Again, and without apology, I lead into what appears paradoxical. Toward the man who can either believe or say with some confidence “I know my knowing is wrong, incorrect, and not merely incomplete” (as most any, even the proudest of us, would not hesitate to say “I know I don’t know everything!”)…but that all my assumptions about knowing, what I think it is, how it functions in me to lead me, and how it is to me irreducible…is all wrong“.
I suppose, in short, it is some admission of having glimpsed or experienced matters in such a way of having learned there is nothing of myself on which I can depend for anything (especially “my knowing”) and that it is not, in all, subject to change. And this would be the truth of this matter of knowing. And that it has even been in some way, by function of this thing I call “my knowing” and by which I proceed in all; that has caused (or been used) to lead me (and I do suppose any man) into such estate. Thinking “I know” leads me ( does it not lead all?) to that place of seeing that it has not been at all as it had appeared. I thought it bedrock…but now find it no more than shifting sand.
Do not doubt there is some terror in this and to this. I am not speaking as one more comfortable in his own bed. There is a starkness that is, and to some if it appears too bold to say, terrorizing. Something is able to “monkey with” my consciousness.
Listen if you can to what may sound ridiculous examples. I believe they are terribly hard to understand because we are afraid to (even terrified to) face their simplicity. They are far too easy to us, which makes them very, very, hard. Have we talked about Ernest Rutherford (known as “The Father of Nuclear Physics”)?
For this I will quote another, Karl Smallwood, who wrote of it in his article (searchable by Google) with his far more engaging style than I can manage entitled, “The Physicist Who Was Scared of Falling Through his Bedroom Floor”
I shall excerpt that portion subsequent to how and when Rutherford learned atoms are constituted of mostly empty space:
“…basically it shows the path of the particles Rutherford was firing and his observed results, mainly that the majority of them passed straight through the atoms inside the gold sheet, indicating that they were mostly empty space.
Now this is where the story gets adorable, because the legend goes that after discovering this fact Rutherford was totally freaked out to learn that approximately 99% of the entire physical world he was standing in was composed of nothing but empty space. To make it even worse, Rutherford was the first person to make this discovery, meaning he was literally the only person on the planet who was aware of this fact at that point in time.
Rutherford was reportedly so freaked out that when awoke the next morning, upon trying to climb out of bed, Rutherford stopped his foot from hitting the floor and climbed back into bed, purely because he was scared his foot would slip through his floorboards, because hell, they were technically 99% empty freaking space after all. If you really think about it, the fraction of Rutherford’s floor that physically existed was technically a statistical anomaly, we’re not surprised the guy was scared to climb out of bed.
As for why he didn’t think he’d slip through the atoms making up his bed, we’re guessing the part of our brain that makes us think hiding under the covers would stop monsters when we’re kids was working its ***-damn ass off in Rutherford’s brain that day. Eventually, sense prevailed and Rutherford did climb out of bed and changed the face of physics as we know it instead of hiding and crying until he died of starvation like we probably would have.”
Is it easy to understand? Hard to understand?
Now I might take issue (and do) with this statement and appraisal:
“the fraction of Rutherford’s floor that physically existed (Italics mine) was technically a statistical anomaly, we’re not surprised the guy was scared to climb out of bed.”
We are terrified to admit that this thing which, in the above referred to space, and that we would call empty or “the nothing” does actually exist…physically in our reality. Space exists. It is too much, (or “Is it too much…?”) for us to engage that…(what we might call) “the nothing”…exists. Space (or what we might think of, or prefer to call “the emptiness”…or even “the nothing”) is as much part and parcel (and by volume far greater) to the all in which we are. Not only so in regards to what we may call the “solid” or material matters we perceive looking outwardly at the universe…but that we ourselves (as most know themselves in being a material or physical being) are also and no less.
And also and no less pertaining to all matters of “ourselves”…yes, even consciousness…can one find himself “falling though the gaps” (holes or emptiness) of his own mind and consciousness?
Have you?
And…what is it, or what would it be that is doing “the falling”? Is it the “real” passing through emptiness of nothingness? Or is it the unreal…passing through (or falling through) what is actually “the more real”? How real…is emptiness? Space?
How real is the “I” I believe…I know?
Too much?
Too bad.
Or
Too good?
Depending.
How much of crazy have you been equipped to handle?
How much of your own insanity makes sense to you…thinking that by “knowing something” you are now able to bite off more for the handling…that will not bring terror?
I suppose if one could one might say…”Ask Rutherford”…about “need to know”…about experiments prompted by need to know that reveal the terrifying, show that things are not at all as previously assumed to be…that all is upended by what might even be called better knowing…
But, you really don’t have to ask Rutherford…you already are in your own little laboratory.
Have you found anything that scares you? The you that you assume…is the you?
Even terrifies that…you?
Is something able to monkey with what you believe is your knowing?
Or, are you the one who is far too clever to be made a fool of to himself?
There is one more clever who knows…how to deal with the clever.
israelx7wordpresscom 