"Pick a flower on Earth and you move the farthest star."
Due to the nature of holographic cosmology, I will blur the existential spectrum (individual-collective-cosmic) with this post. Remember to keep your head in the clouds and feet on the ground
The primordial emanation contains ALL. Any form of knowledge or ignorance is an aspect of the All. Knowledge is organized ignorance and the material world is organized immateriality. There's nothing outside of the universe (everything) that can help the intellect define what is actually inside of the universe and therefore the primordial emanation contains ALL. We're piloting the wave somewhere in existence.
Isolation implies separation, to separate. To form an island of experience. The word we are looking for is insularity.
Insularity is metaphysically impossible. There's no prerequisite for consciousness and thus there's no prerequisite for BEING present. There's no separation in the present moment. Everything is NOW.
Knowledge is created by the movement of this inescapable present moment. Knowledge is memory and memory is the past. Intuition is instinct and instinct is the present. Imagination is the marriage of the past and present. The past is an illusion, the future is an illusion. ALL of IT is happening right NOW.
How can one be isolated from knowledge when everything I think I can know exists everywhere all at once? Sure, an isolated person couldn't 'catch up' with the past (collective memories) we've created, but it can recreate our past by being present. Knowledge can start at anytime and anywhere.
Hence the name renaissance, it's a rebirth or reawakening of knowledge. A renaissance is the retrieval of eternal knowledge. Knowledge that's always with us, because it is an aspect of the ALL.
Your summary here makes me think of the distinction between absolute and relative
Absolute and Relative are philosophical terms concerning the mutual interdependence of things, processes and knowledge. ‘Absolute’ means independent, permanent and not subject to qualification. ‘Relative’ means partial or transient, dependent on circumstances or point-of-view. For dialectics, the Absolute is only the whole movement through various relative stages of understanding, but the progress of knowledge never comes to an end, so the absolute is relative. However, even a relative truth may nevertheless contain some grain of the whole absolute truth, so there is an absolute within the relative. Perception is relative to the observer, but the existence of an objective world is absolute.
Where reality as a whole is an absolute which we only get partial/relative understanding of. Abstracting pieces of the whole as we can't hold all of reality in our mind except in this emphasis of being in the present but this doesn't seem to allow a representation/rational explanation and confined to experience.
But that the absolute is always there in the ever present reality doesn't accord with how knowledge develops, as reality isn't knowledge although it's what we get knowledge of. Otherwise what would be the point of trying to understand anything with the perfect representation of everything is already in front of us.
Except our knowledge of things isn't directly given in appearance and experience but requires much deliberation. The essence of things isn't behind appearances (noumenon) but doesn't simply coincide with appearance. Otherwise the truth of things would be self evident and there would be no need for people to strive to understand things, no distinction between appearance and essence.
Our understanding of nature/reality exists only to the extent it becomes socially significant based on human needs. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/jordan2.htm
The world as known to man is a man-made world; it is the totality of ‘things for us’ and not of ‘things-in-themselves’. The only knowable is the world that appears in man’s experience, that is causally transformed by human action, divided into species and particulars, class members and classes, articulated into objects and their relations, into things with a definite form, arrangement, and structure, and cut out from the chaotic mass of the pre-existing world as it persists by itself. This humanized world is knowable because it is a world determined by man, the outcome, as Marx said in the first Thesis on Feuerbach, of ‘human sensuous activity’. As a natural being man shapes the environment according to his needs, and the needs determine the articulation of the world into separate things and their connections. External objects are, as it were, the objectified centres of resistance in the environment encountered by the human drives striving for the satisfaction of needs. If the needs were different, the world would look differently too, as it does to other animal species.
Although sensuous objects are different from thought objects, they do not exist in the form of objects unless they are made such by human activity. Cognition is not simply a matter of discovering or disclosing some entities which exist independently of us. The subject participates in the determination of the objective nature and order of things and, in a certain sense, creates it in the act of continuous world-objectification (Vergegenstandlichung). While according to Marx, man’s practical activity creates an objective world in the indicated sense, objectification should not be conceived as a spiritual but as a natural act and, therefore, as an act of production rather than that of creation in the proper sense, that is, of bringing something into being ex nihilo. Consequently, man’s capacity of objectifying what gratifies his needs and provides him with enjoyment presupposes the ‘sensuous external world’. This external world is the material on which man’s labour becomes manifest, from which and by means of which external objects are produced.
