| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Stu" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2005 11:22:10 PM |
| Object: |
Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
On 2004-06-14 14:38:01 -0700, (Richard F Hall) said:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 02:56:04 GMT, "Edgar Svendsen"
<solon013@earthlink.net> wrote:
You seem to have omitted knowledge gained from revelation. There is a
difference between those who believe their religion because that's how they
were brought up and those who have the truth revealed to them directly by
God. Mohammed, John Smith, Moses and others are examples.
Ed
Perhaps 3) Knowledge from faith. (a) knowledge that is accepted on
the basis of social discourse and conditioning of the individual, and
(b) theocracy, knowledge from revelation.
yeah, thanks Ed.
Ed is correct. Though that is not how this form of Knowledge should
be entered in the list.
Many of the types of Knowledge you classify really are what Sartre
terms "facts". Facts are the data we gleam from the world through
perception. The value of facts are utilitarian. Thus mathematics,
medicine, PTA committee meetings, churches, pre-school and the like,
all work towards giving us facts to integrate into the needs of our
lives. This is not really knowledge as much as survival datum. The
chair is in the room. We can take or leave this fact. We can test it.
We can decide to use this chair or the illusion of the chair for our
survival. It may be fallible or infallible. It is up to us to give
this fact the credibility it deserves.
Knowledge from faith is a form of self deception. Religions are
vehicles for reinforcing faith as a replacement for rationality.
Effectively religious faith is conditioned self deception.
But the type of Knowledge gleamed from direct noumenoligical (In the
Kantian sense) experience of non-dualistic internal reality is the only
Knowledge of profound depth we can experience. This form of Knowledge
informs all "Facts" in our experience in the world.
Plato's allegory of the cave comes to mind. Here the average Joes are
sitting in a movie theatre watching the empirical world taking in the
images as facts. But the enlightened philosopher has turned around and
seen the movie projector. Furthermore he has had a noumenoligical
revelation; Know thyself. By stepping past the illusions of the world
of facts, he goes out into the theatre lobby, past the popcorn stand,
to the bright light coming from beyond the doors. He is confronted by
a post-rational limitless light of non-dual awareness. In his quest
for self knowledge, the self has slipped away as it too is but a
construct. Subject and object have merged. What is left is Knowledge.
This is the only Knowledge that should be on the list. The rest are
facts, guesses, and myths.
--
~Stu
An unexamined life is not worth living.
Socrates.
.
|
|
| User: "Edgar Svendsen" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
16 Jun 2005 09:34:56 AM |
|
|
"Stu" <Nospam@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2005061521221016807%Nospam@towelcom...
On 2004-06-14 14:38:01 -0700, (Richard F Hall) said:
But the type of Knowledge gleamed from direct noumenoligical (In the
Kantian sense) experience of non-dualistic internal reality is the only
Knowledge of profound depth we can experience. This form of Knowledge
informs all "Facts" in our experience in the world.
Plato's allegory of the cave comes to mind. Here the average Joes are
sitting in a movie theatre watching the empirical world taking in the
images as facts. But the enlightened philosopher has turned around and
seen the movie projector. Furthermore he has had a noumenoligical
revelation; Know thyself. By stepping past the illusions of the world of
facts, he goes out into the theatre lobby, past the popcorn stand, to the
bright light coming from beyond the doors. He is confronted by a
post-rational limitless light of non-dual awareness. In his quest for
self knowledge, the self has slipped away as it too is but a construct.
Subject and object have merged. What is left is Knowledge.
This is the only Knowledge that should be on the list. The rest are
facts, guesses, and myths.
--
This theme crops up often here. I must confess I have never understood what
what was being talked about. The negative side is talked about more than
the positive side, i.e. what is not Knowledge, why the self is not real and
so forth. I can't remember anyone saying clearly what this Knowledge is
knowledge of. What do those with Knowledge know that the rest of us do not?
If I gained Knowledge, would I be a better scientist or engineer? A better
psychologist? I'd love to have even a small example of something I would
know that I wouldn't know without this Knowledge.
Ed
~Stu
An unexamined life is not worth living.
Socrates.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
16 Jun 2005 10:49:02 AM |
|
|
Edgar Svendsen wrote:
"Stu" <Nospam@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2005061521221016807%Nospam@towelcom...
On 2004-06-14 14:38:01 -0700, (Richard F Hall) said:
But the type of Knowledge gleamed from direct noumenoligical (In the
Kantian sense) experience of non-dualistic internal reality is the only
Knowledge of profound depth we can experience. This form of Knowledge
informs all "Facts" in our experience in the world.
Plato's allegory of the cave comes to mind. Here the average Joes are
sitting in a movie theatre watching the empirical world taking in the
images as facts. But the enlightened philosopher has turned around and
seen the movie projector. Furthermore he has had a noumenoligical
revelation; Know thyself. By stepping past the illusions of the world of
facts, he goes out into the theatre lobby, past the popcorn stand, to the
bright light coming from beyond the doors. He is confronted by a
post-rational limitless light of non-dual awareness. In his quest for
self knowledge, the self has slipped away as it too is but a construct.
Subject and object have merged. What is left is Knowledge.
This is the only Knowledge that should be on the list. The rest are
facts, guesses, and myths.
--
This theme crops up often here. I must confess I have never understood what
what was being talked about. The negative side is talked about more than
the positive side, i.e. what is not Knowledge, why the self is not real and
so forth. I can't remember anyone saying clearly what this Knowledge is
knowledge of. What do those with Knowledge know that the rest of us do not?
If I gained Knowledge, would I be a better scientist or engineer? A better
psychologist? I'd love to have even a small example of something I would
know that I wouldn't know without this Knowledge.
You can't have an example, since it only exists at the instant you
learn it.
My analogy would be a jigsaw puzzle. It only fits together one way; the
curves represent small-k knowledge, which limits what one can do with
the colors. But if you free yourself from that structure, you have a
bunch of identical squares, and you can create something different.
If you are a scientist or engineer, you will see 'problems'
differently, which is helpful with very hard problems, but can be
counterproductive with easier ones. If you are a psychologist, the
same; you will be less bound by conventional understanding, and this
will help your really crazy clients, but sometimes conventional
understanding is just what people need.
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edgar Svendsen" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
16 Jun 2005 09:16:09 PM |
|
|
"tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1118936942.275873.160230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Edgar Svendsen wrote:
"Stu" <Nospam@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2005061521221016807%Nospam@towelcom...
On 2004-06-14 14:38:01 -0700, (Richard F Hall)
said:
But the type of Knowledge gleamed from direct noumenoligical (In the
Kantian sense) experience of non-dualistic internal reality is the only
Knowledge of profound depth we can experience. This form of Knowledge
informs all "Facts" in our experience in the world.
