How Does Man Come to Know

By Pauline Schiappa

The learning process establishes a wider, broader spectrum toward acquisition of personal believable knowledge in cognitive order to enrich sense experiences with cognitive interaction with earthly reality information. Acquired believable knowledge enables intellect to continuously acquire new believable knowledge.

Quality of transformational thinking process occurring during interaction between consummation of earthly reality information and acquisition of knowledge from earthly reality information depends upon (1) cognitive awareness as well as quality of conscious awareness, (2) quantity and quality of previously acquired knowledge, and, (3) meaning and value of earthly reality information to present existing knowledge. Within intellect there exists mentally operational cognitive structures and cognitive functions that overtime have cognitively developed in cognitive order to transform earthly reality information into knowledge.

Intellect, over time, existing in time and space continuously cognitively develops intellectual acumen in intellectual order to adequately acquire more enriched, enhanced knowledge from information. Enrichment, enhancement of knowledge variably depends upon (1) innate cognitive ability, (2) uniquely variable life experiences, (3) quality of cognitive development, (4) quality of thought development, (5) quality language development, (6) development of ego psyche awareness, and, (7) quality of mental operational interaction amongst intellect, ego psyche, and uncertain phenomenal earthly reality.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse
• Release date: Jan 15, 2020
• ISBN: 9781728343419

Pauline Schiappa

The author holds five degrees, two Bachelor of Arts, one in History, one in Philosophy, two Master of Arts, one in Educational Psychology, one in Educational Administration, and completed studies at Fordham University, in New York City, toward a doctorate in Cognitive Development. The author, once upon a time, began her professional careers as an educator. The author has owned her own Investment Company, and, has been the CEO of a fashion chain of stores selling Italian made fashion. The author has traveled to over 100 countries, all 50 United States, The Seven Wonders of the World, the North Pole, the South Pole, and, stood on the Equator in Ouito, Eucador. She has worked in child services, in bartered women facilities, as well as, serving on a hospital board, a mental health board, a university board, a high school board, a Chamber of Commerce board.

Book preview

© 2020 Pauline Schiappa. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse  01/14/2020

ISBN: 978-1-7283-4330-3 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-7283-4331-0 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-7283-4341-9 (e)

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

CONTENTS

Knowledge And Information

Belief And Theory

Theology

A Critique Of Reason

Reason exists psychologically inherent, and, intellectually, as mental operation innately a priori, within intellect as a conscious awareness….Reason exists as that conscious awareness that can interconnect an abstract cognitive balance amongst intellect, psyche, and reality…Reason has that possibility of mental operation to actualize the essence of an individual existing as an innate mentally operational faculty a priori that can abstractly realize the essence of right and wrong from the perceived existence of events, objects, and other beings…classifying, categorizing, and organizing the perceived existences with a priori prototypes, existing as conceptual principles, into acquired knowledge in order to acquire the mentally operational ability to discern the difference between right and wrong within perceived relative reality. Any quality of the cognitive level of understanding may initiate the realization of reason. Thinking, existing as a priori within intellect, is the mental operational ability to recognize and to realize reason within cognitive development. In actuality of reality reason cannot be linguistically or behaviorally defined; reason exists a priori metaphysically in mind. Reason can only be metaphysically realized. Cognitive ability to manifest reason within reality demands non-subjectivity within linguistic and behavioral expression.

Reason might be considered as a notion that a human mind can come to intellectually develop cognitive ability to observe nature (reality) and be mentally operationally capable of making sense of the interaction occurring between self and reality. Reason becomes a mentally operational provocation that has been evoked by reality to come to know self and to know reality in order to establish a dynamic homeostatic relationship existing between self and reality. Reason, existing as a mental operation of certain quality of cognitive development, relies upon the epistemology of knowledge, the ontology of being, and metaphysical mental abilities within intellect a priori enabling cognitive understanding of concepts such as being, time, space, substance, cause and effect, first principles in order to acquire sagacious and ingenious understanding of mentally acquired awarenesses.

Science And Reason - Rationalism And Empiricism

Science And Reason - Kant’s Transcendentalism

Thought To Language - Piaget’s Cognitive Development

Language To Thought - Vygotsky’s Cognitive Development

Vygotsky’s Cognitive Development

Cognitive Development

Styles Of Human Intellectual Development

Perception To Real Thinking

Reality! Truth! Meaning!

Psychological Development

Conscious Awareness

Mental Awarenesses - Definitions Of Terminology

Psychological perception exists within mental operations as limited psychological awareness because of inadequate personal awareness, and, because of conscious awareness of only practical intellect, and, no interaction with intellectual awareness. Psyche relying upon psychological perception limits psyche’s quality interactions with reality because psyche perceives reality limited to conscious awareness only within practical intellect. Interaction between psyche and reality relying upon a status of psychological perception instead of relying upon a concept of reality based within intellectual evidence lacks psychological awareness. Psychological awareness exists within mental operations as awarenesses of psyche’s interaction with personal awareness, intellectual awareness, and conscious awareness. The mental operational ability of psychological awareness interrelates the individual’s personal awareness, intellectual awareness, and conscious awareness in a mentally operational processes of reflection, discernment, and cognitive resolution of contradictions arising between psyche and intellect in order to pro form a cognitive judgment about the possibility of a meaningful interaction amongst intellect interacting with psyche interacting with reality. The use of the mental operation of psychological perception limits psyche’s interaction with reality to a perception of reality that exists more as perceptual awareness than as intellectual awareness. Psyche relies on perception. Perception deceives!

Development Of Psyche

Mind In Society - Intellectual Evolution Of Western Civilization

Philosophy of Mind, foremost, must give consideration to the notion of the everlasting ontological, metaphysical, epistemological unresolved question of the relationship between body substance and transcendental mind. Philosophy and theology gave speculation, and, science could not prove, any possibility of successful interaction between mind and reality, therefore, a philosophy of mind remains as speculation. Philosophy of Mind, aftermost, must give consideration to the everlasting ontological, metaphysical, epistemological unresolved question does cognitive awareness and conscious awarenesses exist within body substance. Philosophy of Mind, aftermost, must give consideration to the everlasting ontological, metaphysical, epistemological unresolved question within body substance does there only exist physical property and mental property. Philosophy of Mind, as contemporary scientific investigation, refuses to consider the phenomena of mind-reality within ontological, metaphysical, epistemological speculations, contemporary science attempting to prove that which cannot be scientifically proven!

