomena. A State of Being is the next level, its so much more than a complex emotion, it is the conjugation between mind, body, and soul in order to experience a level of existence in reality overlapping other consciousness and existential planes. Existence itself is a state of being, the foundation for all states of being to derive from, without existence you cannot experience anything because you are nothing, thus making existence essential to all other states being. Living, Death, and Existence are what I call the three foundations, within these three foundation states, there are nine states of being, which include: Love, Awareness, Self Actualization, Confidence, Fear, Spirituality, Confusion, Insanity, and Depression. Dreaming, astral projection and intoxication are that I call the overlay states, they enhance, or effect the 9 states but are not emanating from the the conjugation from the mind, body and soul as are the nine, but rather from physical or spiritual stimuli or dimensions, they are entire worlds or feelings that are not produced from true consciousness alone. An example of how a state of being like my favorite example: love, romantic love, my great grandfather met a girl when he was around my age, that he was physically attracted to, but he, as am I, was physically attracted to many other girls, it was just a basic emotion, attraction, then he talked to her a few times, now its multiple basic emotions, happiness, infatuation, but its also complex emotions as well, compassion he wants to be kind to her, jealousy when he sees her laugh at another guys joke, regret, when he didn't bring her flowers that one valentines day, but then its progresses even more, beyond the emotional states, to a state a being, love, where he thinks about her constantly, he feels connected to her, he wants to make her happy, he trusts her, hes there for her, he respects her, he only wants to be with her, and that feeling has brought him into an entirely new world, and even after over 60 years of being together, he still loved her just as he did when he first fell in love, even after her looks faded, even after she lost her memories, her mind really, and could not even speak, he was still in love, he was still in that state of love, that is not an emotion, that is a state of being, and I believe on some level we all recognize that, just look at the wording we use, 'In love' it's a state of being. Fear, you can feel it through your entire body, trapped in your mind, and tingles your soul, it can last a life time, it is another world, awareness same thing, its another world, and so on and so forth, these states can overlap and intersect but, they are still worlds of there own, states, of being.

Nature vs Nurture

Yes, the age old argument, are we ourselves because we have are naturally who we are, and simply come into existence with a predisposition to be a certain way?, or do we develop our identity and self through our culture, religion, life experiences, and day to day social interactions? Aristotle believed that everyone comes into the world with a "blank slate" and that our personality is developed through living, aswell as many sociologists. Their argument is that everything is socially constructed, we self ourselves. For example, it is a proven fact that your language alone shapes your cognitive pathways and thinking style, a Chinese person who's native language is Cantonese or mandarin speaks and thinks in tones, unlike a native English speaker.For example there was not really a word for romantic love in Chinese until the 1920s. Also your life experiences shape how you think of a word, your idea of happiness or evil is unique to you, everyone has there own interpretation of every word. This will effect your perception of the world greatly, what you think sounds nice, what you think sounds horrible, it lays the ground work for almost everything you think. Not only that, but language also effects the culture, which combined with language shapes your sense of humor which than effects how you are or are not funny, which is a basic personality trait. Your idea of love, right or wrong, what kind of music you like, what is beautiful, are you beautiful, what is normal, and what is weird, all things we use to distinguish one person from another, and use to describe our own personalities, is formed from culture, religion, exposure, and language. But then one could argue, well if this all stems from language and social interaction, what if you didn't have language, would you not be able to think? and if you can't think, how can you have a personality, wouldn't you be operating off of instinct, or..nature? But than you could say, well life experiences are also a form of nurture and contribute to the self, and as far as we know, we don't start off with language, it is learned, and wouldn't you have to be able to think to learn language, also, linguistic intelligence is only one form of intelligence, but musical or spacial intelligence are just two examples of the many different forms of intelligence and thus thought, that do not need language to exist, so you can think, even without language. But that does not mean that nature does not exist, when children are first born, they do not all respond the same or make the same movements, ofcourse one could say, well no one has the exact same stimuli, its different for everyone, but at the same time,the biological and genetic aspects of a person does effect their reaction to virtually anything. What about biological twins right?, they have 100 percent of the exact same genetics and biology, and yet somehow they have different personalities, different interests, and perceptions of reality. But ofcourse again, the Stimuli and life experiences is different for each individual twin, even in the womb, whether you are on the right or left side can effect your personality theoretically. At this point the only way to really know if nature or nurture takes the prize would be to do some unethical experiment on lab grown identical twins with the exact same intelligence in each and every area of the brain, who receive the exact same stimuli and are born at the exact same time, and both placed in two separate white rooms with a bathroom the same size, and receive the same food at the same time without any social interaction, etc. to see whether or not they react the same, if they do, than in theory, nurture would 'win', and if they react differently to the same stimuli than nature 'wins'. I believe that nature and nurture are inseparable and both contribute to the self in different ways. My Theory is that because from the moment you exist you have a nature, but at the same time, from the moment you exist, you are also receiving nurture, however subtle, your nature effects how you interpret and are affected by the nurture you receive, and the nurture you receive effects your nature as you progress through life, though some aspects of yourself are so complex that there isn't any external stimuli in the physical world that are able to effect those complex aspects of your nature, such as a soul. This is what I call your "True Nature", So in conclusion, I believe that human beings are hylomorphic, and while the True Nature in theory stays the same, the nature/nurture continuous spinning wheel, is ever changing.

