Möbius strip, courtesy of iiyaz, Flickr: An elegant and powerful reminder that common sense and intuition are no substitutes for empirical and mathematical enquiry.

Consider the questions ‘Is there anything [X] that we cannot ever think of?’ and ‘Is there anything [X] that we cannot ever think of?’ with accents on the words is and think of respectively. The former focuses on the being or otherwise of X in a hypothetical scenario in which X exists unknown to us, and the latter on the nature of the mechanism or the ‘mind apparatus’ [Y] that attempts to capture X and to which X, in a hypothetical scenario, forever eludes.

If we cannot ever think of X, why is this so? Is it something intrinsic and peculiar to X or Y alone that decrees this seemingly bizarre possibility, or has it got to do with the natures of both of them? If, and in the event, X is known, how is the knowing made possible? Is it an interaction between X and Y where they both retain their individual natures and in some strange way X is simply known as it is in itself, or does the interaction transmogrify them both and eludes X from ever being known as it is in itself whereby our knowledge will only then be a mere representation or a ‘negative’ of X? In the event of an interaction, is it direct or does it take place via a medium which further reinforces the above transmogrification or does the medium simply leave the interaction intact in terms of the way X is known and if so how is this intactness made possible? What are the prospects of such a medium ever been discovered?

Is the distinction between being and knowledge of being an illusion and might they both be one and the same thing? Is consciousness a product of the interaction between an objective ‘fabric’ and Y whereby the degree of consciousness is directly proportional to the degree of the interaction with the corollary that the optimal consciousness possible is the optimal interaction?  A ‘consciousness saturation’ point perhaps? If and in the event this is so, might the answers to the forgoing be beyond this point?

Does ‘Reality’ or the nature of things decree that the definition of being can only be stipulative or at best descriptive and never essential so that the absolute essence of being can never be revealed? If so what is this reality and what decrees that?

And lastly, what are the ramifications of the reality behind the answers to the above probings on our quest to know the answers to the probings themselves? What are the prospects of ever subjugating and vanquishing this vicious ‘self-referential loop’ [the answer of which is itself a victim of the same vicious loop!]?

All the above questions entail the crust of what I believe to be the main project of epistemology and metaphysics and their answers bear heavily on SCIENCE. It seems that humanity’s unrelenting and systematic pursuit after the mechanics, structure and fabric of existence is the only consolation and hope we have amidst the daunting pool of challenges that surrounds us.