How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There (revised)
Richard F Hall
For the sake of edification, let's say that knowledge can be defined
as "that which is believed to be true". In all responses, this first
paragraph elicited the greatest response; even though I wanted to
avoid this.
From the Doxastic Foundationalism we get the fallible and infallible
knowledge. TheBeaver pointed out that there should be a mention of
knowledge based on false assumptions, or even paranoia. Also, the
differentiation of theoretical and real-world knowledge is included.
FALLIBLE KNOWLEDGE
1) Informational knowledge. This is merely the collection of
unsorted, unverified, random things that people claim to know. These
can include such things as "I know I'll win the lottery", and "I know
the FBI is watching me", or, "I know what's wrong with this country".
This knowledge is based on opinion and speculation.
2) Generally accepted knowledge. This is knowledge of what other
people believe to be true. This is the knowledge drawn from sources
of trusted expertise, whether they be in the form of test books,
research journals, audio-visual sources, or an encyclopedia. This
does not require that one accepts this knowledge as truth, but just
that it be accurate.
INFALLIBLE KNOWLEDGE (theoretical knowledge)
3) Knowledge from faith. This is knowledge that is accepted on the
basis of social discourse and conditioning of the individual. It is
knowledge that is promoted by a society because it satisfies social
and individual needs. These include religious beliefs and beliefs
which are personal standards.
4) Deductive knowledge. This is knowledge based on (a) linguistic
meaning ("a tree is a plant") or (b) mathematical rules ("2+2=4").
EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE (some fallible, some infallible)
5) Observational knowledge. This is knowledge that we personally
experience. (eg. we know the moon was out last night because we saw
it; or, we know sunfish are in the lake because we caught some.)
6) Scientific knowledge. This is knowledge that has been determined
as reliable, repeatable, and consistent. It can be broken down into
two categories:
a) Knowledge of things that are believed to be true only a percentage
of the time (e.g. A blue eyed parent and a brown eyed parent will have
blue eyed children 25% of the time).
b) Knowledge of things that are believed to be always true (e.g.
water is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen; or, day and night are
caused by the rotation of the earth.).
R.Hall
Realistic Idealism
Immortalist
"Richard F Hall" <real...@seanet.com> wrote in message
news:40cc2a8e...@supernews.seanet.com...
Don't forget Coherence theory to add to your list
If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
emperical beliefs, then it must either:
(1) terminate in unjustified beleifs
(2) go on infinitely (without circularity)
(3) circle back upon itself in some way.
21 He [BonJour] summarizes what he takes to be the four "options" available in
regard to the regress problem: "prima facie, there are four main logical
possibilities as to the eventual outcome of the potential regress of epistemic
justification, assuming one's epistemic interlocutor--who may of course be
oneself--continues to demand justification for each new premise-belief being
offered:
(1) the regress might terminate with [arbitrary] beliefs which are offered as
justifying premises for earlier beliefs but for which no justification of any
kind, however implicit, is available when they are challenged in turn.
(2) The regress might continue indefinitely "backwards," with ever more new
empirical premise-beliefs being introduced, so that no belief is repeated in the
sequence and yet no end is ever reached.
(3) The regress might circle back upon itself, so that if the demand for
justification is pushed far enough, beliefs which have already appeared as
premises (and have themselves been provisionally justified) earlier in the
sequence of justificatory arguments are again appealed to as justifying premises.
(4) The regress might terminate because "basic" empirical beliefs are reached,
beliefs which have a degree of epistemic justification which is not inferentially
dependent on other empirical beliefs and thus raises no further issue of
empirical justification."
http://www.fiu.edu/~hauptli/Bonjour'sTheStructureofEmpiricalKnowledgeChapter2.html
--------------------------------------
5.2 Linear Versus Nonlinear Justification:
The standard argument against coherence theories of justification presumes
"...that inferential justification is essentially linear in character, that it
involves a one- dimensional sequence of beliefs, ordered by the relation of
epistemic priority, along which epistemic justification is passed from the
earlier to the later beliefs in the sequence via connections of inference."
BonJour will propose that we accept a nonlinear view which holds that "...despite
its linear appearance, [inferential justification] is essentially systematic or
holistic in character: beliefs are justified by being inferentially related to
other beliefs in the overall context of a coherent system."
-Robert Fogelin points out that one should not think of systematic or holistic
justification in "linear" terms: "nor does the coherentist permit what might be
called a circular form of linearity, that is, a structure of reasons that simply
loops back on itself. For the standard coherentist, linear circularity is a bad
form of circularity. In place of such linear conceptions of justification, the
coherentist pictures justification using such metaphors as a network, a mesh, a
system, or an organic totality of beliefs. The fundamental idea is that the
items in coherent systems of beliefs must stand in relationships of mutual
support."
BonJour also maintains that we must distinguish between "local level" and "global
level" justification: at the local level, justification appears linear: "one
quickly reached premise-beliefs which are dialectically acceptable in that
particular context and which can thus function rather like the foundationalists'
basic beliefs. (But these contextually basic beliefs...are unlikely to be only
or even primarily beliefs which would be classified as basic by any plausible
version of foundationalism)."
-Alternatives to foundationalist and coherentist theories of justification: we
have been, discussing foundationalist and coherentist theories of justification
as if they are the only alternatives (whether interpreted in an internalist or an
externalist manner). This is not the case. In addition to these views of
epistemic justification, there is a promising orientation which advances a
contextualistic view of justification; and in her Evidence and Inquiry: Towards a
Reconstruction in Epistemology, Susan Haack develops a view she calls
"foundherentism."
While justification at the local level may appear linear, BonJour maintains that
at the global level there is no linearity. Instead, we must talk of mutual or
reciprocal support:
-92 "...a coherence theory [of justification] will claim, the apparent circle of
justification is not in fact vicious because it is not genuinely a circle: the
justification of a particular empirical belief finally depends, not on other
particular beliefs as the linear conception of justification would have it, but
instead on the overall system and its coherence." BonJour's coherence theory of
justification involves four distinct steps or stages for the justification of an
empirical belief:
(1) The inferability of that particular belief from other particular beliefs and
further relations among particular empirical beliefs.
(2) The coherence of the overall system of empirical beliefs.
(3) The justification of the overall system of empirical beliefs.
(4) The justification of the particular belief in question, by virtue of its
membership in the system.
http://www.fiu.edu/~hauptli/Bonjour'sTheStructureofEmpiricalKnowledgeChapter5.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5.3 The Concept of Coherence:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This section identifies "five_desiderata" for coherence:
------------------
1. Logical consistency is necessary, but not sufficient, for coherence.
-Criticism: in his Pyrrhonistic Reflections on Knowledge and Justification,
Robert Fogelin maintains that this condition presents problems for BonJour:
"BonJour, taking a standard coherentist approach, insists that formal consistency
is not a sufficient condition for a system to be coherent, but he does take it to
be a necessary condition....He seems not to have noticed that is very unlikely
that the belief system of any human being satisfies this necessary condition. It
seems safe to assume that all mature human beings hold at least some beliefs that
are inconsistent with each other or at least imply things that are inconsistent
with one another."
