Afterword. "SVETL BROOM" IN A. KHATYBOV'S "BATH SCHOOL" AND A LABOUR SPADE. BOOK 5.

Книга 5. Сложность и степень ложности. Послесловие 2 limitation. The high and abstract will not manifest itself otherwise than hidden in the ordinary. One should gaze into the ordinary to see how it is applied for its own purposes. And here it depends on the thirst for knowledge. The truth exists even when it is not recorded and not spoken, and not realized . Regarding the eternally existing, Man can get false and true knowledge . The former in its very nature is mutable: it is either replaced by other false knowledge, or disappears when true knowledge takes its place. The latter, by its very nature, is unchangeable: because there is NO OTHER KNOWLEDGE that could replace it. Thus, TEMPORARY KNOWLEDGE , which either, being true, is of a temporary object, or being of an everlasting object, is false. While EVERLASTING KNOWLEDGE is both true and is of an everlasting object. Only the latter forms science; this requirement is also stipulated by the fact that the content must be permanent . Now I want to say about what is meant by false and true knowledge. And in my opinion, this should be said precisely in this afterword to the book. False knowledge is the one that is improperly formed; true knowledge is the knowledge that is formed correctly, that is, in line with the nature of the Mind . In all cases when it is possible to compare the knowledge with the object of this knowledge, we notice that the false knowledge does not correspond to its object, and after looking into the reason of this discrepancy, we always find that it is in some kind of deviation made in the process of the knowledge formation; so by removing this deviation, we restore the identity of the knowledge and its object, and by increasing the deviation, we increase the difference. True knowledge corresponds to its object, and the reason for this correspondence lies in the CORRECTNESS of THEIR FORMATION , since as soon as the latter is violated, the first is destroyed . But one should not think that the truth of knowledge depends on its correspondence with its object or that this correspondence is the truth; because there is a lot of true knowledge, the correspondence of which with the object we are not able to verify, and among them there are some which we probably know that in reality there is nothing corresponding to it: for example, all knowledge of imaginary quantities in algebra. There is no doubt that they are true, no doubt that they are not a copy of anything observable . But this is not the only case when the “true” cannot be defined as “corresponding to the real”; but also because the truly realized is broader than the truly existing and the world of the human mind is wider than the world lying outside of it. So, the true knowledge can be not only of the existing and what this knowledge can correspond to, but also of what that which should