Science

Notes To Science

Political Science

Theory Of Opposites

Logic

Rationalization, as a psychological term, describes a mental operational ability of an individual to attempt within practical intellect to discern a plausible a posteriori explanation for an idea, belief, or behavior which the individual cannot intellectually validate within a priori concepts. Intellectualism is the notion that an individual wills to resolve and to direct his pursuit of personal and idiosyncratic knowledge toward a level of the understanding of his system of reality, his system of truth, and his system of belief toward the level of intellectual development of the possibility to reason.

Phenomenology

Epiphenomenolgy

Perception

A Theory Of Education

By Virtue Of Arête

Conscience, as a mental operation, exists as a mental propensity toward cognitive confidence of a need to discern right from wrong. The mental state of conscience may exist as a mentally operational propensity toward realizing the cognitive ability of reason. The mental state of conscience moves toward cognitive confidence of the possibility of recognizing right from wrong. When mental operations fail to validate perceptual awareness with cognitive awareness with conscious awareness in matters of metaphysical awareness of concept of right from wrong conscience gets involved. Mentally operational status of cognitive disequilibrium and psychological disequilibrium will come to exist in con-science when sense perception of sense experience cannot validate with conscious awareness mental operation of conscience… evoking cognitive and psychological dissatisfaction. Cognitive and psychological dissatisfaction results because sense perception of sense experience of the observation of evil behavior cannot become perceptually validated…intellect tells psyche that this behavior is evil, however, psyche refuses to listen to intellect, and, CHOOSES, willfully, void of self-responsibility to use compensational transference in order to attempt perceptual validation of evil with other perceptions of observed evil behavior. Abstract intellect existing within mentally operational status of conscience, knows a priori the conceptual comparative prototypes that define, within intellect, the difference between right and wrong. Compensational transference relies upon other multiple observations of evil behaviors as justification for another observation of evil. For psyche, void of intellect, the sense perception of the sense experience of multiple evil behaviors comes to justify evil behaviors. Everyone does it comes to justify behavior…generic attitude…individuals fore give moral conscience. It is not a societal phenomena in a secular society that generic attitude has overwhelmed moral conscience. It is not that moral conscience needs to be learned…moral conscience exists a priori in mind…mind needs to realize more conceptual experiences in order to come to know.

Any Possibility Of Goodness

Afterword

Glossary Of Terms

Referenced Concepts

Bibliography

Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau. (6/27/2012).

This manuscript is an individual expression of thought via language as a personal and idiosyncratic expression.

IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS KINDNESS

WHEN KINDNESS FAILED

THERE WAS MORALITY

WHEN MORALITY FAILED

THERE WAS ETHICS

WHEN ETHICS FAILED

THERE WAS RELIGION

WHEN RELIGION FAILED

THERE WAS GOVERNMENT

WHEN GOVERNMENT FAILED

THERE WAS ONLY KINDNESS

90949.png

KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION

CHAPTER ONE

I nformation is not knowledge. Etymology is the study of the history of words and how their meaning and use may change over time. The etymology of one of the original concepts of the word information derives from the Latin verb, informare (to inform), which means giving form to the mind. In the Latin word, informatio, signified concept or idea. In the ancient Greek word for form, morphe, and, also the Greek word, eidos, used by Plato, (423-348B.C.), and later Aristotle, (384-322B.C.), in their philosophy and writings, denoted an ideal, metaphysical, that which was beyond empirical discovery, toward a prototypical identity of the essence of the existence of that which existed. Today possible consideration of a more sensory, empirical significance might be given to the word information, nevertheless agreeing that information provokes and impacts development of mentally operational concepts. Much gathering of information into the human brain (mind) today results due to the constant impact of the bombardment of information via media assisted by modern technological instruments. In this regard information might be considered as causal inputs of stimuli. Within such consideration of receiving information into the human brain (mind) any influence that information could possibly have upon its use by the human intellect, receiving that information and needing to transform that information into personal meaning, requires a cognitive mentally operational transformation from information into personal knowledge.

While colloquially the two words information and knowledge are used to connote the same consideration of having knowledge of, information is not knowledge. The necessity of "a transformation of information into knowledge by the human intellect is an important consideration in how information relates to knowledge. Neither information nor knowledge remains static. However information remains public; whereas knowledge is always personal. Information becomes available to all; personal knowledge cannot be transferred. One individual cannot give his knowledge to another individual. My knowledge remains my knowledge, and, your knowledge remains your knowledge. Within public conversations of ideas when personal knowledge is expressed, that personal knowledge then becomes public information. All involved in the public conversation share, discuss, and assimilate each other's personal and idiosyncratic knowledge which now becomes publicly shared as information. Individuals will then transform newly perceived" information into new personal and idiosyncratic knowledge, and, can mentally operationally do so, only if that new information relates to or supports their present personal and idiosyncratic knowledge. The individual will mentally operationally evaluate the information in order to determine meaning or value. The individual will reference previously stored related knowledge, by means of his cognitive awareness existing within intellect, and, by means of his conscious awareness of his reality. The individual will pay attention to that part of the information which he can mentally operationally associate with his present existing knowledge. The individual will mentally operationally accommodate that information into his present existing knowledge. If, in the case, that the individual can mentally operationally evaluate the validity of the information by means of his present existing knowledge, the individual will mentally operationally assimilate that information idiosyncratically transforming it and storing it becoming his own personal and unique knowledge. These cognitive mental operations occur as a process of transformational thinking as a learning process. Acquisition of new knowledge due to the interaction between new information and existing knowledge occurs as a learning process. The learning process occurs as continuous mental operation existing in mind, and, does not necessarily require formal education. Life within its presentation and provocation of sense experience and sense perception demands intellect to acquire knowledge. Any new acquisition of knowledge represents a learning process.

The learning process establishes a wider, broader spectrum for personal knowledge enabling intellect to use existing knowledge to enrich the experiences of interaction with information. Knowledge enables intellect to continuously acquire new knowledge. Quality of the transformational thinking process occurring during interaction between information and acquisition of knowledge depends upon (1) idiosyncratic cognitive awareness as well as quality of conscious awareness (2) quantity and quality of previously existing knowledge, and, (3) mentally operational discernment of the meaning and the value of that new information to presently existing knowledge. Within intellect there exist many mentally operational cognitive structure and cognitive functions that have over time come to be cognitively developed in order to transform information into knowledge as a process of acquiring knowledge. Intellect existing over time in space in reality continuously develops its intellectual acumen in order to adequately acquire knowledge from information. Knowledge becomes personal and idiosyncratic to each individual because each individual remains unique within his perceptual and cognitive abilities idiosyncratically variably dependent upon (1) innate cognitive ability, (2) uniquely variable life experiences, (3) quality of cognitive development, (4) quality of thought development, (5) quality of language development, (6) quality of development of psyche awareness, (7) quality of development of conscious awareness, (7) quality of interaction amongst intellect, psyche, and reality.