----------------
2. A system of beliefs is coherent in proportion to its degree of probabilistic
consistency.
-While beliefs might be logically consistent, there could be a probabilistic
inconsistency--it could be unlikely that two beliefs are both true although it is
logically consistent to suppose that they are such [for example: my belief that p
and my belief that it is extremely improbable that p].
----------------
3. The coherence of a system of beliefs is increased by the presence of
inferential connections between its component beliefs and increased in proportion
to the number and strength of connections.
-----------------
4. The coherence of a system of beliefs is diminished to the extent to which it
is divided into systems of beliefs which are relatively unconnected to each other
by inferential connections.
--As BonJour notes, sets of beliefs could be perfectly consistent but have
nothing to do with one another. Thus the requirement that there be "inferential
relationships" between the beliefs guarantees truth preservation. But there are
a variety of such relationships:
--mutual entailment (which is the requirement advocated by Blanshard) is not
promising since (as Blanshard admits) even Euclidean geometry may not fit this
sort of requirement.
-- each proposition must be "entailed by the rest" (advocated by Ewing).
--"congruence" (advocated by C.I. Lewis) holds that the "antecedent probability
of any component belief is increased if the remainder can be assumed as
premises." This sort of orientation is significantly weaker than that of mutual
entailment.
--BonJour recommends "explanatory" connections between the beliefs: [99]
"explanatory connections are not just additional inferential connections among
the beliefs of a system, however; they are inferential connections of a
particularly pervasive kind. This is so because the basic goal of scientific
explanation is to exhibit events of widely differing kinds as manifestations of a
relatively small number of basic explanatory principles."
--Criticism: of course much more needs to be said here (and BonJour recognizes
this). Philosophers of science offer extremely different (and complicated)
conceptions of explanation, and given the central importance of this notion for
the notion of "coherence," the lack of detail here points to a possible problem
for the overall theory.
-A discussion of scientific explanation helps clarify the sort of connections
desired. Alan Goldman characterizes explanation as follows: "rendering a fact or
event intelligible by showing why it should have been expected to obtain or
occur."6
--BonJour offers a traditional conception of scientific explanation which is
often called the "covering law model." It holds that in scientific explanations,
"...particular facts are explained by appeal to other facts and general laws from
which a statement of the explanandum7 fact may be deductively or
probabilistically inferred; and lower-level laws and theories are explained in an
analogous fashion by showing them to be deducible from more general laws and
theories."
--------------------
5. The coherence of a system of beliefs is decreased in proportion to the
presence of unexplained anomalies in the believed content of the system.
BonJour notes that we should not be too quick, however, to connect the notions of
inferential relatedness and explanation. His discussion of standing next to a
mouse which is three feet from a four foot high pole on which an owl sits, shows
that the Pythagorean theorem doesn't "explain" why the owl is five feet from the
mouse. In short, ...it is a mistake to tie coherence too closely to the idea of
explanation." BonJour's point is that nonexplanatory inferential connections can
also enhance coherence.
BonJour notes that the demand for "systematic unification" which arises as we
seek scientific explanations provides a powerful engine for conceptual change.
Problems: given the emphasis upon "dynamism," one should note that for such
growth one needs inconsistencies, but this undercuts the emphasis upon coherence!
Once anomalies are allowed, there would seem to be no way to measure the degree
of consistency!
-As noted above, in his Pyrrhonistic Reflections on Knowledge and Justification
Robert Fogelin maintains that these conditions pose a problem for BonJour: "given
this list of standards for coherence, we can ask whether any human system of
beliefs has ever satisfied them."
http://www.fiu.edu/~hauptli/Bonjour'sTheStructureofEmpiricalKnowledgeChapter5.htm
FiSH
components? is a priori not a form of knowledge?
many mathematical statements and other definite descriptions are classed
under a priori knowledge (knowledge outside experience) - your deductive
classification seems incomplete - statements such as 'bachelors are
unmarried' etc
--
FiSH
"Richard F Hall" <real...@seanet.com> wrote in message
news:40cc2a8e...@supernews.seanet.com...
Raan
--
></>
"FiSH" <a_fisher@hotmail> wrote in message
news:40cce9ee$1...@news1.veridas.net...
Edgar Svendsen
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
> R.Hall
> Realistic Idealism
Richard F Hall
>mate, what about a priori knowledge and its analytic and synthetic
>components?
analytic is covered, not sure about synthetic. You wouldn't happen to
know an example of synthetic?
>is a priori not a form of knowledge?
yes...
>many mathematical statements and other definite descriptions are classed
>under a priori knowledge (knowledge outside experience) - your deductive
>classification seems incomplete - statements such as 'bachelors are
>unmarried' etc
Yes, that would be 4) Deductive knowledge. This is knowledge based
on (a) linguistic meaning ("a tree is a plant")
>
>
>--
>FiSH
Richard F Hall
<solo...@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.
>> R.Hall
>> Realistic Idealism
>
>
Leon Hoeneveld
> How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There? (revised)
Only one.
Knowledge is change.
Consider seeing something for the first time. It makes an
impression.
Something inside you changes, or a change within you will
from now be associated with the object. Not only thing
itself will have caused the change. The thing itself is
less, but still it is much because it causes part of all
these changes in the world. Every change has information.
You will remember the object whenever the change follows
from another object (association) or when you're reflections
stumble on the changeconfiguration.
Active thinking is activating patterns of changes. These
patterns are symbolical by nature. They are not the thing
itself. Changepatterns are different in each human. They
depend on the resistance of the human for change. The more
vulnerable of us, might have more knowledge, but is easy to
see how changes can also become damage. It is therfore
important that some of the changes are undone while
sleeping. We lose some knowledge but some of the important
changes remain. The input tends to follow the path of least
resistance. So the same patterns get reactivated. Then we
see the world as a whole, as a unity, and we can have
consiousness about it.
When we grow old we get stuck in the same old patterns and
lose the ability to learn new patterns.
Maybe we can find a new start in learning when we
concentrate on minor changes that are still able to get
through. I think the principal stays the same.
Regards, Léon
Richard F Hall
<leon.hoenev...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>Richard F Hall wrote:
>> How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There? (revised)
>
>Only one.
>Knowledge is change.
>Consider seeing something for the first time. It makes an
>impression.
Just curious, is all this your original thinking?
>Something inside you changes, or a change within you will
>from now be associated with the object. Not only thing
>itself will have caused the change. The thing itself is
>less, but still it is much because it causes part of all
>these changes in the world. Every change has information.
>You will remember the object whenever the change follows
>from another object (association) or when you're reflections
>stumble on the changeconfiguration.
My own experience is that I change much more perminently when the
change is associated with something with which I already am familiar.
So, yes..
>Active thinking is activating patterns of changes. These
>patterns are symbolical by nature. They are not the thing
>itself. Changepatterns are different in each human. They
>depend on the resistance of the human for change. The more
The resistance to change? Could it also the ability to change play a
role? What kinds of subject matter are the changes in regard to?
