File: I take it as axiomatic.doc

Every being has an objective and that is to attain some state of being

The statement just made does not appear to be true but can be interpreted as true by assigning appropriate meanings to its terms. First, take ‘no objective’ to be a special case of ‘some objective.’ Although this seems to violate the meaning of ‘some,’ this approach is often used in analysis and results in simplification of the analysis by introducing uniformity into what would otherwise be heterogeneity. Second, take ‘objective’ to include unconscious, semi-conscious and peripherally conscious objectives. Third, include the case of satisfaction, that is, the case where the entities present state of being is completely satisfactory which can be restated as the entity is in a continual state of having achieved its objective for the duration in question. These meanings make the statement true if trivial. The triviality, however, is due to its uniform or general applicability and this makes it ideal as a framework for a complete and powerful analysis

Objectives are not fixed and can appear and change as a result of random events and awarenesses, as a result of gradual evolution or growth, as a result of searching and as a result of a search –systematic and otherwise– for goals. On the way to fulfillment, objectives can change or disappear. All this is inherent in having objectives

How are objectives fulfilled? How are attempts made to fulfill objectives? Random action is one possibility. However, achieving an actual and not empty objective requires awareness. Awareness of objectives and goal directed action is a second approach which actually includes random action as a special case. The use of knowledge is an approach to understanding goals and seeking them by way of means

For some individuals or beings, states of knowledge are intrinsic &OR final objectives. We accept this even though knowledge may be or may be thought to be –at least in some cases– a surrogate goal. There are some states of awareness that may be regarded as final objectives. Generally, knowing may be regarded as a state of being that is transitional in the process of arriving at a comprehensive alteration or transformation of being

Therefore, in knowing there has come to be a preoccupation with certainty or, at least, degree of validity. In general, however, knowing is transformational in becoming. Therefore, certainty or validity is not an intrinsic characteristic or necessity of knowing. In fact it may even be questioned whether the function of knowing is to know. That question may appear to be paradoxical, for what else could be the function of knowing; the question appears to question what appears to be necessarily true by meaning. However, the real – intended – meaning of the question is as follows. In knowing, certain instruments are used: the sense organs and the brain or, stated otherwise, perception and thought. What is being questioned is whether the function of these instruments is, fundamentally and only to know, to have knowledge or is the goal adaptation or becoming in which knowledge is an occasional intermediate and a surrogate goal? Perhaps, the function of the instruments of cognition is to be aware of process of transformation. Perhaps it is an edge in awareness and selection of alternatives rather than knowledge of alternatives and knowledge of what alternative to select. These considerations defuse the necessity of the value of certainty and validity as absolute and intrinsic values in relation to knowledge. No doubt, much has been achieved through cultivation of these values but, simultaneously, perhaps what has been achieved is a blind end or one among other ends or transitional toward some other end

How do we come to know? Some knowledge is ‘given’ to us as part of growing up and living in a culture. What if we want to go beyond that. What is the source of new knowledge? There must be some claim to knowledge in the first place. What is the source of that? It cannot be rationality for that precludes newness. It must be imagination that of course starts with given knowledge, observation and reflective imagination. However, that is not enough. That we have a new idea is of course no guarantee as to its validity. It has just been observed that while validity is not an absolute necessity it certainly has some value. The source of validity is to question and test, that is, to criticize

Thus there are two aspects to the growth of knowledge. Imagination or hypothesis and criticism which includes critical analysis and experiment. (In the absence of criticism, those who hold an idea may have greater survival value if the idea has validity. Since criticism is not absolute, both kinds of selection proceed in parallel.)

There are various reasons that promote criticism and certainty as intrinsic values. First, there is the appeal of knowing. Second, consider that the academic enterprise is, in effect, selling a product. Third, while the word ‘hypothesis’ is respectable, ‘speculation’ is somewhat pejorative

However, criticism by itself is nothing – and for various reasons given above but, essentially, since without a hypothesis, without speculation, there is nothing to criticize

I have been concerned with critical analysis all my life but I have resisted the temptation to be merely critical despite the appeal. Additionally, I am intrinsically imaginative

And, as I have found, there is an ‘optimal’ join of imagination and criticism that makes for infinitely more powerful imagination and infinitely more powerful criticism