Information results from a broad spectrum of life experiences. Information is made up of data that has been gathered by reading, writing, speaking, listening, observation, hearsay, experimentation, and quantification, and, does not necessarily connote validity. The relating of information gathered, even by means of observable data as existing in a reality, becomes subjectively biased by the individual or by the media relating the information…knowledge remains cognitively and psychologically biased due to dependency upon all of the variables previously mentioned. The information gathered, even directly via observable data as existing in a reality, becomes individually, perceptually and idiosyncratically subjective to the individual observing the data. The information gathered, even by means of observable data as existing in reality, becomes both cognitively and psychologically subjectively biased due to the nature of realities as existing so relatively.

After becoming transformed into personal and idiosyncratic knowledge, the information becomes based within the cognitive bias of the individual. Personal knowledge develops as a result of the quantity and of the quality of personal experiences, as well as, the individual’s perception of those experiences. Acquisition of personal knowledge also depends upon the quantity and the quality of an individual’s cognitive development, which is the development of cognitive awareness as well as a dependency upon many other mental awarenesses. Personal knowledge is stored as idiosyncratic thought dependent upon the quantity and the quality of personal experience, personal perception, cognitive development, and conscious awareness interacting as thought to language or as language to thought. Acquisition of knowledge remains dependent upon the quality of the interaction amongst intellect, psyche, and reality.

While knowledge might be defined as a wealthy body of communicated information accumulated by learned men throughout the existence of mankind, the individual assimilation of any part of this body of knowledge by any one individual necessarily becomes new personal knowledge for the individual, which might come, in the future, to be shared as new information. New personal knowledge becomes the possibility of new information, which quality, meaning, or value, that information may have will always become dependent upon individual personal perception, as well as, individual ability to process cognitive mental operations toward acquisition of new personal knowledge, as well as, the meaning and the value that information may have to the individual.

Individual perception of information gained a posteriori will be transformed, accommodated, and assimilated into intellect, first, as percepts cognitively acquired from experiences and perceptions of reality a posteriori, and, placed into practical intellect, then, secondly, cognitively validated by means of concepts already held as a priori knowledge, and, stored into abstract intellect coming to exist as new a priori knowledge. Intellect cognitively develops ability to acquire meaningful, validated knowledge by means of cognitive structure and cognitive functions establishing knowledge as concepts stored into abstract intellect. Cognitive structure and cognitive functions existing a priori within intellect's mentally operational abilities represent a plethora of mentally operational awarenesses toward acquiring knowledge. Knowledge gained through experience is called knowledge a posteriori, information existing outside of the individual which could possibly become mentally operationally transformed into individual personal and idiosyncratic knowledge coming to exist a priori. The notion of types of knowledge as existing a priori or as existing a posteriori originated with Plato, which Plato described as, (1) a posteriori knowledge was that knowledge which was acquired of a reality existing outside of the mind, (2) needing first to be sense experienced and sense perceived a posteriori, and, (3) then needing to become mentally operationally transformed into some status of personal knowledge, whether coming to exist within practical intellect as percept a posteriori, or, within abstract intellect as concept a priori. Acquisition of personal knowledge begins with quantity and quality of individual experiences a posteriori which quality of those experiences remains dependent upon personal and idiosyncratic perception by psyche a phenomena. Acquisition of personal knowledge requires intellect's innate ability toward cognitive development interacting with language development. Quality of intellect correlationally depends upon the quantity of knowledge previously acquired interacting with quality of cognitive awareness of conscious awareness. Quality acquisition of personal knowledge depends upon intellect a priori interacting with psyche a phenomena interacting with reality a posteriori. Quality acquisition of personal knowledge depends upon quality of intellect interacting with quality of psyche interacting with a relative reality.

Knowledge is personally expressed via behavior and language. Meaningful expression via behavior or language depends upon perceptual awareness, psychological awareness, cognitive awareness, conscious awareness, perceptual judgment, cognitive judgment, and language development. The quality of the development of these abilities will reflect in expression of behavior and of language. Possibility of the expression of quality behavior or of thoughtful language expression depends upon the individual’s cognitive development towards discernment within cognitive judgment. Judgment exists as a mental ability within mental operations evoking a need to intellectually validate with already existing knowledge any new perception of events, objects, other beings in order to discern a possibility toward the resolution within cognitive validation. The mental operation of judgment becomes a necessary mental function toward the use of thought in any problem-solving or goal-oriented context and situation. Quality of cognitive ability, quality of thought processes, quantity of experiences, and quality of knowledge will greatly influence personal and idiosyncratic intellectual judgment. The mental state of conscience may influence judgment. Judgment exists as a mentally operational cognitive function, and, does not exist as a function of perception. Perceptual decisions may be colloquially named judgment calls. A perceptual decision is a perceptual reaction, based and biased, within the context of the situation which experiential stimulus provoked the need for a response. At that given moment in time in space in reality that that perceptual decision was made, the perceptual decision did not use cognitively discernible knowledge in order to cognitively validate the perceptual decision. Experience with immediate, contextual, situational information may provoke the need for an immediate response in the form of a perceptual decision, which comes to manifest itself in behavior or language. Because personal knowledge and information are both idiosyncratic, an immediate expression of behavior or language based upon perceptual decision remains perceptually biased. Seeking to make a quality cognitively based judgment requires skill of intellect in intellect’s use of its personal knowledge, nevertheless, still will remain cognitively biased.

Plato criticized the written or oral transmission of knowledge via language as faulty. For Plato, the individual who possessed the logos, which logos, for Plato, was not formed by means of grammatical, syntactical conventionally based normative language, rather, was formed as abstract mental concept, needing to be mentally recognized as existing as a priori knowledge. The individual recognized or remembered a priori concepts as innately existing in Forms, which Plato suggested were innately existing a priori, ideal, abstract concepts of the nessness of realities capable of being sense experienced and sense perceived a posteriori. Plato suggested that these innately existing a priori abstract concepts could not be adequately defined nor defended by language because (1) language existed as perceived, public information, (2) language, existing as a posteriori information, existed subjectively because language was personally and idiosyncratically perceived and interpreted, and, (3) language, existing as such, was subject to personal bias. Any possibility of the reality of the existence of these a priori concepts of the nessness existing within an actual reality could not be cognitively taught, but, merely conceptually discussed and debated. For Plato transformation of information was always dependent upon the quality of the quantity of experiences as the quality of knowledge was proportionate to the realm from which it had been gained. If an individual derived his account of something experientially, because the world was always in flux, the perceptions attained were flawed as mere opinion. If an individual could acquire personal knowledge, which personal mental operations had been able to become based within the quality of understanding of universal concepts, thus, not by way of sense experience, and, not by way of idiosyncratic perception, then the possibility of an individual’s ability to conceive of these universal concepts, for Plato, IS knowledge.