There have been respondents who think "kinds of knowledge" is the same
thing as "sources of knowledge", but I've always seen "kinds of
knowledge" as the kinds of "subject matter" of knowledge. If
knowledge is change, then we're examining the subject matter of these
changes.
>vulnerable of us, might have more knowledge, but is easy to
>see how changes can also become damage. It is therfore
You mean too much knowledge can be confusing (ie. damaging).
>important that some of the changes are undone while
>sleeping. We lose some knowledge but some of the important
>changes remain.
I had no idea we lose knowledge while sleeping.
>The input tends to follow the path of least
>resistance. So the same patterns get reactivated. Then we
>see the world as a whole, as a unity, and we can have
>consiousness about it.
Is this when we get older?
>When we grow old we get stuck in the same old patterns and
>lose the ability to learn new patterns.
This is probably just before we lose the ability to remember the old
patterns.
>
>Maybe we can find a new start in learning when we
>concentrate on minor changes that are still able to get
>through. I think the principal stays the same.
>
>Regards, Léon
Thanks Leon, good food for thought.
R.Hall
Leon Hoeneveld
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:41:04 +0200, "Leon Hoeneveld"
> <leon.hoenev...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
> >Richard F Hall wrote:
> >> How Many Kinds of Knowledge Are There? (revised)
> >
> >Only one.
> >Knowledge is change.
> >Consider seeing something for the first time. It makes an
> >impression.
> Just curious, is all this your original thinking?
I've combined a thing or two.
> >Active thinking is activating patterns of changes. These
> >patterns are symbolical by nature. They are not the thing
> >itself. Changepatterns are different in each human. They
> >depend on the resistance of the human for change. The
more
> The resistance to change? Could it also the ability to
change play a
> role? What kinds of subject matter are the changes in
regard to?
I use the metaphor of lightning. Input is as lightning in
the brain. It chooses the way of least resistance. But other
than in the sky this lightning causes "weak" spots in the
brain.
Any matter is resistant to changes, so why not the brain.
The weak spots have a certain pattern that is actually the
knowledge we have.
> There have been respondents who think "kinds of knowledge"
is the same
> thing as "sources of knowledge", but I've always seen
"kinds of
> knowledge" as the kinds of "subject matter" of knowledge.
If
> knowledge is change, then we're examining the subject
matter of these
> changes.
It is at least clear why knowledge is symbolical, and why it
is real.
>
> >vulnerable of us, might have more knowledge, but is easy
to
> >see how changes can also become damage. It is therfore
> You mean too much knowledge can be confusing (ie.
damaging).
Just imagine the lightning in your head to be firing the
same pattern again and again.
Then the weak spot is weakened untill it is a damage.
> >important that some of the changes are undone while
> >sleeping. We lose some knowledge but some of the
important
> >changes remain.
> I had no idea we lose knowledge while sleeping.
Let's test it. I only know that if you don't sleep you get
overactivated. So I think sleep help to get the activation
(read weakening) out. And the knowledge of our consiousness
is certainly away when we sleep (although you still can be
somehow consious in your dreams)
>
> >The input tends to follow the path of least
> >resistance. So the same patterns get reactivated. Then we
> >see the world as a whole, as a unity, and we can have
> >consiousness about it.
> Is this when we get older?
It happens all of the time. But I think we awaken at a
certain moment with a certainty about the world.
>
> >When we grow old we get stuck in the same old patterns
and
> >lose the ability to learn new patterns.
> This is probably just before we lose the ability to
remember the old
> patterns
Maybe there also is a weakening from the inside. So patterns
fade into the same resistance as the environment.
.
> >
> >Maybe we can find a new start in learning when we
> >concentrate on minor changes that are still able to get
> >through. I think the principal stays the same.
>
> Thanks Leon, good food for thought.
Yes, I think so too.
Regards, Léon
neepy
say that a belief has to be both true and "justified" (i.e. the person
has to have a good reason for believing what they do) before it would
count as "knowledge".
So, someone might "believe" they will one day win the lottery. And
one day maybe they do. But that wasn't "knowledge" that they would
win, even though it turned out to be true. Just good luck.
Try turning the question around: "How many kinds of ignorance are
there?" That isn't the same thing as "How many kinds of disbelief",
is it?
Stu
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.
Stu
The problem here is confusing knowledge with facts. Beliefs are the
quality we give to facts. We may rate "the chair is in the room" as
highly credible, until we go to sit on it and find out was a
projection. We may give more credibility to a fact if we can gain
alternate forms of Data. We may go touch, or smell the chair. We
could as others whom we trust to check out the chair for us. We might
even have a government sponsored panel of scientists whose job it is to
conduct highly verified studies on the existence of the chair.
In the end we have a fact. It may be refuted later. It may seem
unbelievable now. It is just a fact.
Knowledge on the other hand does not change. It is not subject to the
distortions of perception.
In order to gain Knowledge, we are going to have to withdraw from the
senses. The senses distort. We are going to have to quiet the steady
fluctuations of the mind. The mindstuff filters the gestalt of the
world. We are going to have to seek Being as pure inward focused
intention.
And after having experienced Being. We can use that Knowledge to
illuminate the facts of the world.
--
~Stu
cat rancher
Shouldn't the question be: "To how many kinds of objects of
thought do we apply the label 'knowledge'."
"Stu" <Nos...@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2005061521221016807%Nospam@towelcom...
:
tooly
> 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.
I disagree...this is too pessimistic. Faith is a continuation of 'optimism'
in fact, in the absence of understanding. Or perhaps I'd argue also that
'pessimism' is just as 'self deceptive' as 'optimism', for either are
'choices' of mental stance by which to see the world [to fill the gaps of
the unknown].
>
> 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.
And this is why I stopped a moment to comment. 'Know thyself' is a heady
statement, and you give the example that simply turning around to see the
'projector', the source of our illusions for what it is...just a projector,
as somehow affording one's self some sort of 'inner truth' of self.
I offer that perhaps there is a deeper search than simply resolving the
mirage of our illusions; and that is the question of 'motivation' to begin
with. The 'outer quest' eventually leads to the 'internal quest' of self,
whereupon, one begins to question BEing itself...one's own. Why, for
example, do I write here; why did you write here? Why is it important that
anyone 'rebell' against their illusions to withdraw from the theater into
the 'light' outside? And where does this lead; where is the 'projector' for
the world outside the theater...and don't be so naive that there isn't one
[just because we reach upon our capacity to comprehend does not mean we have
perfect understanding].
A sober mind knows what it is after...power and control. It wants to be
God...not simply live in faith. Apparently it did not like what the
projectionist was showing.
Knowledge is just one means to power [though effective]. With knowledge,
you can create your own theaters for suckers who like to live under the
illusions others have created for them. You can make a name for yourself;
be glorified, listened to...you can become 'significant'. Once
understanding the 'core object' of 'motivation', one can understand that
'state' is always a matter of mind, and not 'projections' on cave walls.
Those projections are just 'illusions' no matter what cave we choose to
exist within, and we forever challenged, not to look back and understand the
projectionist, but to understand our selves. A world is a world is a world;
perhaps all of them based upon 'illusions'. But you are 'real'.
