This essay forms part of a five-part series titled “Knowing, Not-Knowing, and Becoming: A Processual Guide” - an exploration of how knowledge, ignorance, disruption, and renewal shape our individual and collective journeys of becoming.
We live in a fractured age marked by contested truths, rising authoritarianism, epistemic breakdowns, and the erosion of shared trust. In such a world, ignorance is not merely the absence of knowledge; it is often manufactured, wielded, and weaponized. Yet ignorance and disruption, though dangerous, are not only threats. They are also invitations: to listen more deeply, to question false certainties, and to disrupt systems not just destructively, but generatively.
Process thought teaches us that reality is always in the making—open-ended, relational, and co-created. In this spirit, this guide begins with two conceptual maps: epistemology (how we come to know) and agnotology (how ignorance is socially constructed and maintained). These maps are not abstractions; they are lived terrains shaped by power, culture, and history.
As the guide unfolds, we turn toward the destructive dynamics of ignorance, paying special attention to the toxic disruptions of MAGAism. These movements have frayed the social fabric—damaging lives, polarizing communities, undermining truth, and destabilizing democratic norms. But even in this rupture, there is potential. Disruption is not always decay; it can be a clearing, a space from which new ways of knowing, relating, and organizing can emerge.
The final section offers a processual framework for positive disruption—not as a violent act of rejection, but as a compassionate disturbance of what is toxic, rigid, or unjust. It invites us to unsettle false constructions of:
Personal identity (formed through fear, division, or supremacy)
Societal myths (of nationalism, exceptionalism, or purity)
Church structures (that privilege hierarchy over relational grace)
Political authoritarianism (which thrives on dehumanization and control)
Theological dogma (that reduces the divine to fixed, exclusionary systems)
Throughout, we affirm that to know is not to conquer, but to engage—to enter into the world’s complexity with clarity and care. To not-know is not failure, but the ground of humility and openness. And to disrupt is not always to destroy, but often to clear space for what can heal and grow.
This processual guide invites you to hold these tensions creatively. To live them. To become through them. It is not a roadmap toward certainty, but a rhythm of living: knowing, unknowing, and becoming - together.
Preface
Some fractures are sudden. Others are slow — accumulating over years, hidden beneath polite silence or fortified by loud certainties. We are living in the midst of both. Truths once trusted are now contested. Communities once whole are splintered. And beneath the noise, many carry a quiet ache: a longing for clarity, for courage, for connection.
This is not a time for easy answers. It is a time for deeper seeing. For learning how knowledge is formed — and how ignorance is cultivated. For noticing not only what we believe, but why we believe it, and how belief can be bent toward harm or healing.
This collection is not a doctrine, but a rhythm. It does not promise mastery, but movement. Through the languages of process thought, theology, and social critique, it seeks to make space — for unlearning, for disrupting, for becoming.
We begin not with conclusions, but with attentiveness. We listen for what truth sounds like beneath distortion, what wisdom feels like in the presence of humility, and what love requires when the ground is shifting.
This is a guide for those willing to walk through uncertain doorways. For those who sense that knowing is not conquest, and not-knowing is not failure. For those who believe that disruption can be holy when it clears the ground for something truer to grow.
Let us begin.
