Those of you who know me well are familiar with my deep passion for Epistemology. As I like to say, “Whenever something works as intended, Epistemology is present.” Indeed, Epistemology is better conceptualized as the stalk that gives rise to all other branches of knowledge, instead of just another branch itself. When considered under this lens, it’s not science that rules our current paradigm; rather it is Epistemology.
The great irony is that too many people do not even recognize the word “Epistemology.” I half-joke when I say that half the population recognizes the term “Epistemology” and the other half does not. Whether or not an individual understands the term, it is nevertheless integral to civilization.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge production. How do we know what we know? What is knowing to being with? How can we organize our knowledge to make things work? These are some questions that Epistemology intends to answer.
Another term from the lexicon of Epistemology that may not be so well recognized is “Axiom.” An Axiom is a presumed truth, but more specifically it is a self-evident truth that does not need to be proven. It is obviously true on its face. “Triangles have 3 sides” is an axiomatic statement. We need not evaluate every triangle in the universe using inductive reasoning because the statement is axiomatic. We can presume it as a general truth and apply the knowledge in deductive reasoning.
I like to base my understanding of reality around these self-evident truths known as axioms. They are easily accessible and irrefutable. They form a solid foundation for my exoteric approach to life, including spirituality (Exoteric means “accessible by all”) Using Applied Epistemology, I can make irrefutable statements as they are axiomatic. It tends to help reduce arguments and confusion.
One thing that I tend to promote is the axiomatic idea that language is a technology. That is, spoken and written languages like English or Spanish are ancient technologies. This is a denotative use of the term. We tend to gravitate toward a connotation of “technology” in the modern world, referring to “gadgetry.” However, we forget that our ancestors were doing the same thing we were: pursuing and advancing various strands of technological development. We are animals in this universe, subject to Time. We create tools that facilitate engagement with reality. Computers are a modern example of technology; however, language itself can be understood as not just an ancient technology, but also the “source technology” upon which other strands of technological development are dependent.
Language consists of a system of verbal/written symbols that refer to an underlying reality. The technology is comprised of a system of sounds and a cipher to give meaning to those sounds. We need both elements present for the technology to work as intended. If someone does not speak Spanish and I speak to them in Spanish, my words amount to unintelligible sounds to the listener. However, with the cipher for Spanish, they can unlock the meaning, which refers to an underlying reality.
How are computers and airplanes dependent upon language you might ask? Get ready for an axiom….Language as a source technology facilitates sharing instructions. If you have ever given or received instructions that work, you can understand how language can be the source technology. We need language to effectively do 2 things as a technology for instructions to work: Language must serve as a communication technology, allowing us to communicate. Next, language must serve as a knowledge production technology, allowing us to organize and produce knowledge. For example, we need a word to engage with a phenomenon effectively.
I like to use the example of chi, a word originally from Chinese. In the modern era, the English-speaking world realized that there is a universal subtle energy and we do not have a word for it. We cannot communicate the phenomenon without a word, nor can we produce knowledge upon that phenomenon without a word. So, the English-speaking world borrowed chi, and integrated it into our linguistic culture.
Some of you may have just realized after reading my axiomatic statements that language is indeed a technology. I recognize that this axiom may be new to some. However, that is the fault of previous generations of humans that have overlooked this and passed on this incomplete knowledge to subsequent generations.
Furthermore, some of you may have just realized that language is both a communication technology and a knowledge production technology. Indeed, previous generations of humans that lacked interest in Epistemology have set up the current generations to be unprepared to engage adequately with Epistemology, its lexicon, as well as its power.
This means that humans have an evolutionary responsibility to advance the source technology, as a unique strand of technological development, just like we advance literally every other strand of technological development from energy production, to food production, to gadgetry, to communications.
I would assert that as the source technology for every other strand of technology, language bears the primary responsibility to advance. It’s as if language is the “operating system” for other strands of technology, which are analogous to software programs. They run on the operating system, and if that operating system falls too far behind, it will cause issues running software programs.