Publius
news:2005061521221016807%Nospam@towelcom:
> 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.
I'm afraid you've misread Kant. There is no experience of noumena, either
direct or indirect. The only experience is of phenomena, and is only from
that we can construct a "reality."
Edgar Svendsen
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
Sleepyhead
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?
tg
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
Sleepyhead
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?
tg
-tg
Sleepyhead
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!
Edgar Svendsen
"tg" <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1118936942.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
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
Edgar Svendsen
"Sleepyhead" <simonh...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1118936687.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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
Stu
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
Stu
>>
>> 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.
>
> I disagree...this is too pessimistic. Faith is a continuation of
> 'optimism' in fact, in the absence of understanding. Or perhaps I'd
> argue also that 'pessimism' is just as 'self deceptive' as 'optimism',
> for either are 'choices' of mental stance by which to see the world [to
> fill the gaps of the unknown].
To approach the unknown with faith is still self deception. Better to
confront mystery by withdrawing the senses and allowing the mystery to
reveal itself.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> And this is why I stopped a moment to comment. 'Know thyself' is a
> heady statement, and you give the example that simply turning around to
> see the 'projector', the source of our illusions for what it is...just
> a projector, as somehow affording one's self some sort of 'inner truth'
> of self.
This is only a first step. Simply by being on this NG you clearly take
the Greek project seriously.
>
> I offer that perhaps there is a deeper search than simply resolving the
> mirage of our illusions; and that is the question of 'motivation' to
> begin with. The 'outer quest' eventually leads to the 'internal quest'
> of self, whereupon, one begins to question BEing itself...one's own.
> Why, for example, do I write here; why did you write here? Why is it
> important that anyone 'rebell' against their illusions to withdraw from
> the theater into the 'light' outside? And where does this lead; where
> is the 'projector' for the world outside the theater...and don't be so
> naive that there isn't one [just because we reach upon our capacity to
> comprehend does not mean we have perfect understanding].
>
> A sober mind knows what it is after...power and control. It wants to
> be God...not simply live in faith. Apparently it did not like what the
> projectionist was showing.
Precisely. Desire (motivation) subsides, as subject and object merge.
This is a basic Buddhism.
>
> Knowledge is just one means to power [though effective]. With
> knowledge, you can create your own theaters for suckers who like to
> live under the illusions others have created for them. You can make a
> name for yourself; be glorified, listened to...you can become
> 'significant'. Once understanding the 'core object' of 'motivation',
> one can understand that 'state' is always a matter of mind, and not
> 'projections' on cave walls. Those projections are just 'illusions' no
> matter what cave we choose to exist within, and we forever challenged,
> not to look back and understand the projectionist, but to understand
> our selves. A world is a world is a world; perhaps all of them based
> upon 'illusions'. But you are 'real'.
I disagree with this notion of knowledge. Knowledge as I am defining
it could not be used to manipulate people or create ego gratification.
Transcendental knowledge can only create, unify and heal. It is
illuminating.
>
>>
>> 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.
--
~Stu
Stu
>>
>> 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
Albert Wagner
<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"
tg
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
Stu
> 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
cat rancher
[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 ...
Albert Wagner
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
cat rancher
"Albert Wagner" <albert...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mK4te.136240$sy6.102633@lakeread04...
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.
cat rancher
P.S. It would be no big deal if it turns out that I am a
lazy, pompous ass, in this area. If so then I have a great
potential to improve myself and my understanding.
tg
Preaching means preaching.
Practice means practice.
Teaching means listening, hearing, being.
Practice, practice, practice.
-tg
Albert Wagner
<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
Albert Wagner
<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.
tg
-tg
Ron Peterson
Sleepyhead wrote:
> 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?)
Yes, it is a philosophical exercise, and I suprised that this isn't
cross-posted to some irrelevant newsgroups. The purpose of the
categorization is of course to organize the knowledge we have and help
in its collection and verification.
> 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 think that it would help to restrict the classification of knowledge
to those things (statements) that can be expressed in a human language
(with the usual caveats) and hence communicable to others. I have
learned how to walk but I don't think that I can tell others how to do
so.
I think that the degree of certainty is the a good way to classify
statements. Mathematical and logical statements are those that can be
proved (fully certain). Scientific statements can be tested (sort of
disproved), but don't give us full certainty. Observational statements
can't be proved or disproved but may be valid within the certainty of
our senses (human or mechanical) and interpretation. Philosophical
statements along with definitions are conventions that we use to aid in
our interpretation of other statements and can only be evaluated on how
well we function with those assumptions.
--
Ron
Stu
But this is just a utilitarian notion of how to give facts credibility.
It has nothing to do with knowledge. This list would be better posted
on a newsgroup discussing journalistic integrity. It has nothing to do
with philosophy, which is the love of wisdom.
Facts do not move one closer to wisdom, but knowledge does.
--
~Stu
Albert Wagner
>
> Sleepyhead wrote:
>
>>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?)
>
>
> Yes, it is a philosophical exercise, and I suprised that this isn't
> cross-posted to some irrelevant newsgroups. The purpose of the
> categorization is of course to organize the knowledge we have and help
> in its collection and verification.
To what end?
>>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 think that it would help to restrict the classification of knowledge
> to those things (statements) that can be expressed in a human language
> (with the usual caveats) and hence communicable to others. I have
> learned how to walk but I don't think that I can tell others how to do
> so.
What knowledge can not be expressed in 'a human language'? (And
if it can not be expressed in 'a human language' how could you
possibly answer my question?)
> I think that the degree of certainty is the a good way to classify
> statements. Mathematical and logical statements are those that can be
> proved (fully certain).
Mathematics is only concerned with internal consistency based on
axioms only 'assumed' to be true, and therefore is the farthest
from reality and the *least* likely to be true.
> Scientific statements can be tested (sort of
> disproved), but don't give us full certainty.
I think it's time for you to share your private meaning of
'certainty.'
> Observational statements
> can't be proved or disproved but may be valid within the certainty of
> our senses (human or mechanical) and interpretation.
You might as well add 'proved' and 'disproved' to your list of
only vaguely defined words.
> Philosophical
> statements along with definitions are conventions that we use to aid in
> our interpretation of other statements and can only be evaluated on how
> well we function with those assumptions.
>
So, our functioning 'with those assumptions' has some utility in
defining knowledge?
This is the most disjointed and nonsensical statement here so far.
Albert Wagner
Knowledge of what, if not facts?
Ron Peterson
Stu wrote:
> On 2005-06-21 09:39:46 -0700, "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> said:
> > I think that the degree of certainty is the a good way to classify
> > statements. Mathematical and logical statements are those that can be
> > proved (fully certain). Scientific statements can be tested (sort of
> > disproved), but don't give us full certainty. Observational statements
> > can't be proved or disproved but may be valid within the certainty of
> > our senses (human or mechanical) and interpretation. Philosophical
> > statements along with definitions are conventions that we use to aid in
> > our interpretation of other statements and can only be evaluated on how
> > well we function with those assumptions.
