Can you know the unknowable?

Can you see the invisible?

Can you break the unbreakable?

Can you taste the tasteless?

Can you speak the unspeakable?

What happens when the irresistable force meets the immovable object?

They sit down and play a game of scrabble.

I don't mean to quibble, but the second question you are asking should be stated. "Is learning possible." or "Can we come to know what is unknown to us?" These are worthy questions and Plato spends sometime in answering them, but your first question implies an absolute. It should read "Can you know the unknown?" Unknowable implies it is impossible to know. Hope this clears things up, or do you disagree?

By unknowable it sounds like you mean do we have the capacity to know the things we do not have a capacity for - the answer i believe is no.

You say the human mind is not bound by the rules of logic or that we might yet discover that which we cant. Echolocation, we know bat's use it, hell we even know how it works but that doesnt mean we KNOW it, this is because to us it is unknowable. The difference between experiencing and truly knowing echolocation and simply understanding the mechanics of the act is on par to the difference between seeing a colour and understanding that it is a wave or photon consisting of a certain wavelength, frequency etc. We cannot know that which we do not have the capacity to know. Omniscience is another different example but its late.

You can know the unknown but not the unknowable.There are questions that seem to have a logical answer yet logical minds have not figured out the answer because in reality they are unknowable - what came first the chicken or the egg?

With freedom from the known. People have to empty the cup for it is full. The unknown cannot be entered until thought stops, for thought cannot penetrate the unknown. You cannot think about anything new can you? Go on try it now! For what you think will be in the known, the basics of what you think will already be known to you, you can imagine things but it will not be real.

Therefore we have discovered that thought, thinking as we know it cannot discover the unknown, so thought has to stop. But not a brain that is dead on the contrary a brain that is incredibly alive and aware and energy that is very much alive, not anchored and dulled with thoughts, theories and beliefs. It is fresh and awake ready to discover the new.

To be in this state we mast be living in the moment, not thinking about the past which is dead, or the future which is imaginary, for if we are we will not be 100% in the moment if we are partly thinking about the past or the future. To be so sensitive and aware we have to give all our attention to find out this unknown, we have to be serious about it.

But how do we be in the moment?

Most people see and look with the word, with memory. Point out a seagull to the child and they will never see the seagull again. Because when they come across it again they will say oh I know what a seagull is and look at it from memory rather that seeing the actual in front of them. They then will not see the individual differences with in the flock of seagulls because they are using past knowledge to look at the bird.

So can we look without the word, without eyes tainted by the past?

Instead of naming, comparing and judging can we not look without naming, looking as if for the first time in curiosity, just observing, watching? Once we can do that without thought then we can experience the unknown.

Try looking at something ad asking your self wow what is that and really observe for the first time and see the beautiful detail and thought will stop without effort. And if it can be done for a minute, it can then be done for two, then three and son on.

you'r pretty much asking "can one (some person, anyone) know the unknowable?"

how crazy is this question: "can *you* know the unknowable?" can I? cuz of course, knowledge has a subjective aspect or element. can communication bridge a gap between something I can't strictly for some reason "know" but you can? or vice versa? you'r basically talking epistemology.

I think jim has something interesting. as in, simply, "awakening" to this or that reality/truth/tidbit can't be it in all cases. cuz you can't know the result of a coin flip over and over. so, the unknowable clearly exists.

can a computer know things that a person can't? I think that's a sorta reasonable notion. so now we've got that which is "unknowable by human persons." but we can ask the computer questions. dang knowledge is tricky. too tough for me. see ya.

You can know the unknowable by studying...period. The more you learn, the more you "know." There are pathways to learning that meld and connect in mysterious ways. The more you learn about the physical/measurable world, there is increased knowledge of the opposite side--that of the metaphysical and vast realm that lies beyond what we can see with our more regular senses.

There is interplay that happens as our hearts and minds merge...as realize there is so much more out there than just us. We learn to see the myriad of possibilities, and then more connections occur. It is in this way that the unknowable becomes familiar territory and a part of what we actually feel knowledgeable about.

Blessings on your quest for knowledge!

If what you mean is, can we have an empirical account of metaphysics?. Then, the answer is no, because our reasoning cannot reach beyond the physical world. Therefore it cannot know whether there is or there isn't a metaphysical world.

If it was unknowable, how would you know you really know it? And if you know it, then was it unknowable or just unknown? Can something unknown be completely unknowable? And if so, is it still unknown or just unknowable?

Yea, but the un-knowable morphs into the known, at the moment it's recognized.

Chew on this; why is mans greatest fear the unknown?

I'm normally a fan of yours but this question does you no credit. It is so poorly thought out that it borders being pretentious. You are a far more philosophical/analytical thinker than this. Please give more thought to future works as the defining terms of this question are self eradicating, there by leaving nothing to be answered.