Gnowns and Un-Gnowns (Rumsfeld's Right)

They've got us all switched around, and the riddle is, as always, RIGHT THERE. How will you ever know if you do not turn out the Truth?

Literally the root of the word "consciousness" is conscius -- Latin for sharing knowledge with,in combination with con- con- + sci- (s. of scīre to know) -- but look a little deeper. 'Con' is quite often 'not,' as in this case could be "not knowing," and if you bear with me in a postmodern gematria this makes a little sense.

Science bases everything on 'knowing' in every sense of its word roots -- scientia or knowledge -- yet in real labcoat-life, it's about observing. Looking at something, compared to that something nowhere else. Well, more like: looking at the conditions on something here, and then basing "findings" on how something acted there differently.

Any way you slice it up our little Science seems to be based more on knowing, when simple consciousness, or awareness, is based on just Being there. Not knowing anything, but observing it and participating in it at the same time. So so you see why I say they've switched it all around and made us demand the false imposter called Science, who can only ever know but with work to get there.

To know Nothing, and experience it All, ah now there's infinity. We are this infinity already, yet we like the denizens of Plato's cave are convinced our eyes, ears, centrifuges and recorded words are an unfolding gateway to it somehow, when they are nothing more than a mocking march beneath the Demon's arch, called but discovery.