Another Report from the Lexicon
Inconsistency, and learning
Actuality and fancy, hypothesis and conclusion.
These conjoined ideas... ideals… are also the crux of the analytical mind, and this the core of all knowledge.
The fallacy lies in assuming one leads to the other (in case of the later) and that the lines between the four are definite has been the down fall of many. Of any. Of all.
Speaking of the four a familiar line leaps to mind, one that encompasses one and all.
“Those who know nothing can learn nothing.”
Yet the learning process hinges upon these four absurdities on high. First line to be exact.
We can start with one, blunder into the other, drag the lines between three and four, criss cross from the first to the second, never realizing our straying. In fact, the assumption that going from one pole of the learning process and get something “right” is equally erroneous…
But perhaps this is too amorphous a meandering. Even for one as evasive as myself.
Take the substance from the line that is five yet is not.
The crux, the topic is knowledge of nothing. The core of this is utter oxymoron. How can one know nothing? Describe nothing, quantify it, and you have destroyed it. By default, knowing anything we divorce ourselves from the nothingness therefore losing means –if there were ever any- to encapsulate a “nothing” into language. It acquires qualities consumable to the masses. Depth and width, comparison, contrast, contradiction, emotion, thus is the nature of description, to lay these factors upon the previous unknown. By mere description we unravel a nothing. Furthermore, to communicate, to describe, no matter how crassly, we entrench ourselves into the world. For the world is what we draw upon a means to communicate. As base environment shapes how we learn to communicate, and learning of choices changes how we communicate as we age, communication of any means undermines the very concept of nothing.
In short, one cannot know “nothing” because “nothing” is simply that.
Thus in the above morass we touch upon absurdity. By establishing what is; an act of actuality, we can glean that the crux of the subject statement is impossibility. Another term for impossible is an absurd, also known as a faction of fancy.
Moving along form the frivolous and its counterpart we approach the twin tiers of hypothesis and conclusion. The statement is in itself a hypothesis. How can we deduce this? Simplicity, word choice.
A hypothesis is, by definition (for sake of this excert), an idea that may or may not be true. It is a purposed outcome to a sequence of events, a seemingly related observations, etcetera that are wound together and tested to see if there is a relation, a cause and effect phenomenon. At its most simple a hypothesis can sound like this; “It will rain today.”, than there are steps dubbed “scientific” that are followed to either prove or disprove the given statement.
This statement is a hypothesis.
In this case the inverse is also true. The statement is a hypothesis, a statement is a hypothesis, any statement can be, given an inquiring mind is about. The statement of interest though lies on the line above. Though proven erroneous by the core premise of nothingness being an actuality, or comprehensible by those who existed (for those who exist cannot, by default being associated with a world of some sorts, actually comprehend a lack of the basic elements of said world) the idea of one being static or not in one’s ability to acquire more knowledge is in fact a forum of hypothesis. It leads to questions beyond itself, can be tested, confirmed, affirmed, and analyzed.
Thus we come to the conclusion and revisit the initial question sans insulting inflection. Can one who knows nothing learn nothing? Yes and no. One who knows nothing is bound by nonexistence, for existence requires the knowledge of environment, the sensory means to navigate, therefore if knowledge is comprehensible, and the world is comprehensible, and both are based upon the world one cannot know nothing and exist in a world simultaneously.
Therefore the theory is wrong.
However it is possible to know so little about something, or encounter something so alien –real but outré- that it is possible to know nothing of it beyond what is perceived by the senses at that moment. In that sense one can literally understand nothing of an aspect, of what is seen, but that does not make the item, the subject, true nothingness, and by default make comprehensible the nothingness which the statement above speaks-
(The remnants of the essay are lost, the pages blackened, smelling of acid yet darkened as if it had been immersed in smoke, and… to the most keen of noses… there is the faintest whiff of darkness.)