I have not referred to a "we" and certainly not a nation of a "we" that can have expectations !
I have not mentioned a relation between truth and knowledge so please explain how you do that (and also the difference between truth and absolute truth)
The fact that you ask me to explain the relation between truth and knowledge, further shows me that I don't understand what you mean by knowledge
For example, the statement "fire burns and causes pain" can be considered knowledge. It could be acquired either through own experience or by being told by someone. If that someone has told me that fire doesn't cause pain, at the moment I put my hand into the fire I find conflict between the facts and my knowledge. In this sense the relation between knowledge and truth is obvious. Since you seem to be uninterested in the question of truth, this leads me to believe that you are looking to understand knowledge in itself
, as some pure element unrelated to the facts of experience. If this is the case, I don't think I can be of much help. In my understanding, knowledge about something is a concept or idea that reflects the harmony of the facts of certain experiences (which are themselves captured by concepts and ideas). In this sense, knowledge consists in the discovery of concepts and ideas that relate the disconnected facts of perception into a whole. (clearly, we are speaking of conceptual knowledge here and not motor skills, for example)
As for absolute truth, I can give only one example that is related to thinking
. This is closely related to what Dana suggested with the self-evident knowledge of awareness but in thinking we are a little more specific. The reason is that any philosophical judgment is already a product
of the thinking process. So if I say "awareness exists" I'm still employing thinking to form that statement. Thus the thinking process precedes anything that we can say about awareness or anything else.
Consider the question “How do I know
that thinking exists?” We quickly realize that this is a different way of knowing. We do not need to postulate or define that thinking exists, neither we prove that through chains of logical thoughts. Any thought that we perceive is already a testimony for the living process of thinking. The statement "thinking exists" can be considered intuitive knowledge
(nothing to do with the popular meaning of intuition as in “my intuition tells me this is right”). In the true sense, intuitive knowledge is not something the we suppose is right because we have a vague feeling about it but because its very experience contains in an inseparable way its corresponding meaning. In this sense, when we meditatively experience the thought "thinking exists" we don't go any further to look for proof of the statement but the very perception of the thought is in itself the testimony for the existence of the thinking process. In this way the statement "thinking exists" can be considered knowledge of an absolute truth.