Mapping Knowing and Not-KnowingPART 1
by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT-5
I - How We Know (Epistemologies)
- Rationalism — Rationalists argue that human reason and innate structures of thought are the deepest sources of knowledge. Thinkers such as Descartes and Leibniz emphasized that certain truths (e.g., mathematics, logic) can be grasped independently of sensory experience. Rationalism trusts the mind’s capacity to discover universal principles. 🔗 Wikipedia: Rationalism
- Empiricism — Empiricists like Locke and Hume stressed that all knowledge begins with experience. Sense impressions provide the raw data for reflection, from which abstract concepts emerge. This view grounds science in observation and experiment, but also faces challenges (e.g., induction). 🔗 Wikipedia: Empiricism
- Foundationalism — Foundationalism seeks certainty by building knowledge upon “basic beliefs” (self-evident, incorrigible, or directly given). From these secure starting points, further beliefs are justified. While appealing, critics argue that no belief is beyond challenge. 🔗 Wikipedia: Foundationalism
- Coherentism — Coherentists deny the need for indubitable foundations, claiming that beliefs are justified when they cohere within a larger web of interconnected beliefs. The strength of justification comes from mutual support. Critics warn this may allow circularity or relativism. 🔗 Wikipedia: Coherentism
- Infinitism — A less common view, infinitism argues that justification requires an infinite chain of non-repeating reasons. While seemingly impractical, it avoids the pitfalls of circular reasoning or arbitrary foundational stopping points. 🔗 Wikipedia: Infinitism
- Pragmatism — Pragmatists such as Peirce, James, and Dewey defined truth as what “works” in lived practice. Ideas are validated by their consequences and utility, not by correspondence to some static essence. Knowledge is always provisional, tested by experience, and open to revision. 🔗 Wikipedia: Pragmatism
- Naturalized Epistemology — Quine argued that epistemology should be continuous with the natural sciences, especially psychology and cognitive science. Instead of seeking ultimate justification, we should study how humans actually form beliefs and learn. 🔗 Wikipedia: Naturalized Epistemology
- Reliabilism — Reliabilists claim that beliefs are justified if they are produced by processes that are generally reliable (e.g., memory, perception, logical inference). It shifts the focus away from internal certainty toward external dependability. 🔗 Wikipedia: Reliabilism
- Evidentialism — Evidentialists hold that a belief is justified only if supported by sufficient evidence. W.K. Clifford’s dictum remains central: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” 🔗 Wikipedia: Evidentialism
- Virtue Epistemology — This view emphasizes the qualities of the knower, such as open-mindedness, intellectual humility, and courage. Knowledge depends not just on having true beliefs, but on being a virtuous knower. 🔗 Wikipedia: Virtue Epistemology
- Social & Feminist Epistemology — These approaches stress that knowledge is not purely individual but socially situated. Who counts as a “knower,” whose voices are excluded, and how power shapes inquiry all matter for truth. 🔗 Wikipedia: Feminist Epistemology
- Bayesian Epistemology — Models belief as degrees of probability, updated mathematically in response to new evidence. Bayesian reasoning is influential in science, AI, and decision-making. 🔗 Wikipedia: Bayesian Epistemology
- Process Epistemology — Process views reject static certainty and treat knowledge as relational, contextual, and always unfolding. Knowing is an event of becoming, shaped by interaction, creativity, and openness to novelty. 🔗 Discussion: Process Epistemology.
In process philosophy, knowing is not static or isolated, but relational, temporal, and participatory. It is an unfolding process—a continuous becoming—where the knower and the known co-create meaning through experience. Rather than aiming for an immutable certainty, knowledge is approached as a living act within an evolving context.
Traditional epistemologies such as empiricism, rationalism, or foundationalism often seek fixed grounds for certainty. Process thought reorients these toward fluid grounds of becoming, where truth is not located in isolated facts or unchanging principles, but in the creative integration of past experience, present interpretation, and future possibility.
The processual view values pragmatic engagement, contextual insight, and mutual prehension—the felt interrelation between subject and object. It honors naturalized, social, and feminist epistemologies for recognizing the embeddedness of knowledge in lived experience and shared structures. It also integrates Bayesian, virtue, and process epistemologies as tools for navigating change, uncertainty, and emergence.
In this framework, knowing is always unfinished—a creative advance into novelty, ever open to revision and enrichment. Truth becomes less about correspondence and more about coherence within a dynamic whole, oriented toward value, relational adequacy, and compassionate application.
Thus, to “know” in process is not to grasp and hold, but to participate and evolve—to move with reality rather than master it.
*Process Agnotology = A Process Theory of Ignorance
II - How We Do Not Know (Theories of Ignorance & Limits)
Truth emerges more readily from error than from confusion.- Francis Bacon
Ignorance is not simply lack of knowledge but the refusalto know, a turning away from what unsettles.- Charles Mills
Here we survey major theories of knowledge (epistemologies) and of ignorance (agnotologies), showing how each frames the human quest for truth. We end with a processual perspective: knowledge as dynamic, ignorance as horizon.
