Hi Steve and thanks for the compliment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve
How do we know and don't know something at the same time?
|
Ah, wait a while and you will comprehend that state. I often go in the other room to get something and discover I don't know what it is that I need to get. Age is a great teacher.
Seriously, the problem here is the nature of language itself; the meanings of words can shift quite a way with context. To paraphrase a famous quote: “there are more interpretations of a circumstance than are conceived of in your philosophy”, and I mean that sincerely (it's one of my major problems in communications).
In one case, I am referring to “whatever it is that is behind the things you think you know” (the “valid” information your world view is based upon; ergo, what you really “know” ) as seen when your realize that you simply don't “know” what that is (the issue being that you cannot prove the validity of anything you “think you know”). Perhaps I should have used the word
“noumenon”. That is to say, “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” should be replaced with “we need a way of keeping track of noumenons which are behind our understanding without defining the the impact of these “noumenons” (which would, of course, be be our world view itself). Again, the issue is objectivity: i.e., we aren't being objective if we assume our world view is valid and it is very difficult to think things out in the absence of a world view. I am trying to direct your attention to how this can be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve
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?
|
I am using the word “know” to mean that there is information available to you. There is another word which applies directly to the issue under discussion. That word is “understand”. It happens to be a very overwhelming intuitive feeling in everyone that “knowing” always includes “understanding” and I think you are having difficulty separating the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve
Now, if I hold that thought and bring in the idea of the mechanics of knowing, is that the correct approach?
|
No, it really isn't. The idea of the mechanics of “knowing” is itself an epistemological construct; it amounts to an explanation of “knowing”. Proceeding to that point clearly requires a “world view” of some sort. The question here is, how does one develop a rational “world view” from undefined noumenons?.
I hope I have made the issue a little clearer -- Dick