What is Existence?

Well, existing right?, its being there, experiencing the world, occupying space, the ability to be, and interact. But how does saying that we exist because we do, tell us anything about why we do exist, if we exist, and what is existence? Well the 'we exist because we do' belief or philosophy could be looked at by another angle. For example Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am", based on the idea that 'to doubt one exists requires that one exists to have the doubt', saying that it requires existence to have consciousness. Well then you'd first have to know what it is to have consciousness, and what counts or does not count as consciousness. Consciousness is best defined as awareness or rather self awareness. So then, what about animals, most animals do not pass the 'mirror test' to see whether or not they are self aware, (A test where scientists mark an animal on its face or frontal body, in order to see if it will touch the mark or notice it, thus proving the animal is aware the thing in the mirror is them, and are self aware,most animals to pass are primates) are all those other animals none existent? Or what about human beings that have little or no consciousness or self awareness, like for example a severely autistic person, or someone in a comma, do they then not exist, because they don't have self awareness or consciousness? And what about inanimate objects, they have no consciousness or awareness of self, but then you could argue that because we have consciousness and can perceive the existence of trees, and they exist in sense that they are part of the physical we are apart of, and because we are both physical objects, we both exist. But does that necessarily make sense?, What are numbers then? We perceive numbers in the physical world, and acknowledge their "existence" but no one has ever really been able to determine whether or not numbers have a substantive existence, maybe with another sense we could experience the physical or fundamental existence of numbers, but nothing has proven numbers to actually exist in anything more than our thoughts and imagination, so then it comes down to, do we decide what exists, or do things exist or not exist regardless of our awareness or belief in actuality. But then even if something does not exist in actuality or reality, it can still exist in our perception of reality, so then does something existing in our perception constitute its existence? Is it possible that to us something completely non-existent outside our perception of reality still exist within it. So then why can't something exist in one layer of being and understanding (i.e. Perception, Reality, Actuality, [see "what is reality?" for more depth] and not the others. For example my Theory is that Time exists in Actuality, and true love exists in Reality and is a state of being, not an emotion, in other words; Love is a reality overlapping the current state of reality, you are in love", its more than simply feeling love, though many would argue that "love" is product of Perception of reality, either way its a form of existence. And numbers exist in Perception of reality. There are three forms of existence, just as there are realms for existing things to exist in, though the ultimate or actual existence is only in actuality, other forms of existence can still occur even without it actually existing. For example, I spent hours talking to a woman in a lucid dream, and developed a strong emotional connection to her. It is possible that that women does not exist outside my perception of reality and is simply a figment of my imagination. But even if she "did not exist", she actually did exist in the sense that she interacts, has consciousness (even if her consciousness is a part of my subconscious, than her consciousness exists because it is founded off my existing subconscious) she occupied space, she was, even though she probably, wasn't, and because it is possible for me to have emotional connection to a non-existent entity, would it not be possible for me to love her, and if I can love her, than who's to say I can't move up to a state of being in love with her, which would merge something existent only in my perception of reality with something in Reality, assuming being in love, is a part of Reality, but does that make the girl anymore real?, is she self-aware or conscious? how can that be determined? and according to "I think therefore I am" she does exist, if it can be proven that dream characters have consciousness. But none of this really completely answers the question, what is existence? Well my Theory is that everything we can experience, perceive or touch, exists, but the level of existence varies within the three different types, Perceived existence, Real existence, and Actual existence , where I differ from Descartes, is that I believe there is an Absolute existence only in the Actuality, in which things like trees, animals, numbers, dreams..exist.