Plato's allegory of the cave comes to mind. Here the average Joes are
sitting in a movie theatre watching the empirical world taking in the
images as facts. But the enlightened philosopher has turned around and
seen the movie projector. Furthermore he has had a noumenoligical
revelation; Know thyself. By stepping past the illusions of the world
of
facts, he goes out into the theatre lobby, past the popcorn stand, to
the
bright light coming from beyond the doors. He is confronted by a
post-rational limitless light of non-dual awareness. In his quest for
self knowledge, the self has slipped away as it too is but a construct.
Subject and object have merged. What is left is Knowledge.
This is the only Knowledge that should be on the list. The rest are
facts, guesses, and myths.
--
This theme crops up often here. I must confess I have never understood
what
what was being talked about. The negative side is talked about more than
the positive side, i.e. what is not Knowledge, why the self is not real
and
so forth. I can't remember anyone saying clearly what this Knowledge is
knowledge of. What do those with Knowledge know that the rest of us do
not?
If I gained Knowledge, would I be a better scientist or engineer? A
better
psychologist? I'd love to have even a small example of something I would
know that I wouldn't know without this Knowledge.
You can't have an example, since it only exists at the instant you
learn it.
My analogy would be a jigsaw puzzle. It only fits together one way; the
curves represent small-k knowledge, which limits what one can do with
the colors. But if you free yourself from that structure, you have a
bunch of identical squares, and you can create something different.
But, to strain the analogy, in actuality one can't free oneself from the
structure without throwing the whole puzzle away and going to get a new one
whose pieces are identical squares. We don't have the same freedom in the
case of knowledge of "reality", the universe, the world; we can't get a new
one, we have to learn about the one we've got. The universe has the
structure that it has.
I would love to hear more about why an example of "Knowledge" can't be
described. Perhaps what I should have asked for is not an example of
"Knowledge" but a description of some. In a similar vein, I cannot give you
an example of tensor calculus (I don't know enough math) but I can tell you
that Tensors provide a natural and concise mathematical framework for
formulating and solving problems in areas of physics such as elasticity,
fluid mechanics, and general relativity.
Ed
If you are a scientist or engineer, you will see 'problems'
differently, which is helpful with very hard problems, but can be
counterproductive with easier ones. If you are a psychologist, the
same; you will be less bound by conventional understanding, and this
will help your really crazy clients, but sometimes conventional
understanding is just what people need.
-tg
begin 666 physics.gif
M1TE&.#EA# `,`+,``/______F?_,S/^9F?]F9LS_S,S,_\S,9IG,F9F9_YF9
MF9EFS&;,9F:9F69FS&8S,R'Y! ``````+ `````,``P```11$,@I!1D3E?D>
M(1+"C,7P()94,$"!(-(@A$VR.$ZS+ :0) P%(7 (&A+'UC 0$,".QT5'L6,@
=D "+H?'@;3<`PFR@8!04I^SETAJQ))]9!AP!`#L`
`
end
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
17 Jun 2005 07:22:16 PM |
|
|
Edgar Svendsen wrote:
"tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1118936942.275873.160230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Edgar Svendsen wrote:
"Stu" <Nospam@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2005061521221016807%Nospam@towelcom...
On 2004-06-14 14:38:01 -0700, (Richard F Hall)
said:
But the type of Knowledge gleamed from direct noumenoligical (In the
Kantian sense) experience of non-dualistic internal reality is the only
Knowledge of profound depth we can experience. This form of Knowledge
informs all "Facts" in our experience in the world.
Plato's allegory of the cave comes to mind. Here the average Joes are
sitting in a movie theatre watching the empirical world taking in the
images as facts. But the enlightened philosopher has turned around and
seen the movie projector. Furthermore he has had a noumenoligical
revelation; Know thyself. By stepping past the illusions of the world
of
facts, he goes out into the theatre lobby, past the popcorn stand, to
the
bright light coming from beyond the doors. He is confronted by a
post-rational limitless light of non-dual awareness. In his quest for
self knowledge, the self has slipped away as it too is but a construct.
Subject and object have merged. What is left is Knowledge.
This is the only Knowledge that should be on the list. The rest are
facts, guesses, and myths.
--
This theme crops up often here. I must confess I have never understood
what
what was being talked about. The negative side is talked about more than
the positive side, i.e. what is not Knowledge, why the self is not real
and
so forth. I can't remember anyone saying clearly what this Knowledge is
knowledge of. What do those with Knowledge know that the rest of us do
not?
If I gained Knowledge, would I be a better scientist or engineer? A
better
psychologist? I'd love to have even a small example of something I would
know that I wouldn't know without this Knowledge.
You can't have an example, since it only exists at the instant you
learn it.
My analogy would be a jigsaw puzzle. It only fits together one way; the
curves represent small-k knowledge, which limits what one can do with
the colors. But if you free yourself from that structure, you have a
bunch of identical squares, and you can create something different.
But, to strain the analogy, in actuality one can't free oneself from the
structure without throwing the whole puzzle away and going to get a new one
whose pieces are identical squares. We don't have the same freedom in the
case of knowledge of "reality", the universe, the world; we can't get a new
one, we have to learn about the one we've got. The universe has the
structure that it has.
I would love to hear more about why an example of "Knowledge" can't be
described. Perhaps what I should have asked for is not an example of
"Knowledge" but a description of some. In a similar vein, I cannot give you
an example of tensor calculus (I don't know enough math) but I can tell you
that Tensors provide a natural and concise mathematical framework for
formulating and solving problems in areas of physics such as elasticity,
fluid mechanics, and general relativity.
Ed
OK, first, I would prefer not to use the word 'Knowledge' to describe
what I think we are talking about because it carries the baggage of
conventional usage. Maybe the correct term, negative as you say, is
un-knowledge.
Second, this is why I never like analogies; I always get them wrong.
Perhaps more correct would be to say that we can 'learn' to ignore the
picture on the cover of the box. How can this work? Because the pieces
*can* go together in different ways.
In your reply to Sleepyhead, you point out that knowledge may be
partial or transient. When we think about the physical universe to
solve a particular problem, we may one time conceive of it as nothing
more than a random foam, or, another time, as causally static and rigid
as a pure crystal. The freer we are to make these choices, the more
likely it is that *one* of our conceptions will be congruent with the
'reality' of the current problem. But that is not sufficient; we do not
magically become omniscient or omnipotent by recognizing this. It is
necessary to practice the letting-go of knowledge at each application.
As I said, this may not be the most efficient way to find the answer to
most problems, but it may be the only way for some.
Stu makes this all sound very mystical and silly, which is unfortunate.
This is the most basic way of seeing things; it simply removes *noise*.
Maybe the secret to the whole business is to understand that noise is
not defined by being random, but by not being useful to the problem at
hand.
