To clearly understand my agnostic view point on death, one must understand that some questions and beliefs have different level of importances.
an example.
Many Quantum Mathematicians have posed mathematical possibilities
of parallel universes, universe with different rules than our universe, even a “multi-verse“.
There is little empirical proof in our living world or close proximities in the universe, that other universes truly exist…
…not enough to top all reasonable doubt.
Just the same, not enough empirical evidence to dismiss other universes outside our own. So it remains a mathematical possibility.
with that said, I don’t know if parallel universes or a multi-verse exist.
Do I need to proclaim one of the statements….
- I actively believe in a multi-verse!
- I actively do not believe in a muliti-verse!.
Well if my career was astrophysics whether I believe or not, maybe important.
For the curiosity’s sake, the possibility is worth investigating.
However, in my life, my world that I live in, my reality.. its not important or relevant as other belief statements…..
It is more important just to be able to say “I don’t know“.
Same goes for other supernatural questions.. As an agnostic
I do not know if consciousness leaves to another supernatural place after death. I do not know what happens after existence.
For me, it is not as important as questions pertaining to this life or existence.
Its ok to say I don’t know, whether I suspect one way or the other or neither way.
This is not a matter of belief/disbelief that creates ambivalence in my life, presently.
——–
My pet cat passed away this week.
I am not concerned of beliefs of where his spirit or consciousness went after existence.
I am only concerned with remembering his existence…
he had a pretty good life.
he was a good friend.
I feel the loss.
Thats far more important and meaningful to me than metaphysical statements of beliefs or disbeliefs in an afterlife.
for these questions, and many others I answer
I don’t know…
and thats ok .
authors note: Tiger , the cat passed away along time ago this is a consolidated post
Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events. Its verity is in fact an event, a process: the process namely of its verifying itself, its veri-fication.
When I read what William James published in “The Meaning of Truth” I believed he was refering to the truth of ideas proposed by a single person or group of persons, a single consciousness or a collective of consciousness within their existence(s). One constantly tests his/her stream of ideas within present environmental experiences and social experiences, and then with his/her memory of experiences… to judge a notion true or not.
Navigating this uncertain world is certainly easier by taking an Agnostic position in regards to knowledge, and a willing to do the work of verifying ideas: in participation and in experience. But that’s just my opinion. So to start with an Agnostic attitude, what is “Agnosticism?”
Agnostic – definition: not knowing or unknowing
What, then is the definition of Agnosticism?. If the definition of the root agnostic is “not knowing, or unknowing”, it is doubtful that one can define any full intellectual system of Agnosticism.–Much in the same manner one cannot with other “-isms” such as existentialism or postmodernism.
I was thinking about Jean-François Lyotard’s phrase: ” Postmodern Condition” , which is a loose bundle of observations and criticisms about Modernism. (specifically: these postmodern conditions are conditions that expose Modern ideas of “progress, “Meta-Narratives”, “cause-effect”,”objectivity” of Modernity as fallacious. ).
“Knowledge in general cannot be reduced to science, nor even to learning. Learning is the set of statements which, to the exclusion of all other statements, denote or describe objects and may be declared true or false. Science is a subset of learning. It is also composed of denotative statements, but imposes two supplementary conditions on their acceptability: the objects to which they refer must be available for repeated access, in other words, they must be accessible in explicit conditions of observation; and it must be possible to decide whether or not a given statement pertains to the language judged relevant by the experts.”
Jean-François Lyotard reportedly changed his stance on the relationship of science , knowledge and the underlying importance. his point remains , science is tedious with relationships to available prior knowledge and objects to test.
Afterall , how can science universally consider , that what has never been experienced !
Where than , lies the importance of “knowing” , “science” or investigating in my day to day life. How taxing my time , energy and body is the need or importance to know about something
The greatest weapon against stress is our ability to choose one thought over another.
William James
A Report on Agnosticm
I wonder that if instead of an “Agnosticism”, there was a set of Agnostic Conditions, that were a reaction to theories of knowledge.
So I came up with a few agnostic conditions of my own:
Knowledge
- Our total knowledge of all details is limited.
- Nothing is absolutely known. What is “known” is based upon acceptable supporting evidence and verification.
- Knowledge is limited to the collective experience, communication means and data storage of a group or person.
- Knowledge is inseparable from consciousness. (which includes, previous and current meanings, bias, and introjection, etc)
Reality
- A definition of Objective Reality: “what is real is measurable” as defined by classical physics; accepted as universal.
- A definition of Subjective Reality: what is experienced, and accept as real by a single consciousness. such as the cognation of an organism’s interactions.
- A definition of Intersubjective Reality. the collected objects, events, structures, descriptions, meanings, principles, etc that are shared as “real” between subjective
consciousness* conscious beings (organisms)
- A definition of Absolute Reality: the way things truly happen, whether comprehensible or not.
Meaning.
- meaningful… description of information, that is:
- that is formed out of background of discord
- that is relative: relative to a topic, study, paradigm, “game” , time-space location, happening, or world- view.
- that is defined in language, symbols or gesture, for clarification or communication
- that is prioritized in importance – intellectually and emotionally.
- that is
prioritized compared to other meanings in the context… social, personal, environmental contexts
- meaninglessness: information that is not meaningful and therefore remains, or is relegated to the background.
Uncertainty
Uncertainty. Image from Wikipedia.org
- I decide that “X” is true, false, or probable. I could be wrong.
- I do not have to decide if “X” is true, false, or probable with out the considering the agnostic conditions ( of Knowledge, Reality, Meaning).
- Uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things, actions and decisions.
I think that agnostic conditions are an important considerations when studying epistemology and knowledge theories, and when making decisions and actions. They are a criticism and completion of such. For me, this is a definition for agnosticism: a set of conditions.
As for the repetitive question is “Does God exist”?
Well, one ,must define what he means when he ask about “God” or gods, because there have been many definitions over time ,cultures contexts and subjective view points. How important is to know if God or gods exists or not? Is it as meaningful a question as to ask “is there intelligent life on other planets?, or knowing what goes on in other people lives in other countries? It might be. It might not be.
I don’t know.
* edited for clarity and grammar 11-17-2014
Cherrytree
Pennsylvania Echoes 
you breathed