Saturday, October 13, 2001

knowing what is versus knowing what of. knowing of something, that is knowing or having a perception or idea that corresponds to another perception or idea, generally outside of yourself. simple examples would be books, conversation, any media that does not originate from you. you can know of it, and at the same time not know it "is", or believe that the idea etc. "is". the best example, as is always the case, is knowing of God, versus knowing God is. a statement of existence, this is, that is there it is etc, requires elements of belief that are from ideas, perceptions etc. knowing of something is simply having an idea of something according to the perceptions of it. but, all things known of, must be known "is". if you know of someone, heard about them, read about them etc. you may not know them, as in their personality or their likes or dislikes, (this is another issue altogether) but you know of them, some information that gives some impression on your mind. well, knowledge of them does not come from our idea, but from interaction. knowing something is, requires interaction. for certain things, knowing of it is knowing it is. though simply knowing of, does not necessitate the knowing is. this is why so many poeple say they know of Christ, but they do not know he is. i say, that knowing of, is knowing is, we cannot know of something that does not exist.
the natural exception to this is statements of supposed knowledge of things that do not exist in the natural world, such as the unicorn. unicorns can be known of, but not knows as "is" because there is nothing in the physical world that "is" a unicorn. however, the knowing of, the idea from perception, reading, talking language or imagination, is the "is" of the unicorn. there is reality or existence in the idea that is where extension is found, in the idea in the mind. existence cannot be limited to simply having corresponding things in the physical world. though, things with extension, that is even in the mind cannot necessitate truth, but only that they can be know of, can imply a thing to be known, things known must be things that are, even when these things are formations in the mind.