-tg
If you are a scientist or engineer, you will see 'problems'
differently, which is helpful with very hard problems, but can be
counterproductive with easier ones. If you are a psychologist, the
same; you will be less bound by conventional understanding, and this
will help your really crazy clients, but sometimes conventional
understanding is just what people need.
-tg
begin 666 physics.gif
M1TE&.#EA# `,`+,``/______F?_,S/^9F?]F9LS_S,S,_\S,9IG,F9F9_YF9
MF9EFS&;,9F:9F69FS&8S,R'Y! ``````+ `````,``P```11$,@I!1D3E?D>
M(1+"C,7P()94,$"!(-(@A$VR.$ZS+ :0) P%(7 (&A+'UC 0$,".QT5'L6,@
=D "+H?'@;3<`PFR@8!04I^SETAJQ))]9!AP!`#L`
`
end
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stu" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
18 Jun 2005 07:04:05 PM |
|
|
On 2005-06-17 17:22:16 -0700, "tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> said:
OK, first, I would prefer not to use the word 'Knowledge' to describe
what I think we are talking about because it carries the baggage of
conventional usage. Maybe the correct term, negative as you say, is
un-knowledge.
The word knowledge has been in common usage with philosopher's since
the ancient Greeks. Why rewrite the definition now? But when I saw
this thread initially, I was taken by this reduction of Knowledge to
forms that existentialists call "facts". I remember Sartre having a
section in "Being and Nothingness" about the facticity of the empirical
universe. Knowledge is something else. Wisdom is what comes from
understanding Knowledge.
Second, this is why I never like analogies; I always get them wrong.
Perhaps more correct would be to say that we can 'learn' to ignore the
picture on the cover of the box. How can this work? Because the pieces
*can* go together in different ways.
tg - are you really going to reduce ontology to a question of how we
solve problems? Because that doesn't begin to answer the two
challenges. What is there? And how do we know it? You may want to
read Aristotle's Metaphysics for a brilliant stab at answering those
two questions.
BTW Aristotle had no problem discussing knowledge.
In your reply to Sleepyhead, you point out that knowledge may be
partial or transient. When we think about the physical universe to
solve a particular problem, we may one time conceive of it as nothing
more than a random foam, or, another time, as causally static and rigid
as a pure crystal. The freer we are to make these choices, the more
likely it is that *one* of our conceptions will be congruent with the
'reality' of the current problem. But that is not sufficient; we do not
magically become omniscient or omnipotent by recognizing this. It is
necessary to practice the letting-go of knowledge at each application.
As I said, this may not be the most efficient way to find the answer to
most problems, but it may be the only way for some.
This unfortunately is a method that is limited to empirical phenomena.
That may answer some questions for you concerning the most base
physical attributes of the cosmos. But it is not going to work in the
realm of the intellegencia, a world of symbols and logos. And when we
take the gaze of the inner eye to the realm of contemplation, your
going to be lost completely.
Of course you may be happy as a clam in the safe world of
intellegencia. Looking down to the physical world for answers. Why
waste valuable time in the pursuit of the transcendental? After all,
ignorance is bliss.
Stu makes this all sound very mystical and silly, which is unfortunate.
I am not talking about the mystical as a haze of fantasy. For those
who have had direct "experiences" of non dual transcendental awareness,
we understand this to be concrete very real component of life.
Meditation is a methodical way to access this realm, however it is not
the only way. People report similar experiences in different fashions,
from the profound state of the creative moment, to the religious vision.
All of these, represent a similar state of consciousness different than
waking, sleeping or dreaming. The states have measurable physiological
attributes. And people report these experiences cross culturally.
It may be said that this realm is uniquely a human attribute.
There is a strong argument against strictly empirical fleshy eye those
of you who may reduce life's riddles to "problem solving". That is in
societies that have taken to purely material ideologies based in
utility have imploded. They do not mirror the nature of the human
animal.
This is the most basic way of seeing things; it simply removes *noise*.
Maybe the secret to the whole business is to understand that noise is
not defined by being random, but by not being useful to the problem at
hand.
-tg
Or it may be that the "noise" will serve as inspiration to the next
Einstein or Beethoven. Greatness is achieved by those who understand
the importance of allowing "noise" into the equation to see the
unfolding possibilities of the now.
--
~Stu
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
19 Jun 2005 05:46:18 AM |
|
|
Stu,
Preaching means preaching.
Practice means practice.
Teaching means listening, hearing, being.
Practice, practice, practice.
-tg
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cat rancher" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
18 Jun 2005 07:20:28 PM |
|
|
[snip]
No offense, but since you quote "On Being and Nothingness",
I challenge you to post a summary of the first page in language
understandable by a person with college aptitude in reading
comprehension ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Albert Wagner" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
18 Jun 2005 09:24:55 PM |
|
|
cat rancher wrote:
[snip]
No offense, but since you quote "On Being and Nothingness",
I challenge you to post a summary of the first page in language
understandable by a person with college aptitude in reading
comprehension ...
Why would you make such a challenge? Because you doubt that Stu
would understand it? Would you understand his response?
--
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
they are not certain; and as far as they are certain,
they do not refer to reality."
-- Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "cat rancher" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
18 Jun 2005 10:03:10 PM |
|
|
"Albert Wagner" <albertwagner@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mK4te.136240$sy6.102633@lakeread04...
: cat rancher wrote:
: > [snip]
: >
: > No offense, but since you quote "On Being and Nothingness",
: > I challenge you to post a summary of the first page in language
: > understandable by a person with college aptitude in reading
: > comprehension ...
: >
: Why would you make such a challenge? Because you doubt that Stu
: would understand it? Would you understand his response?
:
:
: --
:
: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
: they are not certain; and as far as they are certain,
: they do not refer to reality."
: -- Albert Einstein
A lot of people here and many of the philosophy professors
shy away from Sarte as being cryptic or maybe there is a better
word ... I don't want to insult anyone. I would like to see someone
explain it to me though. I think I have a measurable aptitude at
understanding a certain but not impressive level complexity. If
Stu or anyone else quotes someone that most of us, do not profess
to understand then maybe it would be helpful if he or anyone else
demonstrated that. I would be quite willing to listen quite carefully
with whatever necessary supporting material necessary.
To be more candid. I'm not sure that Sarte work is written to be
understood.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Albert Wagner" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
19 Jun 2005 07:40:13 AM |
|
|
cat rancher wrote:
<snip>
A lot of people here and many of the philosophy professors
shy away from Sarte as being cryptic or maybe there is a better
word ... I don't want to insult anyone.
I see a great many syllabi on the web for courses on Sartre as
well as many articles purporting to explain him.