However, the human species has put little effort into advancing language as the technology it always has been. The notion may be new to you; however, language has been a technology since before you were even a possibility. Our generations were handed a technology that has not been treated like other technologies. Whereas we advance other strands of technology, we tend to preserve the sounds that make us most comfortable.
Furthermore, we can advance the communication side and reconstruct our languages to more effectively communicate the ideas in our subjectivities. In this sense, we can aspire to “transmit knowledge” precisely, instead of merely hoping our audience understands us using ambiguous words that have multiple possible meanings.
Little effort has been made to do this. Indeed, too many people intentionally exploit the ambiguity of language to mislead others (the field of modern mental hell-th is an ideal example of this ). Advancing the communication side of this technological coin would help to reduce and eventually eliminate such exploitation.
The next aspect of language as a technology is that it is used for knowledge production. As we arrive at new phenomena, we create words for them. The words refer to an underlying reality. Once we have a word, we can then use our technology to produce bodies of knowledge on the word by identifying and organizing related phenomena.
When the English-speaking world borrowed the word chi we also were able to access and appreciate the bodies of knowledge surrounding this term. Entire systems of mind-body exercise such as chi kung and tai chi became accessible and appreciated.
All this begs the question: if we can advance the communication side of this technology to reduce misunderstandings, how can we advance the knowledge production side of this technology? It is here that we must appreciate that language is a technology that refers to an underlying reality. Our languages allow us access to this underlying reality, and we can organize this underlying reality using language.
Just as we have linguistic grammar to ensure that communication is effective, we can develop “conceptual grammars” to ensure that we are properly referring to and organizing the underlying reality to which we refer. We don't say "water is dry." This statement is grammatically correct in accordance with linguistic grammars in that the subject verb and adjective are properly organized. However, it is not "conceptually correct". We recognize that the underlying reality to which the linguistic symbols refer is not a valid construct. Water is wet. Water is never dry. Put Simply, the underlying logical organization is simply not adequate.
For those who know me, I promote Time as my spiritual path. Indeed, the present moment is and always has been the primary gateway through which we can access and understand Time. The present moment qua Time is axiomatic. We have developed both calendar and clock systems based on it. Clearly, our measurement systems support the axiom that the present moment is Time itself.
I often encounter people that make assertions that are Epistemologically unsound. They may say things like “Time does not exist,” or “Time exists everywhere all at once.” Here is where we find the problems of not advancing the knowledge production aspect of our linguistic technologies.
The human species does not have a fully articulated knowledge of Time. Thus, Time is analogous to a variable in math. We know that it is relevant to our understanding of reality. However, the value of “T” remains unknown.
Thus, when our language allows us to assert something about a variable, or unknown concept, we have arrived at the neglect of previous generations that overlooked the power of language as a knowledge production technology.
In language, there is always something that I like to call “controlling logic.” Every time we use language, there must be prerequisite knowledge which allows our statements to be true. In laymen’s terms prerequisite knowledge are the presuppositions that need not be articulated in our statements because their truth gives rise to our ability to make a true statement. That prerequisite knowledge must also be true for our statements to be true. Indeed, advertising and marketing experts often use this by reframing statements to incorporate specific controlling logic. That controlling logic must be true if the statements are taken as true.
I recently saw a billboard asking, “When was the last time you enjoyed a Whopper?” This statement takes as controlling logic that you have previously enjoyed a Whopper. If you accept the initial question as true, you must also accept the controlling logic that you have previously enjoyed a Whopper. Thus, this company is really communicating multiple things with a single statement.
Another example of controlling logic is found in the question: What is your favorite food? Responding "ice hockey," deviates from the controlling logic, as it is a sport that is played, not a food that is eaten.