> But this is just a utilitarian notion of how to give facts credibility.
I am just classifying statements (O.K. it's just an embellishment of
Kant.)
> It has nothing to do with knowledge.
Previously, Stu says:
> Knowledge comes from within. One understands it when
> one taps into to it. Knowledge radiates unity,
> structure, creativity.
These are overly vague statements that are difficult to understand. Are
you saying that knowledge is a state of mind? If so, how do you
describe that state of mind?
> This list would be better posted on a newsgroup
> discussing journalistic integrity.
That sounds like a fruitless endeavor.
> It has nothing to do with philosophy, which is the love of wisdom.
What do you mean by the words 'love' and 'wisdom'?
> Facts do not move one closer to wisdom, but knowledge does.
I have trouble following what you are talking about because you haven't
defined your terms.
--
Ron
Stu
>
>
> Stu wrote:
>> On 2005-06-21 09:39:46 -0700, "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> said:
>
>>> I think that the degree of certainty is the a good way to classify
>>> statements. Mathematical and logical statements are those that can be
>>> proved (fully certain). Scientific statements can be tested (sort of
>>> disproved), but don't give us full certainty. Observational statements
>>> can't be proved or disproved but may be valid within the certainty of
>>> our senses (human or mechanical) and interpretation. Philosophical
>>> statements along with definitions are conventions that we use to aid in
>>> our interpretation of other statements and can only be evaluated on how
>>> well we function with those assumptions.
>
>> But this is just a utilitarian notion of how to give facts credibility.
>
> I am just classifying statements (O.K. it's just an embellishment of
> Kant.)
>
>> It has nothing to do with knowledge.
>
> Previously, Stu says:
>> Knowledge comes from within. One understands it when
>> one taps into to it. Knowledge radiates unity,
>> structure, creativity.
>
> These are overly vague statements that are difficult to understand. Are
> you saying that knowledge is a state of mind? If so, how do you
> describe that state of mind?
Knowledge is not a state of mind. It is software or data. It is
independent of mind.
>
>> This list would be better posted on a newsgroup
>> discussing journalistic integrity.
>
> That sounds like a fruitless endeavor.
But facts are data cultivated from the world of senses. The world of
senses is transitory and illusionary. All data cultivated from it is
limited by this boundary. In other words all facts are subject to
verification and re verification.
Many facts will die with the human race.
>
>> It has nothing to do with philosophy, which is the love of wisdom.
>
> What do you mean by the words 'love' and 'wisdom'?
The same thing the Greeks did. You are posting on a philosophy
newsgroup. Philosophy literarily means the love of wisdom. Obviously
you are clueless about both these terms. That may be why you confuse
facts with knowledge.
Socrates tells us through Plato that the unexamined life is not worth
living. The philosopher's role is to rationally explore the world.
Not only the sensible world but also the intelligible world.
Facts are data from the sensible world. Knowledge is data from the
intelligible world.
Knowledge transcends the boundaries of empiricism.
>
>> Facts do not move one closer to wisdom, but knowledge does.
>
> I have trouble following what you are talking about because you haven't
> defined your terms.
I am sorry. Does the above help?
Suggested reading, Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Metaphysics.
--
~Stu
Stu
Facts are fleeting. By definition facts are harvested from a physical
world subject to constant change. We can step into the river twice.
Science has become perhaps the most reliable way for us to separate
facts from myths. Scientific method has afforded us a method to submit
data to great riggers. But because of the illusionary nature of the
sensory world this data will always be subject to change.
Interpretation and reinterpretation. With great precision we will
measure and classify the sensory world. Maybe we will learn the most
efficient use of resources. But in the end we will only be left with
facts.
Knowledge comes from within. It is the result of profound self
discovery. It too, is subject to verification by the community. The
quest for knowledge fulfills the deeper quest for the meaning of what
is a human. Without the quest for knowledge we are robots.
The unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates.
--
~Stu
Albert Wagner
"The sensory world" includes your internal world as well as the
external world. How is it that the 'illusionary nature' of one
is not present in the other, in that *both* are in the world.
> Interpretation and reinterpretation. With great precision we will
> measure and classify the sensory world. Maybe we will learn the most
> efficient use of resources. But in the end we will only be left with
> facts.
>
> Knowledge comes from within. It is the result of profound self
> discovery. It too, is subject to verification by the community. The
> quest for knowledge fulfills the deeper quest for the meaning of what is
> a human. Without the quest for knowledge we are robots.
You still haven't defined knowledge. "...comes from within...It
is the result of...is subject to verification...fulfills the
deeper quest for meaning, etc" None of this describes just what
knowledge *is* in your context.
Albert Wagner
<snip>
> Knowledge is not a state of mind. It is software or data. It is
> independent of mind.
How can knowledge be independent of the knower?
> But facts are data cultivated from the world of senses. The world of
> senses is transitory and illusionary.
So, how do you sense this internal knowledge? How do you *know*
that it is not transitory and illusionary?
<snip>
> You are posting on a philosophy
> newsgroup. Philosophy literarily means the love of wisdom. Obviously
> you are clueless about both these terms. That may be why you confuse
> facts with knowledge.
>
> Socrates tells us through Plato that the unexamined life is not worth
> living. The philosopher's role is to rationally explore the world. Not
> only the sensible world but also the intelligible world.
In what way is the 'sensible' world different from the
'intelligible' world'?
>
> Facts are data from the sensible world. Knowledge is data from the
> intelligible world.
Yes, you keep saying this, where from you believe each is
sourced, but you never describe the essential difference between
a fact and knowledge.
> Knowledge transcends the boundaries of empiricism.
How do you know that?
>>> Facts do not move one closer to wisdom, but knowledge does.
A totally nonsense statement with knowing what, if any,
difference there is between the two.
> Suggested reading, Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Metaphysics.
Is that the sum total of your reading in philosophy and science?
cat rancher
There are as many kinds of knowledge as you like ...
You can even define knowledge kinds differently
depending on your audience and the circumstances
of the day ...
"Stu" <Nos...@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2005062114232350073%Nospam@towelcom...
:
Stu
> Stu wrote:
> <snip>
>> Knowledge is not a state of mind. It is software or data. It is
>> independent of mind.
>
> How can knowledge be independent of the knower?
Then we will know Knowledge when subject and object have merged. This
suggests a different state of consciousness beyond waking, sleeping or
dreaming. Knowledge is not itself a state of mind.
>
>> But facts are data cultivated from the world of senses. The world of
>> senses is transitory and illusionary.
>
> So, how do you sense this internal knowledge? How do you *know* that
> it is not transitory and illusionary?
First, we have ridded ourselves of the distortions of senses.
Internally we are in a pre-sensory world. Then we need a technique
that allows the fluctuations of the mind to settle. If is fortunate
that Eastern philosophies have perfected such techniques and they are
accessible to westerners.
We are in a position to unite Western and Eastern philosophies.
As the mindstuff has settled, attention broadens, awareness opens. And
conter-intuitively we do not go into trance. In stead we find
ourselves in a state post rational. Subject and object merge.