I would like to see someone
explain it to me though. I think I have a measurable aptitude at
understanding a certain but not impressive level complexity. If
Stu or anyone else quotes someone that most of us, do not profess
to understand then maybe it would be helpful if he or anyone else
demonstrated that. I would be quite willing to listen quite carefully
with whatever necessary supporting material necessary.
To be more candid. I'm not sure that Sarte work is written to be
understood.
I have to admit to being somewhat of a xenophobe regarding French
philosophers. I personally prefer grumpy old Germans myself.
--
"You will become famous if you please famous people,
and all famous mathematicians like axiomatic set theory."
-- Paul Lorenzen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cat rancher" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
18 Jun 2005 10:04:16 PM |
|
|
"Albert Wagner" <albertwagner@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mK4te.136240$sy6.102633@lakeread04...
: cat rancher wrote:
: > [snip]
: >
: > No offense, but since you quote "On Being and Nothingness",
: > I challenge you to post a summary of the first page in language
: > understandable by a person with college aptitude in reading
: > comprehension ...
: >
: Why would you make such a challenge? Because you doubt that Stu
: would understand it? Would you understand his response?
:
:
: --
:
: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
: they are not certain; and as far as they are certain,
: they do not refer to reality."
: -- Albert Einstein
P.S. It would be no big deal if it turns out that I am a
lazy, pompous *****, in this area. If so then I have a great
potential to improve myself and my understanding.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Albert Wagner" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
19 Jun 2005 07:53:29 AM |
|
|
tg wrote:
<snip>
Stu makes this all sound very mystical and silly, which is unfortunate.
This is the most basic way of seeing things; it simply removes *noise*.
Maybe the secret to the whole business is to understand that noise is
not defined by being random, but by not being useful to the problem at
hand.
Every now and then you come up with remarkable and beautiful
insights. The last sentence above is one of them. It reminds me
of the observations that a weed is simply a plant that we have
not found a use for yet; That viruses are the perfect carriers of
corrective genetic material; and (from a recent scifi book) that
cancer may contain the secret of growing new limbs and organs.
--
"You will become famous if you please famous people,
and all famous mathematicians like axiomatic set theory."
-- Paul Lorenzen
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
20 Jun 2005 05:29:48 AM |
|
|
I didn't say anything original here, but thanks for the compliment.
-tg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stu" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
17 Jun 2005 04:00:07 PM |
|
|
On 2005-06-16 19:16:09 -0700, "Edgar Svendsen" <solon013@earthlink.net> said:
You can't have an example, since it only exists at the instant you
learn it.
My analogy would be a jigsaw puzzle. It only fits together one way; the
curves represent small-k knowledge, which limits what one can do with
the colors. But if you free yourself from that structure, you have a
bunch of identical squares, and you can create something different.
But, to strain the analogy, in actuality one can't free oneself from
the structure without throwing the whole puzzle away and going to get a
new one whose pieces are identical squares. We don't have the same
freedom in the case of knowledge of "reality", the universe, the world;
we can't get a new one, we have to learn about the one we've got. The
universe has the structure that it has.
I would love to hear more about why an example of "Knowledge" can't be
described. Perhaps what I should have asked for is not an example of
"Knowledge" but a description of some. In a similar vein, I cannot
give you an example of tensor calculus (I don't know enough math) but I
can tell you that Tensors provide a natural and concise mathematical
framework for formulating and solving problems in areas of physics such
as elasticity, fluid mechanics, and general relativity.
Ed
The technique of meditation, where one allows the minds to settle, and
with that the preconceived facts of the world. The senses withdraw.
With practice in this experience of meditation one gleams Knowledge,
that illuminates other endeavors.
What are the concrete benefits of this knowledge? The only answer to
that is to look at the myriad of studies on the effects of meditation.
A PubMed search will reveal this simple technique brings increased test
scores, stronger repertory and pulmonary systems. The list goes on.
I am suggesting that this internal directed focus of consciousness
reveals Knowledge. This Knowledge illuminates facts as
inconsequential. As Knowledge is the guiding universal force of being.
--
~Stu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sleepyhead" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
07 Jul 2005 11:36:47 AM |
|
|
Wittgenstein offers some interesting examples of knowledge in the
Philosophical Investigations - the last of these examples is hard to
describe, although perhaps not impossible?
PI remark #78:
"Compare knowing and saying:
How high Mont Blanc is -
How the word 'game' is used -
How a clarinet sounds.
If you are surprised that one can know something and not be able to say
it, you are perhaps thinking of a case like the first. Certainly not of
one like the third."
.
|
|
|
| User: "BuddhaThu" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
07 Jul 2005 02:39:32 PM |
|
|
Dear Sleepyhead,
This is an obscure passage indeed!
Let me see if I can take a crack at it.
In examining this passage, we must reiterate the central theme of the
P.I. regarding language.
Languages are not just in naming, but also are rules.
Within the history of British philosophy of which W. was very well
familiar with, the predominantly belief was that naming things give us
knowledge. We get this from Hobbes' Leviathan concerning speech. True
and false are matters of speech and not of things. Take away speech and
there is no "true" or "false."
We must also remember that he was a disciple of Frege who was a
metaphysician when it came to logical rules. To him, it was not just
naming "true" or "false", but the rules accompanying them.
Take the utterance of the following. "How high is Mont Blanc."
Tell me. ***Point and demonstrate*** to me the rules on the usage of
these words. How is it that I know how to use these words.
They are not utterable, but I seem ***to know***" the grammar usage
of the following "How" "high" "is" "Mont Blanc."
When we ask for things "grammatical", we are asking for things
"meaningful" -something that makes sense, - gives knowledge to the
human mind.
Words by themselves such as naming do not cut it. It must be followed
with a secondary knowledge that we are aware, but cannot utter. This is
far from a mystical understanding. But Frege seemed to think it was.
The grammar rules are not explicit, but somehow they are there. In a
way, they are indeed ***demonstrated*** by training. But it is so much
more than saying and pointing.
Frege lacking the understanding of ***grammar training*** had to resort
to metaphysical Platonism.
W. knew better.
In one of the passages of the P.I. he recognizes Frege's contribution
when he stated that naming is not the name of the game. Naming is
merely placing the pieces on the chessboard. They game, that is the
moves and strategy has barely begun.
But these rules are not as explicitly stated in naming. But they are
there.
So by writing the P.I., he is fusing two approaches to epistemology.
The British nominalist views marked by the British Empiricists, and the
one guided by rules and laws marked by the traditions of the
continentalists such as Frege, Leibniz and Hegel.
I am sorry. I hope I hit it close.
I have to go.
Got a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with green tea waiting. :-)
B.T.
Sleepyhead wrote:
Wittgenstein offers some interesting examples of knowledge in the
Philosophical Investigations - the last of these examples is hard to
describe, although perhaps not impossible?