The paradox of acquiring knowledge from experience, or from information toward any possibility of learning, for Socrates, (469-399B.C.), was that it would seem impossible for an individual "to know anything. Knowledge, because it was so individual, personal and idiosyncratic in its perceptions and in its conceptions, could not be transferred; thus knowledge could not be taught; knowledge was individually, personally, idiosyncratically acquired. This notion of Socrates concerning how an individual came to know would be reinforced by Plato’s theory of recollection of the Forms…knowledge a priori. Knowledge a priori" was that knowledge which the mind already possessed within the mind's very essence, and, came to be mentally realized after recognizing it by means of sense experience and sense perception in reality. Aristotle, (384-322B.C.), as interpreted by the Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, (1135-1204), had suggested that knowledge could be acquired a posteriori, which was that knowledge could be deduced by means of sense perception of sense experience of reality, and thus, could become empirically validated by observable data. Knowledge that could be acquired a priori was that knowledge based upon a self-evident resolution of intellect of and by himself. Maimonides interpreted that Aristotle had suggested that there existed universals, as the essential attributes of objects, events, and others, existing evidently to mind, and, individuals' intellects came to recognize these universals as existing within realities, and, these universals evident to mind enabled acquisition of knowledge of reality. Plato's Forms, which Forms, existed of and by themselves, were recognizable in reality permitting mentally operational validation of reality; whereas Aristotle's universals were instantiated within realities, thus, permitting mentally operational validation of realities. For Plato, knowledge was "realized" as a "recognition of a priori Forms" existing in realities, metaphysical "Forms were recognized within realities…for Aristotle, knowledge was acquired as learning" by means of the "recognition of metaphysical universals" experienced in realities.

Averroes, (1126-1198), an Arabian philosopher, who lived in the tenth century, suggested that there were three types of Intellect; The Passive Intellect, The Active Intellect, and The Acquired Intellect. According to Averroes the Passive Intellect existed as the universal; the Passive Intellect was individual and inherent in individual soul, existing both personally operational as well as collectively operational within the mental operations of all mankind. It was the Active Intellect which possessed the possibility to abstract intelligible species from the Passive Intellect, which might become personal thought of that which might be possible and of that which might be real. This process of abstracting from the Passive Intellect using the Active Intellect, Averroes called The Acquired Intellect. While The Passive Intellect and The Active Intellect were dispositions within an individual’s mentally operational possibilities, it was The Acquired Intellect by which an individual had ability to communicate with the Passive Intellect and The Active Intellect in the acquisition of ideas from reality as presented within any form of information of possible reality.

Information abounds. Neither brain nor mind can escape it. What do I do with it? What do I need? What is an individual seeking…cars, shoes, peace, outer space, everlasting life? What do I know? Can I know? Am I learning? How do I learn? Learning is an innate ability of mind. Learning is a gift of humanness. Learning is a developmentally abstracting process that directly depends upon an innate cognitive ability as well as the quality of the development of cognitive structure and cognitive functions by means of cognitive, concept, thought, and language development as well as the quality of mental awarenesses and the expression of these mental awarenesses in the quantity and the quality of life experiences. In other words, learning is hard! Learning is a process of the possibility of an individual idiosyncratically acquiring a system of reality, a system of truth, and a system of belief. An individual’s body of learning, at any point in the lifetime of the individual, might be considered as his existing body of knowledge. Learning remains dynamic! Acquisition of knowledge remains a dynamic process of learning! Individual, personal knowledge can be quantified as well as qualified. Knowledge is built upon learning based upon quality of the quantity of life experiences and idiosyncratic cognitive ability. Any possibility of learning requires skill in reading and in writing as well as skill in speaking and in listening. Learning is built upon thought and language development. Converting thought to language is a difficult transformation. Converting thought to language then translated into someone else’s thought is even more difficult; especially since (1) everyone’s knowledge is personal and idiosyncratic, and, (2) an experience in the moment is so clouded by perception, therefore remains biased. In other words, learning is hard! Can a formal education system, let alone a teacher, cause learning to occur? A formal education exists as purpose toward presenting information!

Only the learner can cause learning to occur. If learning is innate do humans learn in spite of themselves? The simple answer is that humans learn what they need to know in order to survive, and, learn it fast! Is it that only modern society has convinced its people that a formal education is necessary? In history the more advanced societies considered and defined what body of study would be beneficial to its population, or, at least, a segment of its population. Greeks established the idea of a classical education defined within the study of the seven liberal arts: Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy, but, remember, study of these disciplines is merely the presentation of information. Modern formal education has added the need to study Literature, History, Geography, Political Science, and the Natural Sciences in defining a classical education. Any formal educational curriculum can be measured the quantity and the quality of "information" presented to the learner. Knowledge is personal and idiosyncratic and cannot be transferred. Information is public and can be shared. Learning and knowledge are individually and idiosyncratically achieved by anyone so seeking, regardless of formal instruction. Instruction, formal or otherwise, is only a possible method of facilitating learning. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, (1712-1778), wrote in his novel Emile: on Education, (originally published 1896, New York: D. Appleton) (book V, p.359), that:

The noblest work in education is to make a reasoning man, and we expect to train a young child by making him reason! This is beginning at the end; this is making an instrument of a result. If children understood how to reason they would not need to be educated (formally).

A real dilemma is that a society must define (1) the valuable purpose of formal instruction (2) a presentation of information that might provoke the cognitive ability to reason, and, (3) why?

Even a pragmatic answer to why is: TO PROMOTE THE COMMON GOOD! But since information remains biased and individual knowledge is personal and idiosyncratic who gets to decide the answer to the question why as well as to define the common good. If the answer to why is TO PROMOTE THE COMMON GOOD; then is it possible for a reasonable man to actualize goodness? What is "reasonable goodness?!" Francis Bacon, (1561-1626), during the beginning of the Age of Science came to believe that to promote the common good could be achieved by means of re-forming the notion that reason existed a priori. Bacon proposed a natural philosophy, a right way to acquire knowledge, that would be based upon scientific method by means of concrete-empirical approach toward reasoning a posteriori. For Bacon life's experience would come to reveal that which may come to be regarded as reasonable…Since the intellect became unreliable, the solution was to embrace Phenomena of the universe…in order to keep the mind from going astray by guess and by divine, therefore, we must come to discover and to know…by going to the facts of nature itself…by virtue of the experiment…Because the intellect was not qualified to judge except by means of induction… by means of sense experience and sense perception. (The Advancement of Learning).