The sensuous world ... is not a thing given direct from all eternity, ever the same, but the product of industry and the state of society; and, indeed, in the sense that it is a historical product, the result of the activity of a whole succession of generations, each standing on the shoulders of the preceding one, developing its industry and its intercourse, modifying its social organization according to the changed needs.
So I give a strong emphasis to one's existence in relation to society as it would indeed be nonsensical to think of any being isolated from reality.
But one can be isolated from society or part of it yet still have a poverty of it's development through one's own stunted opportunities within it (relatively isolated from cultural products).
Reality is absolute but our ability to know things isn't, somethings seem incomprehensible and impossible to conceive of until society develops to a point that it can face certain problems and come to understand things in solving them. Not only when our ability and division of labor has developed but the types of problems that face us based on new needs have also emerged.
Now that I've explained what I mean by isolation, I hope the example makes more sense. I thought it was a straight-forward example. I said we're prone to make the same mistakes, especially if we form a judgement out of the crowd of authorities. Chances are, had Yuri Knorosov mingled with Eric Thompson, the "foremost expert" on the subject, he wouldn't of made his ground-breaking discoveries. In short, Knorosov didn't need to study any of Thompson's work, because it was completely flawed, and this supports the notion that the truth can be found in isolation (or at least your definition of isolation, which, again, is metaphysically impossible)... Cultural insularity doesn't always limit ones access to truth.
In-fact, cultural involvement can limit ones access to truth. I highly recommend the book Culture Against Man by Jules Henry. Culture Against Man is a 1963 book-length ethnography by anthropologist Jules Henry of his native United States culture. With the book's title in mind- I must remind you that some people, like Giordano Bruno, learn the hard way.
Ah, so your point is that he wouldn't have necessarily gained much by simply following the mainstream path in the wake of Eric Thompson.
In which case it would be impossible to disagree with the point that Yuri was able to discover something in spite of a major expert in the field's misguided attempt. And I think you have done well in clarifying and making a distinction I can grab onto between being isolated from the world/reality being impossible as different from cultural isolation/insularity.
I would agree such cultural insularity doesn't limit one's ability to get to the truth of a thing, I would even emphasize that it can be the outsiders perspective of those who aren't so inoculated into a mainstream that are better able to evaluate the limits of the mainstream and go beyond it.
I don't expect myself to become an original thinker on the frontier of some field and thus don't expect to be an original thinker, which in part why I retrace the steps of original thinkers.
My life isn't going into studying some field in order to make some break through, although even then people like Yuri develop tools through their own study prior to their works and eventual discoveries.
KNIGHT OF THE SUN, OR PRINCE ADEPT.
This does sound like what I thought earlier of the emphasis of the Ancients with Zen and all that.
It even seems to reflect the point about the truth of things being beyond language.
Which appeals to me but as earlier I would emphasize it as an important and necessary point but one I would have as a stage rather than absolute.
I hope you enjoy the following quote :
“May Hegel's philosophy of absolute nonsense - three-fourths cash and one-fourth crazy fancies - continue to pass for unfathomable wisdom without anyone suggesting as an appropriate motto for his writings Shakespeare's words: "Such stuff as madmen tongue and brain not," or, as an emblematical vignette, the cuttle-fish with its ink-bag, creating a cloud of darkness around it to prevent people from seeing what it is, with the device: mea caligine tutus. - May each day bring us, as hitherto, new systems adapted for University purposes, entirely made up of words and phrases and in a learned jargon besides, which allows people to talk whole days without saying anything; and may these delights never be disturbed by the Arabian proverb: "I hear the clappering of the mill, but I see no flour." - For all this is in accordance with the age and must have its course.” -Arthur Schopenhauer
Lastly, I've been rather consistent with my message across this forum. If you actually read my posts, and consider my superpositions, you'd realize that I've been philosophically sincere. Despite detractors and half-wits, I've delivered my encomiums. Praise be to ∞
Qauntum logic shall bride the binary gap! The Noogenesis begins with 0 and its exodus ends with 1. You can call this post spooky action at a distance... There's no isolation or separation. We must overcome our observation bias and realize that we're co-generating this moment.
Here's a funny for you
To an extent he was right though, because Hegel's language is quite unnecessarily difficult and his subject highly abstracted which is what makes it so generalizable I suspect.
But just as some take their initial glance at your language to be too much to understand and thus take it to be nonsensical and thus missing the content of what you do share. Hegel is rich in content in spite of his dismissal by many. So I don't doubt that you're not just spewing things without sense.