Knowledge flows.
The Knowledge is non-dual awareness.
>
> <snip>
>> You are posting on a philosophy newsgroup. Philosophy literarily means
>> the love of wisdom. Obviously you are clueless about both these terms.
>> That may be why you confuse facts with knowledge.
>>
>> Socrates tells us through Plato that the unexamined life is not worth
>> living. The philosopher's role is to rationally explore the world.
>> Not only the sensible world but also the intelligible world.
>
> In what way is the 'sensible' world different from the 'intelligible' world'?
Sensible world is filled with physical objects. Subject to laws of physics.
The intelligible world is linguistic, symbolic, rational.
These are very distinctly different "spaces".
>>
>> Facts are data from the sensible world. Knowledge is data from the
>> intelligible world.
>
> Yes, you keep saying this, where from you believe each is sourced, but
> you never describe the essential difference between a fact and
> knowledge.
Knowledge is post rational. It is the data gleamed from the
pre-sensory experience of transcendental reality. It is the basis for
religions. The object of spiritual quests. It is what makes humans
human.
>
>> Knowledge transcends the boundaries of empiricism.
>
> How do you know that?
Because knowledge transcends empiricism. I can go by my experiences,
or it is possible to read similar stories from many who have taken the
path of the perennial philosophies. It is not mystical. It is
acquired through many different means.
>
>>>> Facts do not move one closer to wisdom, but knowledge does.
>
> A totally nonsense statement with knowing what, if any, difference
> there is between the two.
>
>> Suggested reading, Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Metaphysics.
>
> Is that the sum total of your reading in philosophy and science?
No. You were just looking for definitions. One of the books in
Metaphysics is just definitions. I don't see why I would need to
transcribe them for you.
I am pretty well read in both Western and Eastern philosophies. I have
been practicing meditation daily for over 30 years. And I see a place
were both Eastern and Western philosophies come together. Western
philosophy stops short an Kant's noumenona. The regressive magical
dualism of the Church was inadequate to fully explain a post rational
reality. The 18th century philosophers chase pre-rational magical
forms of monotheism. The 19th and 20th centuries saw philosophers
giving up all together on spiritual man. What is left is the eye of
intellect and the eye of the flesh. Scientism prevails. Any attempt
to discuss the possible eye of contemplation would be dismissed.
William James made his name ignoring this important component of
humanity.
Before Camus died in a car crash he had travel plans to visit India.
We have seen societies now prosper and perish based on scientism. Even
in societies that have outlawed religion, people still have a desire to
search out the spiritual. Underground religions prosper.
I am suggesting that it is possible to reconcile scientism and
spirituality. This does not mean that both are going to have to live
together. It means that through science we can go one more step into a
domain of expanded consciousness. This does not mean shucking
rationality. It means expanding the field of rationality towards the
Eye of contemplation.
--
~Stu
Stu
<goodidea19...@hotmail.com> said:
> There are as many kinds of knowledge as you like ...
> You can even define knowledge kinds differently
> depending on your audience and the circumstances
> of the day ...
I suppose so. But why not call the kind of knowledge gleamed from
reading a menu a form of fact? This is alt.philosophy after all. The
Ancient Greeks set the standard.
--
~Stu
Ron Peterson
Stu wrote:
> On 2005-06-21 13:42:00 -0700, "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> said:
> > I am just classifying statements (O.K. it's just an embellishment of
> > Kant.)
> > These are overly vague statements that are difficult to understand. Are
> > you saying that knowledge is a state of mind? If so, how do you
> > describe that state of mind?
> Knowledge is not a state of mind. It is software or data. It is
> independent of mind.
You are evading my question. Can knowledge be communicated between two
people? If so, how?
> > What do you mean by the words 'love' and 'wisdom'?
> The same thing the Greeks did.
The Greeks have said many things. Can you be more specific and define
the words?
> You are posting on a philosophy
> newsgroup. Philosophy literarily means the love of wisdom. Obviously
> you are clueless about both these terms. That may be why you confuse
> facts with knowledge.
I was hoping that you would define the terms clearly.
> Facts are data from the sensible world. Knowledge is data from the
> intelligible world.
That's a little progess, but then what is the meaning of the terms
sensible world and intelligible world? Can data be represented as
sentences?
> > I have trouble following what you are talking about because you haven't
> > defined your terms.
> I am sorry. Does the above help?
People need to have a common language to communicate and good
definitions help form that common language. Now you may have arrived at
some great insights from years of meditating, but how do you propose to
communicate those insights?
--
Ron
cat rancher
: On 2005-06-21 18:16:07 -0700, "cat rancher"
Sorry Stu, I don't get what you mean by 'a form of fact'. I empathize
with your trying to make a list of the kinds of knowledge. I'm making
my own list, a list of words that supposedly refer to absolutes that
really don't exist and are a waste of time to think about:
infinity
perfection
everything
nothing
first cause
I'll try to add to your list if you try to add to mine:
1. the realization of knowledge
2. conscience
3. experience
4. expertise
5. encyclopedia
6. pedantic
7. specialized
8. omniscience
Publius
news:2005062121031216807%Nospam@towelcom:
> Knowledge is post rational. It is the data gleamed from the
> pre-sensory experience of transcendental reality. It is the basis for
> religions. The object of spiritual quests. It is what makes humans
> human.
Well, Stu, you are using "knowledge" in an idiosyncratic and therefore
uncommunicative way. Knowledge is communicable information describing the
state of a system, or which can be used to change the state of a system.
You're not entitled to claim knowledge of "transcendental reality" unless
you possess some information about that reality you can communicate to
others, and which you and they can use to change that reality.
Now, meditation and other mystical techniques, like various drugs, may
allow you to change the state of your own perceptual apparatus. But I
suspect you would be hard pressed to show any effects those changes can
have on any reality outside your skull, or even that they had anything to
do with reality at all (beyond the reality of your psychic state).
Of course you're welcome to alter the state of your psyche in any manner
that suits you. But the "reality" you experience by doing so is not the
reality to which most people refer when using that term, or with which
science tries to deal.
Albert Wagner
> On 2005-06-21 16:17:26 -0700, Albert Wagner <albert...@cox.net> said:
>
>> Stu wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Knowledge is not a state of mind. It is software or data. It is
>>> independent of mind.
>>
>>
>> How can knowledge be independent of the knower?
>
> Then we will know Knowledge when subject and object have merged. This
> suggests a different state of consciousness beyond waking, sleeping or
> dreaming. Knowledge is not itself a state of mind.
Stu, you are saying nothing meaningful, i.e. you are answering
questions never asked using words with private meanings that are
not shared by your listeners. Most often you reply to questions
with the very statements that have been questioned, as if you
believe that simple repetition of unclear statements will
eventually make them clear.
>>> But facts are data cultivated from the world of senses. The world of
>>> senses is transitory and illusionary.
>>
>> So, how do you sense this internal knowledge? How do you *know* that
>> it is not transitory and illusionary?
>
> First, we have ridded ourselves of the distortions of senses.