(Cranston, Maurice. Francis Bacon. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Volumes 1 and 2). (1967). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. & The Free Press.).

Baruch Spinoza, (1632-1677), suggested that the common good, became embodied within the common will, mens una…that individuals, by virtue of reason would come to understand that society would best be served by entering into social contract. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, (1712-1778), agreed with Spinoza, that the common good, was measured by the general will, volonte generale, in a society…by entering into social contract. Jeremy Bentham, (1748-1836), suggested A Theory of Utility, that the common good was measured by means of degree of pleasure and pain. William James, (1842-1910), formulated a pragmatic theory of the common good. William James suggested that what might be considered reasonably workable was whatever was pragmatic for each individual as that individual came to perceive his reality. Reality and truth for an individual became whatever the individual perceived was useful for him. Even within his pragmatism, for James, there existed overriding factors toward complete pragmatism in evaluating truth. Free will, religious belief, emotion, and instincts may, at times, come to interfere with an individual's pragmatic perception of reality and of truth.

John Rawls, (1921-2002), would suggest in his Theory of Justice (1971) that rational people within an existing hypothetical consideration toward establishing principles of justice within political community, could agree, if people were permitted to work under a veil of ignorance when formulating what was just. Rawls suggested the First Principle of Justice was the Liberty Principle that would adhere to basic liberties for all people which included freedom of conscience, freedom of association, freedom of expression, and democratic rights. The Second Principle of Equality would ensure equally distributive justice and freedom of opportunity for all. For Rawls justice equated with fairness, and, the practice of justice necessarily required an appeal toward reasonableness. Rawls suggested a path that could be taken toward establishing a workable social contract amongst peoples who wished to live in a free and just society that might arrive at agreement of the meaning of democratic terms. Rawls' path required discussion amongst peoples who would assume a veil of ignorance. Rawls' veil of ignorance required all peoples to put aside their egocentrism as well as their perceptual judgments in order to enter into a reasonable consideration of universal attributes and shared common notions of principles of democracy, justice, liberty, equality, and fairness. A most important consideration that this manuscript will note is that in all of the theories and ideologies of proposed political, social, and economic isms, while inalienable rights of individuals are most important, there never is a discussion about the individual responsibilities that come with those inalienable rights. In the consideration of the notion of social contract individuals enter freely into social contract in order to ensure, guarantee, and protect their inalienable rights, and, because of the nature of the freely entered into agreement as a SOCIAL CONTRACT, it becomes necessary that each and every individual fulfills, by his actions and thoughts, the terms of the agreement. If these terms are defined by justice, liberty, equality, and fairness, it becomes imperative that the definitions do not remain subject to any inferential induction or perceptual judgment due to personal and idiosyncratic knowledge of these terms, and, it becomes imperative that ALL parties who may enter freely into the social contract, take FULL RESPONSIBILITY for maintaining harmony within the agreement. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY is the price that must be paid in order to ensure the usefulness of social contract. The penalty for not taking responsibility, for not full-filling individual agreement, shall be expulsion from the society. If in the case that it may be determined that an individual can be rehabilitated, then, the individual MUST learn the meanings of the terms of the agreement without inferential induction, perceptual judgment, or prejudice. An individual may not be able to learn to reason, but, he must learn responsibility and commitment to the law.

G.E.Moore, (1873-1958), suggested that good could not be defined by any other word. This manuscript suggests that, not only does there not exist another word that can come to define goodness, "goodness," as possibility within societal expression, comes to be individually and personally "realized." Spinoza and Rousseau had both suggested that the realization of goodness within a society required rational consent. The ideas of Spinoza and Rousseau had suggested that the common good became the embodiment of the general will realized by virtue of reasonable men who, with awareness of self-responsibility, freely entered into social contract.

Knowledge and information are not the same thing. Information becomes knowledge which has been abstracted from sense experience and sense perception and transformed into cognitive mental operations as either a percept existing within practical intellect or as a concept existing within abstract intellect…knowledge becomes realized into intellect as thought represented by language. Knowledge enables a quality of cognitive mental operations, idiosyncratic and personal to each individual’s conscious awareness, cognitive awareness, comprehension, and understanding of his environment and of himself, always dynamic, towards becoming personally valued meaning. Knowledge, existing as personal and idiosyncratic, cannot be transferred. Knowledge is uniquely, individually cognitively operationally acquired as well as cognitively operationally realized…and remains personal. Personal and idiosyncratic knowledge exists as unique conscious awareness of an individual's system of reality, system of truth, and system of belief. Personal knowledge cannot be defined as a universal truth or as a universal reality. Information becomes universally public and remains based and biased within the perceptual awareness of its individual and idiosyncratic information source. Information is based and biased within individual perception. Knowledge is personal, idiosyncratic, and dynamic based and biased within a quality of intellect's interaction within a phenomena of psyche interacting within a relative reality.

90949.png

BELIEF AND THEORY

CHAPTER TWO

E pistemology is the name given to the study of a theory of the nature, of the sources, and of the limits of knowledge. While epistemology examines the limits of knowledge, this manuscript refers to the limits of knowledge as the levels of knowledge as well as referring to the levels of cognitive ability. An individual’s quality of level of knowledge might be the result of his personal, innate cognitive ability or might be the result of the underdevelopment or malfunction (nature) of mental ability or as the result of environmental experiences (nurture). This manuscript considers the words limits and levels as more or less interchangeable terms, however, the manuscript uses the word levels. This manuscript's perspective upon human cognitive development and human acquisition of knowledge proposes that cognitive development and acquisition of knowledge are continuous, dynamic, enhancing human possibility in the human’s developmental learning process…without limit!

Epistemology is a philosophical study of knowledge. The Greeks have given theoria to the study of knowledge by looking at, considering, viewing, speculating, contemplating, and discussing the notion of knowledge in attempt to determine what knowledge IS! Plato, (423-348), had defined knowledge as justified true belief. For Plato the relationship between knowledge and belief was that belief was knowledge if the belief could be observably true, and, if an individual cognitively possessed reasonable justification to validate that the idea he had was true. Epistemology might ask the question just how an individual could cognitively and psychologically come to reasonably validate his personal and idiosyncratic knowledge to be true. Notions of cognitively and psychologically during Ancient Greece did not exist as the same notions that these terms do today. The Ancient Greeks held notion that psyche (soul) of man held man's intellect. How can an individual know that he knows anything. How an an individual, after being provoked by means of sense experience and sense perception, cognitively and psychologically mentally operationally internalize information transforming that information into personal and idiosyncratic knowledge, and then, validate it as believable.