PI remark #78:
"Compare knowing and saying:
How high Mont Blanc is -
How the word 'game' is used -
How a clarinet sounds.
If you are surprised that one can know something and not be able to say
it, you are perhaps thinking of a case like the first. Certainly not of
one like the third."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
07 Jul 2005 07:44:58 PM |
|
|
(BuddhaThu) wrote:
[start quote]- Dear Sleepyhead,
snip... we must reiterate the central theme of the P.I. regarding
language. Languages are not just in naming, but also are rules.
Within the history of British philosophy of which W. was very well
familiar with, the predominantly belief was that naming things give us
knowledge. We get this from Hobbes' Leviathan concerning speech. True
and false are matters of speech and not of things. Take away speech and
there is no "true" or "false."
We must also remember that he was a disciple of Frege who was a
metaphysician when it came to logical rules. To him, it was not just
naming "true" or "false", but the rules accompanying them.
Take the utterance of the following. "How high is Mont Blanc." Tell me.
***Point and demonstrate*** to me the rules on the usage of these words.
How is it that I know how to use these words. They are not utterable,
but I seem ***to know***" the grammar usage of the following "How"
"high" "is" "Mont Blanc." When we ask for things "grammatical", we are
asking for things "meaningful" -something that makes sense, - gives
knowledge to the human mind.
Words by themselves such as naming do not cut it. It must be followed
with a secondary knowledge that we are aware, but cannot utter. This is
far from a mystical understanding. But Frege seemed to think it was.
The grammar rules are not explicit, but somehow they are there. In a
way, they are indeed ***demonstrated*** by training. But it is so much
more than saying and pointing.
Frege lacking the understanding of ***grammar training*** had to resort
to metaphysical Platonism.
W. knew better.
In one of the passages of the P.I. he recognizes Frege's contribution
when he stated that naming is not the name of the game. Naming is merely
placing the pieces on the chessboard. They game, that is the moves and
strategy has barely begun.
But these rules are not as explicitly stated in naming. But they are
there.
So by writing the P.I., he is fusing two approaches to epistemology. The
British nominalist views marked by the British Empiricists, and the one
guided by rules and laws marked by the traditions of the continentalists
such as Frege, Leibniz and Hegel. -[end quote]
jillaront:
What is the problem between Wittgenstein and Plato?
My surface interpretation is that Wittgenstein would be troubled with
Plato's use of language as a form of alethic truth finding by any means.
They are both wholists but I do not see them liking each others' style
of wholism. Plato's is a unity-being kind, and Wittgenstein's is a
unity-utterance kind.
Which brings up another common feature they share- i.e., that the liar's
paradox is genuinely defendable for their wholistic purposes. I
understands Plato's rationality for its defense. It is for the purpose
of the dialectic. But I do not understand Wittgenstein's purpose other
than it has to follow grammar rules. So does he mean if the language is
grammatically correct as in the language of a liar's dialectically
opposing phrases, all of it is truthful by following correct grammar?
Can you add any light?
Lastly, is there a problem in the Brit tradition when it comes to using
grammatically free language: poetry [Parmenides] or mathematics
[Pythagoras] or lit-poet-math [Plato] as a means to communicate
knowledge?
jillaront
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sleepyhead" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
07 Jul 2005 04:21:43 PM |
|
|
Well I suppose if you pushed him he'd probably say something like
"there are as many kinds of knowledge as there are applications of the
word". And that would be a restatement of a linguistic rule; that
"knowledge" is an extensible concept. That is, we apply the word
knowledge in different situations to different actions, by drawing
connections between what has previously been called knowledge, and our
current situation.
Interesting what you say about British empiricists, and rule-oriented
philosophies of Leibniz & Hegel. I hadn't noticed that connection
before. But LW was (more so that yer average philosopher) a practical
man - fought in a war, did engineering, taught in a school. From what
I've read of him he didn't have much time for metaphysics (well, later
on in his life anyway) because he thought it was just a lot of
conceptual nonsense dressed up as wisdom.
But, to return to the point, if there are as many kinds of knowledge as
there are uses of the word, and if English is an infinitely extensible
language, then there are an infinite number of kinds of knowledge, and
you'd be better off living life as a monk than trying to enunciate them
all!
.
|
|
|
| User: "BuddhaThu" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
08 Jul 2005 01:07:37 PM |
|
|
Dear Sleepyhead, (and J down below.)
Very well stated.
I am sorry for leaving so abruptly. I have a tendency to do that at
times. (I cannot answer everything, so I will waddle along and say what
comes out of my head.
Yes, language is extensible but we must be carefully not to subsume the
concept of extensibility to an essentialist ideal.
This is what Frege did with his Platonic Realism. He called it the
"Third Realm." I did not make the connection either, until a
student from B.U. at a grad conference presented to me a paper, and it
finally dawned on me.
The subject of his paper was not Wittgenstein, but on Frege's mystery
meaning of the "Third Realm" and Eureka! That interpretation came
into my head.
The Third Realm is the realm of rules situated between the object and
the word. In this, you get a two tiered form of abstraction - word
and the rules that accompany them on grammar usage.
As to the most obvious questions that people might ask, "What is this
Third Realm?" "What are these rules that I apprehend without seeing
that makes these etchings on my computer somehow make sense?"
W. would have eschewed such remarks for they seek a metaphysical
explanation, to which the whole purpose of the "Third Realm" came
into existence. He can only say that they are apprehended as part of
the "drill" - the "grammar training" which took place when
children first learn their language.
Here, it is not words describing words, but something else.
Later, Noam Chomsky would challenge that view due to the fact that
children learn speech much earlier on before the drill. He used it to
justify a "Universal Grammar" that allows children the apparatus to
quickly inculcate the words and rules. It was again a repeat of the
same old issue of Platonism.
My view is we may not be born with such abstractions already a part of
our genetic code. This is too mystical to me. But that we have the
biological mechanism to quickly apprehend the abstractions. In this,
abstractions are not what is internal, but the verbal/linguistical
mechanism. It is not quite John Locke's blank slate, but close. You
already get this within the concept of "imprinting."
But such questions according to W. are not for philosophers to deal
with, but probably more toward the neuroscientists.
Now let us move further on to the discussion of the statements you
cited with a little modification. (I like such modifications for it
helps people to remember and hold their W. a little bit better.
Learning W. can definitely be fun, despite what some of my associates
have done to him.:-)
Consider and compare my following statements. (Cf. example in an
earlier posting a couple days ago on "On Certainty.")
"How high is a British person's orgasm?"
"How the word 'sex' is used within the English language?"
And the more mundane issue, "How a clarinet sounds?"
The first is "wissen" knowledge or knowledge by description. I can
read a report from Master's and Johnson or Kinsey to get that. But do
I have to travel to England and be there to witness an event to
understand it? No. The meaningfulness is based on words and grammar
rules. The rules that you do not even realize when you speak, you just
speak.