How is that possible in that all you can know has been filtered
through your senses?
> Internally we are in a pre-sensory world.
What is a 'pre-sensory' world? You are using too many hidden
assumptions. You are using a model of mind that does not fit the
current findings of cognitive science.
> Then we need a technique that
> allows the fluctuations of the mind to settle. If is fortunate that
> Eastern philosophies have perfected such techniques and they are
> accessible to westerners.
Again, you are attempting to answer a question that was never
asked. Please re-read my questions, and note that your replies
do not address them at all.
> We are in a position to unite Western and Eastern philosophies.
>
> As the mindstuff has settled, attention broadens, awareness opens.
What is 'mindstuff'? What does it mean to 'settle'?
> And
> conter-intuitively we do not go into trance. In stead we find ourselves
> in a state post rational. Subject and object merge. Knowledge flows.
'Post rational' is as meaningless as 'pre-sensory' without some
explanation of the model of the mind that you are obviously
referencing. What is 'subject'? What is 'object'? What does it
mean for these to 'merge'? What does it mean for 'knowledge' to
'flow'? What sort of 'knowledge' is this that simply 'flows'?
> The Knowledge is non-dual awareness.
What is 'non-dual awareness'? What model of the mind are you
referencing wherein 'knowledge is *non-dual* awareness'?
>> <snip>
>>
>>> You are posting on a philosophy newsgroup. Philosophy literarily
>>> means the love of wisdom. Obviously you are clueless about both
>>> these terms. That may be why you confuse facts with knowledge.
>>>
>>> Socrates tells us through Plato that the unexamined life is not worth
>>> living. The philosopher's role is to rationally explore the world.
>>> Not only the sensible world but also the intelligible world.
>>
>> In what way is the 'sensible' world different from the 'intelligible'
>> world'?
>
> Sensible world is filled with physical objects. Subject to laws of
> physics.
Like your brain?
> The intelligible world is linguistic, symbolic, rational.
Like in your brain?
> These are very distinctly different "spaces".
Yes, one requires a brain to exist and one doesn't.
>>> Facts are data from the sensible world.
So then, facts are gathered by our senses and stored as knowledge?
> Knowledge is data from the
>>> intelligible world.
So then, knowledge is facts gathered by our senses and stored in
our brains?
>> Yes, you keep saying this, where from you believe each is sourced, but
>> you never describe the essential difference between a fact and knowledge.
>
> Knowledge is post rational. It is the data gleamed from the pre-sensory
> experience of transcendental reality.
What is 'transcendental reality'? What is being transcended?
> It is the basis for religions.
Not mine.
> The object of spiritual quests.
Not mine.
> It is what makes humans human.
I don't think so.
>>> Knowledge transcends the boundaries of empiricism.
>>
>> How do you know that?
>
> Because knowledge transcends empiricism.
As I pointed out above, you keep repeating a questioned statement
as it's own reply. Surely, you see the absurdity of
self-referential statements such as "Knowledge transcends the
boundaries of empiricism because knowledge transcends empiricism".
> I can go by my experiences, or
> it is possible to read similar stories from many who have taken the path
> of the perennial philosophies. It is not mystical. It is acquired
> through many different means.
>
>>>>> Facts do not move one closer to wisdom, but knowledge does.
>>
>> A totally nonsense statement with knowing what, if any, difference
>> there is between the two.
>>
>>> Suggested reading, Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Metaphysics.
Usually, when some replies to a simple question with "suggested
reading..." it means that they don't know the answer.
>> Is that the sum total of your reading in philosophy and science?
>
>
> No. You were just looking for definitions.
Only as a first step to understanding your model of mind.
> One of the books in
> Metaphysics is just definitions. I don't see why I would need to
> transcribe them for you.
I am not asking for a transcription.
> I am pretty well read in both Western and Eastern philosophies. I have
> been practicing meditation daily for over 30 years. And I see a place
> were both Eastern and Western philosophies come together. Western
> philosophy stops short an Kant's noumenona.
I think you are confusing philosophy with religion and with
cognitive science.
> The regressive magical
> dualism of the Church was inadequate to fully explain a post rational
> reality.
I have no idea what 'post rational' reality means.
> The 18th century philosophers chase pre-rational magical forms
> of monotheism. The 19th and 20th centuries saw philosophers giving up
> all together on spiritual man. What is left is the eye of intellect and
> the eye of the flesh. Scientism prevails. Any attempt to discuss the
> possible eye of contemplation would be dismissed. William James made
> his name ignoring this important component of humanity.
Have you read _The Varieties of Religious Experience_ by James?
If you had, then you would recognize your 'philosophy' as a
common psychological experience.
> Before Camus died in a car crash he had travel plans to visit India.
>
> We have seen societies now prosper and perish based on scientism. Even
> in societies that have outlawed religion, people still have a desire to
> search out the spiritual. Underground religions prosper.
>
> I am suggesting that it is possible to reconcile scientism and
> spirituality. This does not mean that both are going to have to live
> together. It means that through science we can go one more step into a
> domain of expanded consciousness. This does not mean shucking
> rationality. It means expanding the field of rationality towards the
> Eye of contemplation.
Whatever that means...
Stu
> Stu <Nos...@towel.com> wrote in
> news:2005062121031216807%Nospam@towelcom:
>> Knowledge is post rational. It is the data gleamed from the
>> pre-sensory experience of transcendental reality. It is the basis for
>> religions. The object of spiritual quests. It is what makes humans human.
>
> Well, Stu, you are using "knowledge" in an idiosyncratic and therefore
> uncommunicative way. Knowledge is communicable information describing
> the state of a system, or which can be used to change the state of a
> system.
Then what are "facts"? Sartre discussed the facticity of the world.
Facts represent the physical data we accumulate. Facts are subject to
our assigning credibility to them. Now it may be that "knowledge" has
become an colloquial synonym as fact. But...
"Knowledge" has a philosophical history as a word.
> You're not entitled to claim knowledge of "transcendental reality"
> unless you possess some information about that reality you can
> communicate to others, and which you and they can use to change that
> reality.
But we and they do. For example, I came to meditation 30 years ago as
a way to deal with insomnia. After 6 months the insomnia went away.
The after a while I had no more nail biting. And then I found I could
do very well in school with little effort. And later when I began work
I noticed that I have a much longer attention span then those around
me. Nothing phases me. I have no neurotic symptoms.
And then after about 15 years of meditation I started to see that this
was the result of Knowledge. And this Knowledge is verifiable because
I communicate with other meditators and they report the same stories.
Furthermore I find there is a corpus of literature (mostly from the far
East) of other meditators who report the same things. And low and
behold, there are entire religions, vast communities that talk about
this Knowledge.
Then I go back to reread and reexamine Western philosophy. And I find
that from Plato on there is an ontology that points to Knowledge as of
something - but they all fall short of really being able to describe it
- Plato's forms, Aristotle's first principals, Plotinus' The One,
Kant's Noumenologic and the like.
So I am not one to throw out 2300 years of philosophy. And I like
science. So there must be a way to put these two things together.
