CYLICAL EPISTEMOLOGY

It is impossible for humanity to remove itself from reality to the point of every developing a direct, objective understanding. Any understanding that we have is abstracted, whether we're consciously aware of this process occurring or not.

This fundamentally shifts the goal of an effective epistemology from establishing idealistic objectivity to establishing pragmatic intersubjectivity. 

Objectivity is a north star, not a treasure chest. Cyclical epistemology is about general navigation skills so the right path can be determined in any situation, not attempting to define every detail of every path from start to finish.

CONSTRUCTED PERCEPTION

Before we become conscious of anything, our reality is subconsciously shaped by what we already believe and what our body and mind has been conditioned to accept as normal. 

These constructs all have their own cost/benefit considerations, and we need to both be aware of what constructs impact us and be willing to experiment with them, if only temporarily, to accurately explore reality.

ITERATIVE, NOT JUST INCREMENTAL

A significant amount of science is what Kuhn refers to as "normal science" and involves exploring specific details or otherwise building upon established paradigms. This is the incremental expansion of knowledge. 

However, as we build out knowledge, we develop understandings that show us that some fundamental claims may be a bit too generalized or a bit too absolute, requiring us not just to increment but to iterate.

All incrementations are iterations, but not all iterations are incrementations.

Some incrementations involve removing and refining what has already been built, not just adding more. Sometimes, an iteration requires starting almost entirely from scratch within a specific field.

This is called a paradigm shift, and it is how science and other knowledge evolves.

LIMINAL PERCEPTION

Knowing that any one perception is going to be flawed, regardless of how rigorously we verify every single detail, it becomes logical to have methods to test and consider different beliefs and perspectives without immediately caring as much about the independent veracity of each individual claim.

When we get good at allowing ourselves to consider various perspectives, we develop liminal perception, where our perception of reality is shaped by the similarities and differences between perspective cycles, not any individual perspective itself.

Instead of trying to have a single "correct" train of thought 100% of the time, liminal perception is about volume of thought and perspective. 

Much like how Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasparov at chess through sheer calculation volume alone, our minds too excel when we allow them to wander and explore all the different perspectives instead of trying to make it stress about the singular best strategy.

But it's not just about throwing any shit at the wall (although, if you got nowhere else to start...) It's about trying to perceive and understand a relative system holisitically with all apparently significant components and their interactions considered first before trying to empirically prove individual claims.

INTUITIVE TOOLS

Cognitive dissonance and certainty are only signs of problems when you're operating within a framework where you assume you have the one "best" belief system. Within cyclical epistemology, these intuitive tools are essential to sensing different patterns before that warrant cognitive isolation and definition.

TRIANGULATING KNOWLEDGE

Cyclical epistemology is holistic because it considers the observer and the observer's perceptive constructs as variables when doing experiments and analysis.

While traditional epistemology tend to focus solely on claims about the physical universe independent of conscious observation, claiming that things like the scientific method account for such matters, cyclical epistemology refutes this and says it's impossible to separate an observation from the observer, and it's impossible to separate an observer from their perceptive constructs.

While this sours the incremental absolutist's idea of assembling knowledge, it opens up the possibility for faster and more generalized methodologies meant to provide more accurate insights more quickly via abstraction.

One example is knowledge triangulation, where we consider the deterministic default of the physical universe, our perceptive constructs, and our observed experience and ability to interact with the universe as independent components to observe and triangulate.

While a more complex process, it allows for the rapid development of knowledge via abstract methods that can then be empirically verified.

KNOWLEDGE EVOLUTION

There are no right answers, only better ones. We have no reason to believe that humans will ever have completely correct answers.

And until we have the puzzle completely solved with 100% predictability, and individual fact or perspective is suspect. 

Think of holistic truth like a Rubik's cube- you can't solve it if you're unwilling to adjust the first side you completed and established as a fundamental fact.

And if you do manage to solve the whole cube, it is generally followed by the realization that this one puzzle was just one fractal component of a broader puzzle, and you need to do it all again on a different scale.

UNDERSTANDING FUNCTIONALITY VS VERACITY

Knowing how something works isn't what makes it work. Humanity suffers greatly from success bias, which is where we believe we understand something because we can achieve intended results based on the understanding.

The reality is that we're most often accidentally stumbling upon desired results and creating an unrelated narrative to make it "make sense".

When establishing knowledge for different purposes, different preferences for "is it useful?" vs "is it true?" may be present.

In an ideal world, you have both, but when it's not the case, you occasionally need to decide what is more important based on the context.

CYCLICAL METHODOLOGIES

Acknowledging the fickle nature of knowledge, cyclical epistemology focuses around the use of cyclical methods to consistently improve understanding from any arbitrarily selected starting point.

Since understanding the entire nature of reality is impossible, there is no need to have a "start to finish" approach. 

Cyclical epistemology focuses on starting with what we can confirm and relationally building knowledge from there.

Since all knowledge is shaped by perception, and perception is shaped by knowledge, Cyclical Epistemology is inherently recursive. 

There is no output that is meant to be considered as a final answer.

This process of refining understanding isn't just about testing claims—it’s about testing the observer’s relationship to those claims. This recursive self-examination is fundamental to ensuring knowledge remains adaptable rather than crystallized.

PRAGMATIC PREFERENCE

Cyclical epistemology acknowledges that even though nothing may be provable beyond a reasonable doubt, we need to be able to select knowledge to functionally use for the basis of navigating reality, both individually and as a part of society.

Instead of absolute certainty, cyclical epistemology advocates for pragmatic preference. The cyclical nature of the methods used don't require constant perfection, and imperfections are refined over the course of future cycles.

As such, cyclical epistemology requires us to be more comfortable with embracing beliefs for the sake of making a choice, seeing any fallout as part of the process, and not a failure of it.

This includes both:

~ Functional pragmatism: Selecting knowledge that works for now, recognizing that it will evolve over time.

~ Fundamental pragmatism: Establishing temporary axioms that allow meaningful discourse, even though they remain open to revision.

NO JUSTIFICATION FOR HARM

While pragmatic preference can be used for plenty of things personally and socially, the principle that we cannot prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt calls for the end of the barbaric process of justifying harm against another.

While some secondary harm may be caused to individuals who are being harmful to others themselves, there is never any intellectual justification for any sort of retaliatory harm.

Intentional harm is always caused by a lack of sense. People may lose their sense and cause harm, but there are no circumstances where it makes sense for a human to cause harm to another for harm's sake.