The third is "kennen" knowledge. I can get a clarinet and
demonstrate to you how a clarinet sounds. This one is easy. You get it
by demonstrating directly.
Both are empirical, just of a different kind. But the picture in our
heads are somewhat different.
The second one is very interesting. It is also likewise just as
empirical although it talks about invisible rules. We are using grammar
rules with words, ***(that which is said),*** to make an attempt to
describe grammar rules behind the words, ***(that which is unsaid.)***
Sound familiar???
The results are not only in a contradiction, but also an infinite
regress. This is the problem of meta-language to which W. had problems
with. It is akin to "saying the unsayable" which is not only an
oxymoron, but is accompanied to something like a "dangling
participle" or predicate. This is bad grammar. It is not meaningful.
This is what we sometimes do when we look for the "essence" of
language, which term "essence" is also guided by a word and a
grammar. It cannot be done.
But it does not relieve us of the question. When we train children as
parents, we do not use words to teach them words. We do not read from a
grammar book. So what is it that they are getting? This I cannot tell.
When it comes right down to it, the invisible rules are there and we
just use them - most time without any self-reflective consciousness
of them.
It is the miracle of the human mind.
I have to rush. Sorry for cutting off again. ;-)
Sleepyhead wrote:
Well I suppose if you pushed him he'd probably say something like
"there are as many kinds of knowledge as there are applications of the
word". And that would be a restatement of a linguistic rule; that
"knowledge" is an extensible concept. That is, we apply the word
knowledge in different situations to different actions, by drawing
connections between what has previously been called knowledge, and our
current situation.
Interesting what you say about British empiricists, and rule-oriented
philosophies of Leibniz & Hegel. I hadn't noticed that connection
before. But LW was (more so that yer average philosopher) a practical
man - fought in a war, did engineering, taught in a school. From what
I've read of him he didn't have much time for metaphysics (well, later
on in his life anyway) because he thought it was just a lot of
conceptual nonsense dressed up as wisdom.
But, to return to the point, if there are as many kinds of knowledge as
there are uses of the word, and if English is an infinitely extensible
language, then there are an infinite number of kinds of knowledge, and
you'd be better off living life as a monk than trying to enunciate them
all!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sleepyhead" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
08 Jul 2005 05:20:36 PM |
|
|
67. BuddhaThu Jul 8, 2:07 pm show options
BuddhaThu - also well-put,
I'll pick up on one part of your post, if I may ...
The second one is very interesting. It is also likewise just as empirical although it talks about invisible rules. We are using grammar rules with words, ***(that which is said),*** to make an attempt to describe grammar rules behind the words, ***(that which is unsaid.)***
Sound familiar???
It does indeed! I'd not thought of it like that at all. Never occurred
to me to make that kind of connection between the earlier and later
stuff, although now you put the picture in front of me, I can see the
resemblance. Which brings me to my next point. The rules behind the
words aren't 'invisible rules', they're just pictures which we happen
to find compelling. I don't mean mental images, pictures in your head
or anything like that - just that we happen to find certain things
persuasive, perhaps due to the circumstances surrounding our 'training'
as children. We are very receptive when we're young and pick up on all
sorts of things which are intended, and which are not.
The results are not only in a contradiction, but also an infinite regress. This is the problem of meta-language to which W. had problems with. It is akin to "saying the unsayable" which is not only an oxymoron, but is accompanied to something like a "dangling participle" or predicate. This is bad grammar. It is not meaningful. This is what we sometimes do when we look for the "essence" of language, which term "essence" is also guided by a word and a grammar. It cannot be done.
But it does not relieve us of the question. When we train children as parents, we do not use words to teach them words. We do not read from a grammar book. So what is it that they are getting? This I cannot tell.
No, we begin by babbling at our children. But we also talk amongst
ourselves as if our child was not there, and if our child is a quick
learner it will pick up on a variety of nuances we might not notice
because for us they aren't second-nature - they are our nature. Like LW
says - 'light dawns gradually over the whole', and this is the way with
children. They babble - with no apparent patter to their utterances,
then they say what we want to call 'cohorent syllables', then soon
after they progress to full words. They learn the system piecemeal from
whoever happens to be around; by example, and more formally when they
go to school, learn the alphabet and so forth. There's nothing mystical
about it: perhaps it's just 'in our blood'. But now the question 'Why
do we do things this way?' has become more of a biological and
historical question than a metaphysical one.
When it comes right down to it, the invisible rules are there and we just use them - most time without any self-reflective consciousness of them.
On that I'll agree, although we do seem to spend quite a lot of time
arguing over 'the rules'; all sorts of different interpretations of
statements cropping up in various political agendas world-wide, with
different emphases, and different policies of intolerance.
It is the miracle of the human mind.
Perhaps so, perhaps so.
I have to rush. Sorry for cutting off again. ;-)
No problem. Bye for now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BuddhaThu" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
09 Jul 2005 11:59:09 AM |
|
|
Dear Sleepyhead,
Yeah, the statement "how do we use the word 'sex' in the English
language" gives new meaning to W. telling us...
"What cannot be said must be shown." ;-)
"Look! Don't think.";-)
"In the beginning was the deed." (Citation from Goethe's Faust.)
It is very intelligent of you to pick my text on "invisible rules."
This is a mark of a very fine tuned mind. Of course, when I am talking
about invisible rules I am talking about it in relativistic and
metaphorical terms.
I cannot tell you how many times I caught even the best of our
linguistic philosophers making the same mistakes.
Within this context of "seeing the unseen" or "saying what cannot
be said, "John McDowell tells us that we cannot take the "side
view." Of course not, we would become perverts if we do, esp. if we
are in England doing "kennen knowing." I can just see it now. The
tour line starts here, one pound a piece to view. That would certainly
drive the economy up. ;-)
(He is a British philosopher at Univ. of Pitt., Philosophy.) I pick on
the Brits at Pitt. a lot. ;-)
You are also quite right. A picture is not necessarily a mental image.
It is something more.
Please let me elaborate further on "imprinting."
This is what I picked up by reading on Konrad Lorenz who originated
the idea as a separate concept from "instincts."
Imprinting grammar can be very fast. So fast that it can be mistaken as
a Platonic Universal Grammar that we are born with, -- but different
from this form of knowledge is that it is gathered ***externally.***
The grammar is not just already there.
Konrad Lorenz was famous for his experiments of chicks following him
around as if he was their mum. If the chicks can make such a mistake,
then the information must have been encoded ***externally.***
Recognition of who our parents are do not get encoded from within the
genes. (Unfortunately, Lorenz did not deduce this. I did.)
