Pushing the Limits to Being Able to Trace the Experience of Understanding the Perception of Knowing (or Knowledge).

How can the theory of collective consciousness be attempted to be proven with evidence. Can we ever attain objective knowledge based on subjective experience.

Are experiences ever real if subjective experience is what is perceiving them? If we are subject to experiencing an emotion a particular way, why is it not different? If there are an infinite numbers of possibilities of experiencing emotion are we not completely vulnerable to manipulation (being the subjective experience)? Can we ever truly be objective?

Does that mean that there must be some sort of collective grammatical prison that we apply all experience to — which is called logic.

Logic sets up experience universally and helps individuals comprehend them either being intellectually honest or intellectually dishonest.

If we have logic as our universal basis for assessing information, then how can faith-based Religion (believing in divine dogmas), be the accurate representation of reality? Especially since Religion seems like the embodiment of the subjective experience (including upbringing — nature vs. nurture — family, social groups, culture, love, sex, passions, emotions), and attempting that to be a universal objective reality.

But the only objective reality is the system that we have set up for ourselves — logic — since we would not be able to communicate with each other without missing our points and conclusions about topic. If we do not have a systematically materialistic system that is the ‘thought police’ of ideas, then we can never talk about anything since nothing other than the materialistic exists. Logic can only apply to that which is the subjective mind attempting to be objective, which is the act of communicating itself.

You cannot communicate an idea without applying the materialistic laws of logic to it. That is how language works.

Stating things such as ‘there is an afterlife’ is therefore impossible because it is dismissing the laws of logic (wanting someone to agree with you), but then in using language, which is entirely based on logic, it only proves to be internally false because the two can not coexist.

I can not completely grasp that which I deem unreachable in the mind when I am on lsd, because of the enforcing of emotions unto me. If they were not enforced, they may come by naturally.

How can you explain to someone completely the feeling of not being able to trace the feeling of ‘understanding knowledge is very unlikely & improbable’ based on all the things mentioned above. Most notably, that education, personal experience, bias, attraction to the individual that we are communicating to.

If we are so subject to the intuition that is within, how can we ever be certain that our feedback to questions and ideas is actually the desire for objectivity, or just the subjective opinion being enforced on the other person/ to the idea.

Intuition is internal within the mind, very often we can not trace where that knowledge comes from. We experience the color red, but the redness is something that arises in consciousness. Social cognition comes into the picture.

As you are listening to conversations you are constantly identifying yourself with your own self-model, where you’re completely stuck to it as an organism, since that is the way we perceive knowledge (Thomas Metzinger’s original idea).

Sometimes dialogue is the best source of understanding this limit to knowledge. It is most notable when you are not completely aware of having formed an idea, what the party talking to you is saying, is indirectly shaping your understanding. This is however affected by an infinite number of phenomena, including how attractive that person is to you (no matter the sex, simply the appealing aspects of his character and outer physique).


The subjective experience is first of all non-existent (since the self is an illusion), implying there is no ‘me’ to experience things. There is no way of knowing anything at all, except if we were to value subjective experiences and find compromises — yet that is impossible — because there are an infinite amount of possible conversations, perspectives, characters, attitudes about something.

. . .

The reason the song “Lush Life” is so appealing to the millions that listen to it is because it is directly addressing the aspects of our brain that understand that there is no such thing as the subjective. The lyrics testify to the pleasures of completely enjoying that there is “no past.” Claiming total autonomy over one’s actions as if it was only the ‘now’ that matters.

. . .

The problem with creating conscious machines is that we do not completely understand yet how consciousness came about.

. . .

How do you write in the style stream of consciousness (James Joyce)?

. . .

Is it ever okay to use terms about complicated issues if we can be completely certain that the two parties communicating have different ideas of what the term is + they are unequally educated on what the term entails.

. . .

How does self-hood come about to being? Is it possible that we did not perceive ourselves in the past.

. . .

The first coming to terms with the limits of consciousness has been done by philosophers first trying lsd, then going to Asia and becoming students of Buddhism, and then coming back to the West and being teachers .



Philosophy publications are scarce on Medium. Philosophical minds are scarce in Politics. They are scarce in the public. That has to change. This is a publication that treasures humanists. We question what sort of society we should build for a communal environment to flourish in.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Jakub Ferencik

Author of “Up in the Air” & “Beyond Reason” available on AMAZON | MA McGill Uni | Research assistant for EUROPEUM Prague | 550+ blog posts with 1+ mil. views