Returning to the statements on Time, if we take as true any of the aforementioned statements on Time, we must also accept certain controlling logic, which is not there to begin with. Thus, we may communicate something to others about Time, fulfilling one side of this technological coin, but we are not effectively connecting our statements to a known underlying reality.
My question to those who might assert something about Time is, “What would need to be true in order for your statement to also be true?” Primarily and most obvious is that you would have to actually know what Time is. Indeed, we still do not have the knowledge of Time fully articulated, so statements made about Time do not refer to an underlying conceptual reality. Rather they refer to an unknown variable.
Here, we can gain insight into how to advance the knowledge production side of our linguistic technologies. Just as we have grammars to facilitate communication, we can also develop grammars to organize our references to that underlying reality. We can develop insights into “controlling logic” and how to organize our language so that we can ensure that the prerequisite knowledge for our statements is also true. We can evolve to being able to “correct” improper logic with grammar.
I like to use as an example “order of operations” in math. The beauty of math is that it is a language (a technology) that carries the pattern of one symbol referring to one concept. This is what allows it to superimpose upon reality so well. It represents maximum precision. Yet, in any given math equation, this system of symbols may be in any order. How do we know which symbols to engage with first so that we all arrive at the same results? We apply order of operations to guide us.
Controlling logic is analogous. We can develop conceptual grammars to help us determine which concepts have logic that is primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. The organization of that underlying reality can inform our language.
Thus, when I say that language is a technology that we have a responsibility to advance, I would not be met with resistance by those who arbitrarily prefer to preserve the sounds they feel comfortable with, often to the exclusion of sounds they don’t like. In other words, the structure of our languages allows speakers to say anything, no matter how off-the-wall or illogical it may be.
The LGBTQIA+ movement is an ideal example. These courageous pioneers are advancing our language. With new words, we can produce new knowledge and communicate subjective states more effectively. However, too many humans, ignorant of language qua technology, choose to actively resist this evolutionary responsibility.
Much conflict ensues. Ironically, too much of this conflict comes from within communities that promote Applied Epistemology. This comes from the reality that these sounds (pick anything along the LGBTQIA+ spectrum) annoy others who want to only be exposed to the sounds that they like. They like that everyone fits into a neat male or female box. Perhaps it makes them feel like they have a grasp on reality, when they do not. They likely do not even understand that language is and always has been a technology. That is why they seek to preserve the sounds that comfort them and oppose the sounds that do not, instead of accepting their evolutionary responsibility to advance the technology of language.
Moreover, language qua technology is informed by logic. That is, logic informs the structure of our language. This is also where Epistemology becomes integral to understanding and applying language. Epistemology can help us think about how we think, and organize our conceptual understanding of reality, such that it coalesces into effective communication about reality.
As language is a technology informed by logic, the language we use is susceptible to logic. This is what makes Applied Epistemology work. When we understand how logic informs the structure of our language, we can apply that knowledge to reinforce or re-organize our understanding of reality, mediated by language.
This means that any application of the technology of language, up to, and including one's very identity, is susceptible to logic. This idea may be new to some. Indeed, much of society conditions people to believe that their identity is something that can, and should be preserved even in the face of resistance. However, such conditioning does not appreciate the role of Applied Epistemology, especially the recognition that language qua technology, being informed by logic, means that logic itself serves as the "controlling logic ". In other words, the principles of logic serve as the prerequisite knowledge for language itself. In turn that language serves as the prerequisite knowledge for identity.
Such a realization of the intimate connection among identity, language and logic, invites us to reconceptualize our relationship to our very identities. Indeed, whether we like it or not or agree with it or not, our very identities are susceptible to the principles of logic. This is due to our dependence upon language qua technology, or the (often nearly incessant internal) reproduction of verbal symbols, to construct and maintain our identities.
Learning to redirect one's awareness away from the incessant internal reproduction of verbal symbols and toward abiding in one's still/silent observer, through non-conceptual awareness, becomes the most logical and wisest path forward.
Comments