In a way, this makes sense. Sometimes species can undergo dramatic
changes in its plumes or size. The chicks born must know who their
protectors are. Sometimes, other species of bird can come along and
take on these chicks as their own.
Besides, encoding such complex information onto these baby chicks would
make things far too complex. Nature can be this random and complex, but
it needs a simple mechanism to ensure survival.
That simple mechanism is a moving object. The object need not be
something living. They have experimented with wooden ducks, a
basketball, or a cardboard box.
Once they hatched the sensing of something relatively big or moving
triggers a simple high or comfort feeling. Chemicals are going into the
brain that mimics pleasure, so the chicks stick to something that is
deemed "pleasurable."
It is very simple and ingenious.
My feeling is this "high" feeling must be accompanied with a
"low" feeling.
Once you got that ***binary coupling,*** ***you got a grammar.*** Once
you have a sensing of spatial movement, you got syntax. Once you have
a syntax, you get a before and after. Place "before" and
"after" with sounds, you got words and language.
It is my view that earlier on, something non-verbal must be committed
before a word can come in.
Grammar in the beginning need not be something complex. It has to be
really, really be something fast, furious and fundamental. These are
the basis of the survival mechanism. It can be so fast that you think
that there is something Platonic about it.
Grammar in the beginning is not training. Parents need not be talking
directly to the child. They just need to be within earshot.
Sometimes, imprinting can occur within the womb. Yes, it can occur that
early.
I have to emphasize that these are my speculations based on some
lectures that I have attended.
For philosophers, it is ok to speculate, ***as long as you know you are
speculating.*** Once you see ***speculations as facts*** and start to
censor people then it becomes no different than religious dogmatism.
I have experienced this on Ephilosopher.com.
It was an evil place.
They can't answer to the argument, so they must chase people out as
trolls.
Philosophers can definitely be the handmaids to science within this
regard, but it is up to the scientists to see if it is true.
I always encourage all linguistic philosophers to speculate. It is part
of our creative endeavor, (nothing Whitehead and his Creativity
Metaphysical Principle.)
However, do not use speculations as a point of view for dogmatic facts.
In this regard, it is no longer creative or speculative. It is Nazism.
;-(
I will stick around as much as I can. I will be traveling and doing the
tourist thing for a while in NYC.
Will be back whenever I can.
Sleepyhead wrote:
67. BuddhaThu Jul 8, 2:07 pm show options
BuddhaThu - also well-put,
I'll pick up on one part of your post, if I may ...
The second one is very interesting. It is also likewise just as empirical although it talks about invisible rules. We are using grammar rules with words, ***(that which is said),*** to make an attempt to describe grammar rules behind the words, ***(that which is unsaid.)***
Sound familiar???
It does indeed! I'd not thought of it like that at all. Never occurred
to me to make that kind of connection between the earlier and later
stuff, although now you put the picture in front of me, I can see the
resemblance. Which brings me to my next point. The rules behind the
words aren't 'invisible rules', they're just pictures which we happen
to find compelling. I don't mean mental images, pictures in your head
or anything like that - just that we happen to find certain things
persuasive, perhaps due to the circumstances surrounding our 'training'
as children. We are very receptive when we're young and pick up on all
sorts of things which are intended, and which are not.
The results are not only in a contradiction, but also an infinite regress. This is the problem of meta-language to which W. had problems with. It is akin to "saying the unsayable" which is not only an oxymoron, but is accompanied to something like a "dangling participle" or predicate. This is bad grammar. It is not meaningful. This is what we sometimes do when we look for the "essence" of language, which term "essence" is also guided by a word and a grammar. It cannot be done.
But it does not relieve us of the question. When we train children as parents, we do not use words to teach them words. We do not read from a grammar book. So what is it that they are getting? This I cannot tell.
No, we begin by babbling at our children. But we also talk amongst
ourselves as if our child was not there, and if our child is a quick
learner it will pick up on a variety of nuances we might not notice
because for us they aren't second-nature - they are our nature. Like LW
says - 'light dawns gradually over the whole', and this is the way with
children. They babble - with no apparent patter to their utterances,
then they say what we want to call 'cohorent syllables', then soon
after they progress to full words. They learn the system piecemeal from
whoever happens to be around; by example, and more formally when they
go to school, learn the alphabet and so forth. There's nothing mystical
about it: perhaps it's just 'in our blood'. But now the question 'Why
do we do things this way?' has become more of a biological and
historical question than a metaphysical one.
When it comes right down to it, the invisible rules are there and we just use them - most time without any self-reflective consciousness of them.
On that I'll agree, although we do seem to spend quite a lot of time
arguing over 'the rules'; all sorts of different interpretations of
statements cropping up in various political agendas world-wide, with
different emphases, and different policies of intolerance.
It is the miracle of the human mind.
Perhaps so, perhaps so.
I have to rush. Sorry for cutting off again. ;-)
No problem. Bye for now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sleepyhead" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
10 Jul 2005 11:00:14 AM |
|
|
You are also quite right. A picture is not necessarily a mental image. It is something more.
The picture or the mental image? Come to think of it, it makes no
difference: I'd agree with you in either case.
It is my view that earlier on, something non-verbal must be committed before a word can come in.
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say something non-verbal /must/ be
committed. I'd be inclined to say that it just happens to be so that
humans are able to learn language quickly, and that we explain this by
'pointing to' our biology. All the same; I mostly agree - without our
ability to learn language, we would not learn learn language, but I
suspect this means nothing more than 'We just /are/ able learn'.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
08 Jul 2005 09:40:37 PM |
|
|
Dear B.T. Thanks for your much appreciated response. And welcome back. I
understand the time limitations myself, so I do appreciate what you
contribute.
I am seeing the difference a little clearer now and making some newer
connections to it thanks to the "Third Realm" remarks. That really did
the trick.
My last question, to help me decide at what level of priority of
research the Wittgenstein-Plato issue should be for me is, how important
is it to philosophy today? Is the search for 'what' it is, in these
sample renderings- i.e., "Idea Realm", 'Third Realm", "Universal
Grammar", or the original or modified version of W's "drill" thesis- is
it still a pursuit by serious thinkers now?
Thanks in advance.
jillaront
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sleepyhead" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
16 Jun 2005 01:25:03 PM |
|
|
*smacks head* Duh!
Yes - just like a jigsaw puzzle, in fact. Bodies of knowledge form
systems: some systems can only function one way, and when they "go"
they really fall apart, but other systems are better at adapting. Hmm.
Can't think of any specific examples at the moment; will have to do
some reading!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sleepyhead" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
16 Jun 2005 11:09:09 AM |
|
|
Well yeah,the example lasts as long as it lasts and then it's in the
past, but if you forget all examples as soon as they're gone you'll
never learn anything; the concept of knowledge included!
