**about the world and ourselves, and what we do**

*know***--- what we accept as**

*not know***, as a sort of 'fundamental principle', and what is**

*given***, demanding definitions, proofs, reason, calculations, theories, etc.**

*unknown*Naturally, it would be ideal if we could begin in philosophy/science by saying that

**is known,**

*nothing***is given, and that all principles demand definition and proofs. And of course there are people who insist on making this our point of departure. But unfortunately this is quite impossible. Knowledge has to start from some**

*nothing***.**

*foundation***has to be recognized as known. Otherwise we will always define one unknown by means of another (x=y, y=z), and any 'truths' we arrive at will merely be**

*Something***'true', merely the relation of one of our assumptions to another.**

*relatively*For example, if we say that 'matter' and 'energy' are both 'fundamental principles', then we can say that 'matter' is really 'energy', that it is the peculiar way we happen to perceive a certain range of frequencies of vibrations of energy, which can be mapped as oscillating sine/cosine waves. And we can also say that 'energy' is really 'matter', that it is the peculiar way we experience and cognize matter which we cannot experience tangibly as 'stuff'. But this is really like saying that x=y, and y=x, without knowing the value of either and merely leaves us with a more detailed and 'technical' description of the unknown. We still don't know what anything really is independent of ourselves. This same idea can also be applied to the idea of 'spirit' and 'matter', or the relationship of one force to another. If we don't know what 'matter'

**'spirit' is, nor do we know what**

*or***of the forces involved really are, then we have again merely said x=y and y=x. Or even x=y=z and z=y=x. We still have no objective truth whatsoever. 'Matter' is that in which 'energy'' and 'motion' proceed, and 'energy' and 'motion' are those changes which we perceive occurring in 'matter'. This is the problem as elucidated long ago by Kant, but he never provided the solution for it. And it has yet to be satisfactorily solved.**

*any*So my question to you all is this: If everything we really 'know' is merely defining one unknown relatively to another, from whence can we depart in our quest for any objective truths or causes? Is there anything we really

**? Is there any 'truth' we can assert about the world independent of ourselves, without defining it by other unknown variables?**

*know*