An individual cannot transform newly experienced and uniquely perceived information into personal knowledge UNLESS he FIRST BELIEVES that his "a priori knowledge is true. Otherwise cognitive dissonance will occur within attempt at his mental operations. Belief is a mental operation by which an individual acts upon information transforming that information into accepted, personal knowledge validated with already existing a priori" knowledge. Belief transforms by means of cognitive structure and cognitive functions that quality of information which an individual discerns as valuable into acquired personal and idiosyncratic knowledge. Belief, as a mental quality, exists as a mental operational ability, as processes of cognitive structure and cognitive functions, to discern to transform that which may be cognitively validated into that which becomes intellectually validated with existing a priori knowledge in order to will the expression of that belief as behavior or as language existing as his system of reality, his system of truth, and his system of belief…in good faith. An individual's knowledge must become believable to him, otherwise, that knowledge would have no value for him. Belief becomes a mentally operational ability to give metaphysical, epistemological value towards mental operation of personal and idiosyncratic knowledge toward establishing a system of belief…and…without a system of belief an individual cannot establish a system of reality or a system of truth. Theory, existing within dynamic state of hypothesis, does not become belief until an individual has intellectually validated his present existing a priori knowledge with any a posteriori experience, observation, experiment, or inferential induction of the propositional theory toward possibility of cognitive inclusion into his belief system, nevertheless, cognitively qualifying the conclusion as possibility of dynamic theory.

An individual believes he knows something. An individual believes in his personal, though idiosyncratic, body of knowledge. An individual believes in this, his personal knowledge, because his mental operations have demonstrated that knowledge to him either (1) by means of his personal, idiosyncratic sense experiences, or, (2) by means of his personal quality of perception, quality of cognitive awareness, quality of conscious awareness, quality of comprehension, quality of understanding, and quality of thought development existing within his mental operations, in order, to validate new information with his existing "a priori knowledge. It would be humanly, cognitively impossible for a human to come to learn anything if an individual did not possess an innate ability within intellect to believe." It would be humanly, cognitively impossible for an individual to learn if an individual did not believe that what he knows were true. Because individual knowledge is personal and idiosyncratic that individual’s knowledge is true for him, and, he believes it!

Plato, (423-348B.C.), would have substantiated an individual’s innate ability to believe his personal knowledge was true by deductively reasoning that actually what an individual was mentally operationally processing, was a provocation, by means of sense experience and sense perception, of the recognition of the Forms, or universal conceptual prototypes, which were innate a priori within individual abstract intellect. Plato would have suggested that an individual could possibly come to deductively reason cognitive validation by means of presentation within the form of dialectical discussion regarding that information that may be pending toward cognitive validation. Thomas Aquinas, (1225-1274), suggested that, while certain ability to believe was the result of Divine Revelation, natural revelation, in the form of the essence (soul) of man would pro form human mental ability. Aquinas would suggest that an individual, by the very nature of his essence, could acquire an ability to believe and to reason …of course…by means of the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit! Can an individual intellectually reason a belief? Can an individual scientifically reason proof of a theory?

In the case where an individual's cognitive development were lacking, lacking according to psychological definition, then, an individual's intellectual ability came to be defined psychologically, as well as, possibly societally. An individual, for example, might be evaluated within psychological terminology as idiot, imbecile, or moron. Political correctness has now required that such terminology be removed from psychological evaluation because these terms give pejorative connotation. So an idiot is psychologically defined as profoundly mentally retarded; an imbecile is psychologically defined as severely mentally retarded; a moron is psychologically defined as mildly mentally retarded. This manuscript suggests that even the term retarded remains pejorative. This manuscript prefers the term idiosyncratic. Even if these mental states of human cognitive development, for whatever reason, (as making excuse) may be lacking, as determined by psychological or societal norm, if the individual did not believe in his knowledge than he would not even be human, let alone retarded.

This manuscript interprets Charles Darwin's, (1809-1882), theories as having suggested, in his book, Origen of Species, (1859), that men could be defined as Homo Sapiens because they were recognizably (recognized by other humans) superiorly, mentally operational, even if existing only as mental property within body substance, as distinguished from the rest of animal creation. Herbert Spencer's, (1820-1903), notion of the survival of the fittest gave consideration to some notion of cause and effect, whether, explained biologically, evolutionarily, socially, economically, psychologically, or intellectually. Humans were capable of acquiring some capabilities in order to, at least, survive within a state of existence that required certain levels of human performance. Even rudimentary mental properties classified as normal behavior or normal expression defined a species of human existence. Those behaviors, normal or otherwise, became an individual’s behavioral and linguistic expressions of his species. This manuscript suggests that the human species would come to express certain behaviors, acquire language, and, necessarily come to develop psyche within individual personal, idiosyncratic systems of reality, systems of truth, and systems of belief in order to attempt to make sense of the observed reality in which he found himself. As Homo Sapiens, necessarily coming to live within a community of Homo Sapiens, a societal network would come to demand that an individual adapt some quality of these three systems of reality, truth, and belief that had been first sense experienced and sense perceived, and then, cognitively validated with his a priori knowledge in order for an individual to be permitted acceptance.

Belief and Theory are both methods of a posteriori mental operational ability toward acquisition of knowledge. An individual is mentally required to adopt a system of reality, a system of truth, and a system of belief before he can come to validate knowledge acquired a posteriori with his a priori knowledge. Because systems of reality, truth, and belief remain personal and idiosyncratic to each individual, then an individual's system of belief becomes his theory of his system of reality, as well as, his theory of his system of truth. Belief is a mental operation by which an individual acts upon information transforming that information into accepted, personal knowledge validated with already existing a priori knowledge. Belief transforms by means of cognitive structure and cognitive functions that quality of information which an individual discerns as valuable into acquired personal and idiosyncratic knowledge. Belief, as a mental quality, exists as a mental operational ability, as processes of cognitive structure and cognitive functions, to discern to transform that which may be cognitively validated into that which becomes intellectually validated with existing a priori knowledge in order to will the expression of that belief as behavior or as language…in good faith. Theory, existing within dynamic state of hypothesis, does not become belief until an individual has intellectually validated his present existing a priori knowledge with any a posteriori experience, observation, experiment, or inferential induction of the propositional theory toward possibility of cognitive inclusion into his belief system, nevertheless, cognitively qualifying the conclusion as possibility of dynamic theory. Hypothesis exists as a proposition, or a set of propositions, that brings forth a suggestive explanation for the occurrence of certain observable phenomena, and, may either assert a provisional inferential induction in order to guide scientific investigation (a working hypothesis), or, suggest the use of logical deductive and/or inductive propositions that could come to validate the hypothesis, by means of analysis and synthesis of observable and collected data, toward a workable, and, believable conclusion, even if that conclusion remains in status of dynamic. Dynamic exists as status of mental operations as a continuous force of intellect toward mental operational ability as motivation toward cognitive and intellectual development which may come to effect and to affect stability within cognitive and psychological equilibrium as well as cognitive and psychological satisfaction.

