DoctorDick:
Quote:
|
The only answer is, we know something and we need a way of keeping track of it which does not depend on knowing what it is that we know.
|
I had to go back to this statement because when I reread it I thought immediately that you were contradicting yourself. How do we know and don't know something at the same time? "we know something and we need a way of keeping track of it" .... ok, so I think "language, descriptions, etc." Keeping track of it with our memory is one way and that is just for one's self. Keeping track of it with language, illustrations, etc. implies a longer time frame than one's memory. It's safer, more open and available that way too. Then you continue with ..."which does not depend on knowing what it is that we know" and, well, now I realize that my focal point is wrong. Another possibility is that there is more than one viewing position.
To paraphrase the warden in
Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here is a failure to referentiate". And yes, I was paying you a compliment when I said that you were a master at skewering a concept.
The quote is the entrance to this discussion. And I'm having a problem opening the door. Knowing is not the same as what I know. That much I think I understand. Knowing implies a different perspective, a different viewing position. Is that correct? One that is outside of one's own perspective. Now, if I hold that thought and bring in the idea of the mechanics of knowing, is that the correct approach? So, 'knowing' is viewing me from the perspective of the rules of knowing and seeing my implied 'knowing' rules contrasted against valid rules of knowing. Am I wiggling the handle at least?