What examples of knowledge would you give? That's how humans learn
isn't it: by example?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
16 Jun 2005 12:01:02 PM |
|
|
Read the part about the jigsaw puzzle again.
-tg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sleepyhead" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
16 Jun 2005 10:44:47 AM |
|
|
I confess I'm not really "on-board" with the whole "Let's categorise
our knowledge" theme of this thread - I just can't see the point unless
it's going to lead somewhere else. (For example, what's going to happen
to these categories once you've got them: to what else do they relate?)
But what I would say is that if you're interested in the concept
"knowledge" you could do worse than (a l=E1 Wittgenstein) looking how
you might teach the concept to someone else. What kinds of examples do
you use? What other concepts do you draw on to explain yourself. At
what point does your interlocutor understand your point (so that they
can "go on in the same way")?
But as a starter how's about this:
Knowledge seems to guarantee certainty, the kind of certainty
pertaining to truth. "I _know_ that the earth is round", you might say
(perhaps in relation to someone's disdainful dismissal). Or (to
rephrase the same sentence, or perhaps to elucidate one's point) "I am
absolutely certain of this point - the earth _is_ round. I don't just
believe it - I know it." Almost as if saying "I know it" doesn't need
confirmation from anything else in order to make it true.
I'd hazard a guess that knowledge, belief and certainty are to be tied
up together, in that belief can admit doubt ("I believe it's raining"I
could be wrong), but knowledge cannot ("It just _is_ 1 o'clock"). But
what does this certainty amount to? Truth? Not necessarily. All those
people who claimed to know the earth was flat: was their certainty any
less for their "knowledge" actually just being "belief", and their
belief being untrue?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edgar Svendsen" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
16 Jun 2005 09:29:19 PM |
|
|
"Sleepyhead" <simonharpham@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1118936687.170772.104910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I confess I'm not really "on-board" with the whole "Let's categorise
our knowledge" theme of this thread - I just can't see the point unless
it's going to lead somewhere else. (For example, what's going to happen
to these categories once you've got them: to what else do they relate?)
But what I would say is that if you're interested in the concept
"knowledge" you could do worse than (a lá Wittgenstein) looking how
you might teach the concept to someone else. What kinds of examples do
you use? What other concepts do you draw on to explain yourself. At
what point does your interlocutor understand your point (so that they
can "go on in the same way")?
But as a starter how's about this:
Knowledge seems to guarantee certainty, the kind of certainty
pertaining to truth. "I _know_ that the earth is round", you might say
(perhaps in relation to someone's disdainful dismissal). Or (to
rephrase the same sentence, or perhaps to elucidate one's point) "I am
absolutely certain of this point - the earth _is_ round. I don't just
believe it - I know it." Almost as if saying "I know it" doesn't need
confirmation from anything else in order to make it true.
I'd hazard a guess that knowledge, belief and certainty are to be tied
up together, in that belief can admit doubt ("I believe it's raining"I
could be wrong), but knowledge cannot ("It just _is_ 1 o'clock"). But
what does this certainty amount to? Truth? Not necessarily. All those
people who claimed to know the earth was flat: was their certainty any
less for their "knowledge" actually just being "belief", and their
belief being untrue?
I think I take exception to the definition that "knowledge" must be be
"true" and that any discovery in future time that shows that the knowledge
was not completely accurate automatically implies that there was no
knowledge, even thought we thought so at the time. This seems especially
the case for knowledge, not of "the world" but of human constructs like
math. Right now I say I have knowledge of algebra, if, in the future, the
procedures of algebra are subtly changed, say in the treatment of division
by zero, will it turn out I had no knowledge of algebra? I say no, I have
knowledge. Basically, you seem to be saying that to be knowledge it must be
time independent.
Some physicists posit that the "laws" of physics were different in the few
nanoseconds right after the Big Bang. If this turned out to be correct then
would it be the case that no physicist has knowledge of physics?
Ed
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stu" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
17 Jun 2005 03:40:48 PM |
|
|
On 2005-06-16 19:29:19 -0700, "Edgar Svendsen" <solon013@earthlink.net> said:
"Sleepyhead" <simonharpham@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1118936687.170772.104910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I confess I'm not really "on-board" with the whole "Let's categorise
our knowledge" theme of this thread - I just can't see the point unless
it's going to lead somewhere else. (For example, what's going to happen
to these categories once you've got them: to what else do they relate?)
But what I would say is that if you're interested in the concept
"knowledge" you could do worse than (a lá Wittgenstein) looking how
you might teach the concept to someone else. What kinds of examples do
you use? What other concepts do you draw on to explain yourself. At
what point does your interlocutor understand your point (so that they
can "go on in the same way")?
But as a starter how's about this:
Knowledge seems to guarantee certainty, the kind of certainty
pertaining to truth. "I _know_ that the earth is round", you might say
(perhaps in relation to someone's disdainful dismissal). Or (to
rephrase the same sentence, or perhaps to elucidate one's point) "I am
absolutely certain of this point - the earth _is_ round. I don't just
believe it - I know it." Almost as if saying "I know it" doesn't need
confirmation from anything else in order to make it true.
I'd hazard a guess that knowledge, belief and certainty are to be tied
up together, in that belief can admit doubt ("I believe it's raining"I
could be wrong), but knowledge cannot ("It just _is_ 1 o'clock"). But
what does this certainty amount to? Truth? Not necessarily. All those
people who claimed to know the earth was flat: was their certainty any
less for their "knowledge" actually just being "belief", and their
belief being untrue?
I think I take exception to the definition that "knowledge" must be be
"true" and that any discovery in future time that shows that the
knowledge was not completely accurate automatically implies that there
was no knowledge, even thought we thought so at the time. This seems
especially the case for knowledge, not of "the world" but of human
constructs like math. Right now I say I have knowledge of algebra, if,
in the future, the procedures of algebra are subtly changed, say in the
treatment of division by zero, will it turn out I had no knowledge of
algebra? I say no, I have knowledge. Basically, you seem to be saying
that to be knowledge it must be time independent.
Some physicists posit that the "laws" of physics were different in the
few nanoseconds right after the Big Bang. If this turned out to be
correct then would it be the case that no physicist has knowledge of
physics?
Ed
You a mistaking facts for knowledge. Experience garners facts. We can
weigh their credibility.
Knowledge comes from within. One understands it when one taps into to
it. Knowledge radiates unity, structure, creativity.
Seeking knowledge it a noble expression of humanity, chasing facts is
only important in a utilitarian way.
--
~Stu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Albert Wagner" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised) |
17 Jun 2005 06:05:22 PM |
|
|
Stu wrote:
<snip>
You a mistaking facts for knowledge.
And you are mistaking knowledge for wisdom.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to
narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make
thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will
be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