In the notion of Plato’s suggestion that belief was knowledge if the belief could be believable, an individual would be required to cognitively validate his acquiring system of belief with his personal and idiosyncratic sense experiences and sense perceptions in order to believe that the percepts or the concepts he had acquired were believable! It might be said that a mental operation wherein an individual’s attempt to arrive at a cognitive validation in order to believe that an idea he had was believable, might be regarded as an individual theorizing in order to validate his knowledge. Is this what science does? Does science theorize? Is this what reason does? Does reason theorize? Belief and theory are both used as human mental operations in order to validate knowledge.

Belief and Theory are two mentally, operational processes by which an individual acquires knowledge from information. The question becomes: are the two mental operations identical? In a first case scenario the answer would be yes if both theory and belief used the mental operation of reasoning. In a second case scenario the possibility could or would be yes if we knew that to reason was the same as to think. Is a thinking individual the same as a reasonable individual? Can a thinking man be a reasonable man? Webster’s definition of to think suggests many scenarios, some of which include (1) to think is to reason; (2) to believe; (3) to recall to mind; (4) to have an opinion; (4) to make a judgment. Webster’s definitions of to reason suggest many scenarios, some of which include (1) the ability to think, (2) the ability to form a judgment, (3) good sense, (4) to think logically. The author’s present state of personal, idiosyncratic knowledge is that a thinking individual is not necessarily a reasonable individual because (1) individual knowledge is so personal and idiosyncratic so that individual knowledge remains biased, (2) since individual knowledge remains in a state of dynamic flux there exists a possibility that a thinking individual could become a reasonable individual, and (3) what does it mean to think as opposed to what it means to reason. In a third case scenario science tells us that knowledge cannot be acquired by means of reason…knowledge, according to science, is acquired inductively by means of sense experience and sense perception. In other words…sense experience and sense perception induce (inject) knowledge into the brain without need to think and without need to reason!?"

Theory, existing within dynamic state of hypothesis in flux, does not become belief until an individual has intellectually validated his present existing a priori knowledge with any a posteriori experience, observation, experiment, or inferential induction of the propositional theory toward possibility of cognitive inclusion into his belief system, not without cognitive awareness that within a given time in a given space in a given reality, this present process of cognition qualifying the conclusion still remains as possibility of dynamic belief in flux. There existed something abstractly called a theory which had originally been evoked into cognitive awareness by a sense experience and a sense perception of reality, coming to provoke necessity toward cognitive validation of its real existence. Epistemological realism suggests a theory that there is a reality regardless of the knower; epistemological idealism suggests that there is no reality beyond how the knower knows it. Regardless, in order for the knower to know it he must believe it! The metaphysical question becomes what is it that permitted the knower to know it…(1) the reality of it…(2) the sense experience and sense perception of it…(3) a transcendental thinking ability to transform sense experiencing and sense perceiving it from a theory of it into a belief of it…(4) the a priori knowledge existing within abstract intellect that provoked cognitive validation of its reality…even if cognitive validation resulted as an idiosyncratic, personal, and unique knowing. Contemporary science’s notion that neurotransmitters, existing physically in the body substance, can transmit information by means of physical sensations, that come to establish a non-physical impression, in the brain, which claims to be knowledge, becomes as absurd a theory as that theory contemporary science rejects…which is…there exists no transcendental transformational mind! Descartes tried, but, could not figure it out, and, neither can contemporary science. How does that which exists in the physical come to provoke a desire to know, and, then, that knowing comes to exist in the metaphysical? Contemporary science refuses to ask that question! Contemporary science holds many theories, but, holds no theories" that metaphysical cognition is required in order to acquire knowledge. A system of belief gives metaphysical and epistemological value to a system of reality and a system of truth.

Hypothesis exists as a proposition, or a set of propositions, that brings forth an a suggestive explanation for the occurrence of certain observable phenomena, and, may either assert a provisional inferential induction in order to guide scientific investigation (a working hypothesis), or, suggest the use of logical deductive and/or inductive propositions that could come to validate the hypothesis, by means of analysis and synthesis of observable and collected data, toward a workable, and, believable conclusion, even if that conclusion remains in status of dynamic flux…all knowledge remains in status of dynamic flux!

Dynamic exists as status of mental operations as a continuous force of intellect toward mental operational ability as motivation toward cognitive and intellectual development which may come to effect and to affect stability within cognitive and psychological equilibrium as well as cognitive and psychological satisfaction.

Belief is a mental operation by which an individual acts upon information transforming that information into accepted, personal knowledge validated with already existing a priori knowledge. Belief transforms by means of cognitive structure and cognitive functions that quality of information which an individual discerns as valuable into acquired personal and idiosyncratic knowledge. Belief, as a mental quality, exists as a mental operational ability, as processes of cognitive structure and cognitive functions, to discern to transform that which may be cognitively validated into that which becomes intellectually validated with existing a priori knowledge in order to will the expression of that belief as behavior or as language…in good faith. An individual's knowledge must become believable to him, otherwise, that knowledge would have no value for him. Belief becomes a mentally operational ability to give metaphysical, epistemological value towards mental operation of personal and idiosyncratic knowledge toward establishing a system of belief in an adaptation of a system of reality and an adaptation of a system of truth.

90949.png

THEOLOGY

CHAPTER THREE

T he practice of religion and the discourse of theology are two different approaches toward a concept of the possibility of a Deity. An institution of religion has been grounded within a generally agreed upon belief system, and, within a general agreement to practice that belief system. Theology, as a discourse of the possibility of a Deity, examines the cause and effect a Deity may have upon the reality of an individual. Theology, as a discourse, in the possibility that a Deity exists, examines the cognitive ability that an individual might acquire reasoned knowledge of the Deity. Theology, as a scientific theory, suggests that it is possible for an individual to reasonably validate that a Deity, existing as Intelligent Design, does exist. Discourse in theology suggested that an individual will be able to gain knowledge of the possibility of a Deity based upon an individual’s quantity and quality of personal knowledge as well as an individual’s perceived experience within the practice of a religion toward the mentally, operational formulation of a system of reality, a system of truth, and a system of belief….and…even….possibly by means of reason.