- Agnotology — Coined by historian Robert Proctor, agnotology is the study of how ignorance is deliberately created or sustained. Tobacco companies, fossil fuel lobbies, and authoritarian regimes have all manufactured doubt to maintain power. Ignorance is not mere absence; it is often intentional.
- Gettier Problems — Edmund Gettier’s 1963 paper demonstrated that “justified true belief” is insufficient for knowledge. In his famous examples, someone may hold a belief that is both true and justified, yet still correct only by luck. This forced philosophers to refine what counts as knowledge.🔗 IEP: Gettier Problems
- Underdetermination — Evidence often supports multiple, competing theories equally well. For example, early astronomy could be explained by both Ptolemaic and Copernican systems. This suggests data alone may not determine truth. 🔗 Stanford Encyclopedia: Underdetermination
- Duhem–Quine Thesis — Scientific hypotheses cannot be tested in isolation, but only in conjunction with auxiliary assumptions. When predictions fail, we may not know whether the core theory or the background assumptions are to blame. 🔗 Wikipedia: Duhem–Quine Thesis
- Theory-Ladenness of Observation — All observation is filtered by prior concepts, assumptions, and theories. There is no “neutral seeing”; what we perceive is shaped by interpretation.
Incommensurability — Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend argued that scientific paradigms can be so different in concepts and methods that they cannot be directly compared. This challenges ideas of cumulative progress.
Skepticism — Philosophical skepticism doubts whether certainty is ever possible. From ancient skeptics to Descartes’ doubts about perception, skepticism highlights the fragility of justification.
Problem of Induction — David Hume showed that there is no logical guarantee that the future will resemble the past. Induction (drawing generalizations from experience) works pragmatically but lacks certainty.
Fallibilism — The principle that all human knowledge is provisional. Even our best-supported beliefs may be mistaken, and therefore must remain open to revision.
Epistemic Luck — Knowledge requires more than truth and justification; it must avoid being correct “by accident.” Gettier-style examples highlight this vulnerability.
Epistemic Closure Failure — Challenges the idea that knowledge is closed under known entailment. You may know you have hands, but not be able to rule out being a brain in a vat — suggesting closure does not always hold.
Cognitive Bias & Heuristics — Psychological research shows that humans rely on mental shortcuts (heuristics) that distort judgment, such as confirmation bias or availability bias. These produce systematic ignorance.
Standpoint Blindness — When dominant perspectives marginalize or silence others, whole domains of knowledge are lost. Feminist standpoint theory highlights how excluding oppressed groups sustains collective ignorance.
Testimonial Injustice — Miranda Fricker’s term for when prejudice leads us to discredit someone’s testimony. This silences voices and perpetuates ignorance.
Power/Ideology — Michel Foucault and others note that what counts as “truth” is shaped by structures of power. Knowledge is never neutral; it is entangled in systems of domination.
Radical Uncertainty — Some realities are not just unknown but unknowable in advance, such as emergent phenomena in complex systems. This challenges rational planning.
The Unknowable — Some realities lie beyond human comprehension: Kant’s noumenon, divine mystery, or aspects of quantum mechanics. This humbles reason and expands awe..
IIA - Processual Perspective on Ignorance and Epistemic Limits
In process philosophy, knowledge is not a fixed possession, but a dynamic unfolding—a continual becoming shaped by experience, relation, and interpretation. It is always in flux, emerging through interactions with the world, others, and ourselves.
From this view, ignorance is not simply the absence of knowledge but the horizon that defines the boundaries of our current awareness. It is not a failure, but a necessary and even productive space: the edge from which novelty arises and where learning becomes possible. Just as the future draws the present forward, ignorance invites inquiry and calls us into deeper participation with the world.
Where traditional epistemologies seek certainty or static truth, a processual epistemology embraces contingency, context, and growth. It acknowledges that knowing is always partial and that un-knowing is not an obstacle, but part of the creative tension that fuels transformation. Ignorance, rightly engaged, is the soil of wisdom.
In this way, process thought encourages epistemic humility, ethical openness, and imaginative engagement. It teaches us that not knowing is not the end of understanding—but its beginning.
No comments:
Post a Comment