Identity defines existence, perception defines identity, knowledge determines perception?

If you're not interested in philosophy, epistemology or perceptual psychology, then I suggest you back up and read the next entry, titled "You'll definitely want to read this." Those of you who have as deep a love for knowledge as I do, please read on! Challenge what you read here and formulate arguments. Rebuttals, as always, are eagerly encouraged.

As I was reading Philip K. Dick's novel "A Scanner Darkly" (nope, haven't seen the film), I noticed he used the idea that identity is an illusion to illustrate one of the underlying themes of the book, the nature of existence. This topic has always caught my interest, so I could not help setting the novel down in order to ponder this further.

What defines our existence? Well, our identity does. The idea of existence is, in itself, an axiom. It requires no proof, it is accepted universally. On the same level, however, it cannot effectively be proven nor denied. Identity, however, is also axiomatic-- but nothing can exist without identity. So, there must be two items present in order for existence to exist, because it cannot have identity except in relation to the existence of another's identity. Right?

Existence is implicative of a dichotomous identity-- to be more specific, the inclusive and exclusive identity. Allow me to illustrate: There is a sphere. Outside the sphere, there is a void. The sphere is inclusive, while the void-- which only exists in relation to the sphere-- is exclusive. Therefore the exclusive identity exists only due to the existence of the inclusive identity. False cannot exist without true.

Or something like that. Still following?
...Yeah, me neither.

We covered the theory that something cannot exist without identity. Or, rather, that it exists because it has identity. But what is identity?

I suppose one could say that identity is a concept created by whoever it is that is doing the identifying of the identity. In other words, you are who you are perceived to be. But who you perceive yourself to be will most likely vary from who your neighbor perceives you to be.

Which brings me into the realm of epistemology, which is fun to say and even more fun to study. (Just a warning to the general public, this topic will now take on a very different track from before.) Allow me to begin with another illustration: Someone says to you the word "ball." No specifics, just the concept. To your mind comes a default image of a ball. More than likely, this image is a memory of the particular object which was responsible for the original creation of that concept in your mind, the concept of a ball. Pre-school, your teacher holds up an object, teaching you first what characteristics it has-- round, impenetrable, of a certain size-- then teaching you that these characteristics describe the concept "ball."

If someone were to describe to you a ball with certain specific characteristics, however-- so many inches in diameter, a certain color, a particular weight-- you would [probably] form in your mind an image different from your default image, considering the ball described was a different ball altogether. In this case, although your imagination is creating an image of something you have not actually perceived, it is by the same method as when your mind formed the default image of the ball. Your mind is filling in with bits of data to fit the description.

In order to be able to store these bits of data in the first place, as well as to communicate them later on, we need a standard of value by which to judge. A common language. [Example: we "tag" certain concepts with words so that we do not have to constantly define them when they arise. So, when we see a ball, instead of saying "a round or roundish body, of various sizes and materials, either hollow or solid..." we simply assign it the word "ball.") A standard of value is usually something that is widely accepted, like inches or feet for measurements, etc. So, to reiterate, the expression of a concept requires a common language.

Conceptualization is a key process in our minds-- meaning that our mind is always judging the value of the things we see, and in doing so, looking for similarities by which to recognize these particular perceptions. The search for recognition, as well, as the judgment of value, creates a mental context which is unique to each individual-- basically, it is our Self-- upon which perception and imagination are contingent.

Our imagination serves the purpose of creating the concept to fit the flow of data, while our mental context strives to reflect reality. As a more clear example, when we are imagining something, we are not completely aware of our surroundings, just as when we are completely, acutely aware of our surroundings, we are not tapped into our imagination.

Imagination can also be used as a defense mechanism. If we do not want to confront some unpleasant fact, we mix our imagination into the equation, thus splitting our attention between imagination and reality, and creating a barrier of ignorance. This is detrimental to our mind, because we are merely avoiding the truth.

The opposite, however, is highly beneficial in a number of ways. If we can form the habit of keeping our mind volitionally focused, that is not holding away conceptualization, we end up with more self-confidence and more of a thirst for knowledge. With a constant need for knowledge, our mind is growing and our intellect expanding.

Now that we are on the topic of knowledge, why not discuss the nature of knowledge, itself?

Knowledge can exist on different levels. You can have knowledge that was not experienced, but is merely learned-- a widely accepted truth. But the fact of the matter is that someone, at some point, had to experience that in order for it to become knowledge, so it is not necessarily without experience behind it so much as it is true pertaining to all experience. It can also be knowledge that is simply outside the realm of experience, but I shall get to that in a moment. This kind of knowledge is referred to as a priori. Knowledge that is gained directly through experience is called a posteriori.

There are two different types of judgments our minds make in order to integrate knowledge-- analytical judgments and synthetic judgments. An example of an analytical judgment would be to say "all bodies are extended [have spatial magnitude]." We need not add anything to this particular conception-- the predicate is connected to the subject, both of which exist within the conception itself. On the other hand, a synthetic judgment is one which there are two separate conceptions that are joined together. These types of judgments must stem from experience, or must be mathematical statements (such as a sum of numbers). Physics contains a number of statements that are synthetic. Metaphysics, a much more complex and difficult case, contains synthetic knowledge that can only exist outside the realm of experience. For instance, the statement "the world must have had a beginning." We can conceptualize this, and we know that it is true (because if the world did not begin, it would not currently exist), but we cannot use our own experience to back it up-- because we were not alive to experience the actual beginning of the earth.

This philosophy of speculative reason is called transcendental philosophy-- the knowledge of the manner of perception of an object, as opposed to the knowledge of the object itself.

Lastly (for now, since it's past 2am and I'm becoming quite drowsy), I will stress that there are two main sources of human knowledge-- sense, which pertains to what we were given (ie: instinct), and understanding, which is achieved through thought and analysis.

At this point, I don't even remember where I was headed with this, but it was an amazing journey-- and one that is only beginning. So I invite you all now to formulate rebuttals, and keep an eye out for my next essay as I learn more about the fun subject of epistemology!