Augustine of Hippo, (354-430), gave a Latin definition to theologia defining theology as a reasoned discourse of the possibility of a Deity. Richard Hooker, (1554-1600), defined theology in English as the science of things divine. Theology translated from the Greek word theologia derived from the Greek word theos, meaning God, combined with the Greek word logia, referring to the Greek word meaning reasonable discourse. Natural theology proposed a study of the possibility of a Divine Essence based upon reasoning formulated upon the perception of natural factors, independent of any creed sustained by Christian revelation, or, any other practiced world religions, or, any philosophical speculations of the existence of a Divine. Study of theology has been generally regarded as an academic discipline within reasonable discourse. An academic discipline is a level of study in the form of an accepted and prescribed curriculum within an institution of a college or a university.

There are pitfalls. There first needs to be agreement that there exists the possibility of (1) reasoning and (2) thinking, as well as, (3) agreement of what it means to reason and/or to think. Could an individual’s mental perception move towards mental operations of mental concepts toward knowledge of the possibility of a Divine Essence? How does an academic theologically disciplined discourse, discussed within the reasonable thought of a theologian or a philosopher, schooled, lived and breathed, within the environment of this uniquely exceptional context of acquired theological and/or philosophical belief system differ from that of an individual, personal and idiosyncratic system of belief…or…within any idiosyncratic religious theories proposed…and…which…are not able to be either proven or falsified by science? Thought, that resides within an intellectual or a psychological study of individual psyche…as a psyche's relationship to cognitive development…as a psyche's relationship to psychological development…as a psyche's relationship to any possibility of a metaphysical development…or as a psyche's relationship to reality…becomes thought limited by all of these conditions.

In a consideration of a notion of the possibility of an individual cognitively acquiring a system of belief of reasonable possibility of the existence of a Divine Essence…that has not been substantiated in faith, of and by itself…could any consideration of the possibility of that notion necessarily enter into intellect as an epistemological question…could there come into cognitive existence such reasonable cognitive ability? It becomes such a wonder that Divine Essence could ever be possibly reasoned, irregardless of science's ability to experientially prove it, when, presently, there exists no reasonable cognitive ability to be able to conjoin minds upon any notions, divine or not divine! The cognitive realized possibility of a Divine Essence becomes dependent upon an individual’s quantity and quality of mental operations toward formulating a reasoned, epistemological system of belief…yet…that is all that a reasoned epistemological system of belief IS… can I reasonably come to know it, and, can I reasonably accept it into my system of belief? Epistemology is the study of a theory of the nature, sources, and limits of knowledge.

Faith existing as a metaphysical cognitive ability of faith metaphysically cognitively validates itself without mental operations within practical intellect, and, without need of any scientific proof. Faith may exist as a mentally operational ability to acquire intellectual and psychological confidence in metaphysically, cognitively realized principles as true and valuable toward accepting a system of belief based within faith in these metaphysically, but, cognitively realized principles of essential existence. Establishing and accepting a system of belief upon metaphysical cognition of faith requires no cognitive validation within practical intellect or scientific validation; and, certainly, no indoctrination.

Considerations of the notion that faith, as a mentally operational cognition toward belief, might come to be known a posteriori, or, that faith, as a mentally operational cognition toward belief, might come to be known a priori, have been given philosophic and metaphysical consideration by such men as Aristotle, (384-322B.C.), Augustine, (354- 430), Avicenna, (984-1037), Averroes, (1126-1198), Maimonides, (1135-1204), and, Thomas Aquinas, (1225-1275).

Aristotle proposed that metaphysical consideration could be given to the notion of theology as a study of the possibility of a Deity. For Aristotle metaphysics was knowledge acquired of immaterial being, or, of being in the highest form of abstraction…metaphysics was the first philosophy…metaphysics was the theologic science…this metaphysical knowing of the highest form of abstraction could come to be acquired by means of inductive reasoning a posteriori. Avicenna spoke of a perfect source of knowledge, reason could come to establish in mind that there exists a possibility of a Deity…reasoned a posteriori. Averroes suggested that there were two kinds of knowledge: (1) First Knowledge was based upon faith, and, therefore could not be scientifically tested…First Knowledge was acquired a priori; (2) Second Knowledge was that acquisition of knowledge of truth, which could only be metaphysically understood by those possessing a certain quality of intellect…Second Knowledge was acquired a posteriori. For Averroes, there existed only one truth…but two approaches toward discovering that truth…one philosophically…the other by means of religion…knowledge of truth by religion was based upon faith and thus could not be scientifically validated; knowledge of truth by means of reasoned, theoretical philosophy was attainably possible, but, was reserved for an elite few who had acquired the intellectual capacity to undertake the understanding of theoretical truth. Averroes proposed that the acquisition of reason within intellectual development was only attainable by means of a certain mystical awareness, and, was the ultimate aspiration of the human soul. Maimonides suggested that, within study as theology, there could not exist any considerations that might be proposed, either by a philosophy of theology or a science of theology, which contradicted those truths that had been divinely revealed by God…a priori. Thomas Aquinas, within the establishment of Scholastic thought, would agree with Maimonides' consideration of a study of theology. Aquinas suggested that there exists divine revelationa priori and natural revelation a posteriori. Natural revelation came to exist due to the very nature of knowledge acquisition…when the mental operation of reason was acquired…reason permitted mind's (soul) realization of God.

Augustine, in his book, City of God, suggested some considerations toward possibility of cognitive reasonable recognition of the possibility of a Deity:

(1) the idea of God must be able to become mentally operationally conceived as existing outside of time in space in reality;

(2) moral and spiritual awarenesses become mentally operationally compromised when the actuality of their possibility of mental operational existence is perceived as existing within time in space in reality…possibility of these existences remain mentally operational percepts existing within practical intellect within the limitations of perceived realities, and, not, as notions of cognitively conceived realities; human cognition existing within time in space in reality limits the possibility toward human cognition's ability to conceive any existence outside of time in space in reality;

(3) a possibility of a notion of the concept of fate might become a possibility of a notion of fate existing as a perceived environment within percepts of fate as being determining or controlling; religion could be perceived as attempting to determine or control human fate;

(4) why would man ever conceive of the possibility of a Deity?

(a) for the sake of temporal advantage…eg. despair seeking hope…religion as exerting control over others…witchcraft…favor of the gods…

(b) due to a temporal inclination existing as a mental void which needs mental validation or psychological satisfaction…which perceives fulfillment of that mental void or psychological satisfaction within a socially agreed upon, organized system of belief existing as an established religion, sect, creed, congregation, mysticism, etc.

(c) due to a temporal inclination existing as a mental void which needs mental validation or psychological satisfaction…seeking an