>
> Now, meditation and other mystical techniques, like various drugs, may
> allow you to change the state of your own perceptual apparatus. But I
> suspect you would be hard pressed to show any effects those changes can
> have on any reality outside your skull, or even that they had anything
> to do with reality at all (beyond the reality of your psychic state).
Meditation alters the body and brain physiologically. Research has
demonstrated meditation to increase respiratory and pulmonary health
and longevity. In addition it increases focus and mental acuity. Take
a look at Pubmed.org. There are now thousands of well documented
studies demonstrating the positive benefits of meditation.
These changes are real effects. They can be physically demonstrated.
>
> Of course you're welcome to alter the state of your psyche in any
> manner that suits you. But the "reality" you experience by doing so is
> not the reality to which most people refer when using that term, or
> with which science tries to deal.
You are correct of course. Science is limited to experimentation at
only the most base fleshy level of physical reality. The resulting
physical data then needs to be processed at a symbolic level of reality
before it has any benefits. Science is not just about physical data,
it requires validation and review, both of which happen on a plane of
rationality. A plane of reality that can not be touched. It is
pre-sensory. It is a major part of the scientific method. Sure you
can write a formula on a computer. But the meaning of formula itself
is not contained on the computer. That requires a psychic manipulation
of symbols.
The fallacy of Science is that somehow it was a methodology greater
than that of the scholastics. But remember scholasticism was rational
as well. Science depends on the same rationality as a mode.
--
~Stu
Stu
>
>
> Stu wrote:
>> On 2005-06-21 13:42:00 -0700, "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> said:
>
>>> I am just classifying statements (O.K. it's just an embellishment of
>>> Kant.)
>
>>> These are overly vague statements that are difficult to understand. Are
>>> you saying that knowledge is a state of mind? If so, how do you
>>> describe that state of mind?
>
>> Knowledge is not a state of mind. It is software or data. It is
>> independent of mind.
>
> You are evading my question. Can knowledge be communicated between two
> people? If so, how?
Yes. One person shows the other person how to gain knowledge. That
has been the standard for years. In some cultures like Japan it has
been institutionalized. Its more difficult in our culture were there
is little value placed on real Knowledge.
Intellectual discourse can yield knowledge as well. But I understand
that method can be tedious.
Helping others and being showing altruism can bring Knowledge.
In India there is a style of getting knowledge that apparently comes
from being in proximity to a Guru. But that may be superstition,
though I have talked with many people who have reported this first hand.
>
>>> What do you mean by the words 'love' and 'wisdom'?
>
>> The same thing the Greeks did.
>
> The Greeks have said many things. Can you be more specific and define
> the words?
Love is really really liking something with your heart.
Wisdom is the result of Knowledge gained.
>
>> You are posting on a philosophy
>> newsgroup. Philosophy literarily means the love of wisdom. Obviously
>> you are clueless about both these terms. That may be why you confuse
>> facts with knowledge.
>
> I was hoping that you would define the terms clearly.
I will try.
>
>> Facts are data from the sensible world. Knowledge is data from the
>> intelligible world.
>
> That's a little progess, but then what is the meaning of the terms
> sensible world and intelligible world? Can data be represented as
> sentences?
Thats standard Philosophy 101. The sensible world is the world we take
in through the senses. Buildings, Trees, birds.
The intelligible world is the world we "see" through the intellect.
Concepts, symbols, meaning, formulae.
Add to this the Contemplative World. The world we "see" when we allow
all else to settle. Non-dual reality.
These are the "three eyes" of St Bonaventura. Again standard Philosophy 101.
>
>>> I have trouble following what you are talking about because you haven't
>>> defined your terms.
>
>> I am sorry. Does the above help?
>
> People need to have a common language to communicate and good
> definitions help form that common language. Now you may have arrived at
> some great insights from years of meditating, but how do you propose to
> communicate those insights?
Or I may just be bad at communication. I am trying.
--
~Stu
Stu
> Stu wrote:
>> On 2005-06-21 16:17:26 -0700, Albert Wagner <albert...@cox.net> said:
>>
>>> Stu wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Knowledge is not a state of mind. It is software or data. It is
>>>> independent of mind.
>>>
>>>
>>> How can knowledge be independent of the knower?
>>
>> Then we will know Knowledge when subject and object have merged. This
>> suggests a different state of consciousness beyond waking, sleeping or
>> dreaming. Knowledge is not itself a state of mind.
>
> Stu, you are saying nothing meaningful, i.e. you are answering
> questions never asked using words with private meanings that are not
> shared by your listeners. Most often you reply to questions with the
> very statements that have been questioned, as if you believe that
> simple repetition of unclear statements will eventually make them clear.
I am sorry. There are those on this group who seem to get it. I am
not using private meanings. Though I do admit that it helps to
understand what I am saying if you have read:
Plato
Aristotle
Plotinus
St Bonaventura
Augistin
Thomas Aquinas
Kant
Hegal
Nietzche
Heiddeger (Just Being and Time)
And my personal favs Sartre and Husserl.
You may want to take a gander at "Being and Nothingness" the section on
facticity.
All these terms come from these thinkers.
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have a bit of understanding of the
Advaita. There are many sources for that. But I shy away from that
terminology.
>
>>>> But facts are data cultivated from the world of senses. The world of
>>>> senses is transitory and illusionary.
>>>
>>> So, how do you sense this internal knowledge? How do you *know* that
>>> it is not transitory and illusionary?
>>
>> First, we have ridded ourselves of the distortions of senses.
>
> How is that possible in that all you can know has been filtered through
> your senses?
The facts I garner from the exterior physical world come through the
senses. But how about the intuitive symbolic data that we process
pre-sensory?
"Gedankenexperiment" is a wonderful German word which means "thought
experiment". The word refers to any experiment that you can perform
just by thinking--also known as "introspection." For example, if you
are wondering how many syllables are in the phrase "Orwellian" you can
think about it and find the answer. It is actually possible to achieve
interesting results in the fields of linguistics with
Gedankenexperiments, because every language speaker has access to
intuitions and rules about language.
http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Gedankenexperiment_(Jeremy_Bornstein)
There
is a great deal of facts we process that may have some of their origins
in the sensory world, but they become independent concepts in the mind.
Through the faculty of Expression/Language we can express meanings
that are clearly not components of physical reality.
Symbols/words/concepts may inhabit the physical world as sounds or
chalkmarks their meanings are not intrinsic to their physical
appearance.
The intelligible (in the platonic sense) world is not filtered by perception.
>
>> Internally we are in a pre-sensory world.
>
> What is a 'pre-sensory' world? You are using too many hidden
> assumptions. You are using a model of mind that does not fit the
> current findings of cognitive science.
Sure does. In fact it is a important component of cognitive psychology.
BF Skinner is old hat. Behaviorism did not work.
>
>> Then we need a technique that allows the fluctuations of the mind to
>> settle. If is fortunate that Eastern philosophies have perfected such
>> techniques and they are accessible to westerners.
>
> Again, you are attempting to answer a question that was never asked.
> Please re-read my questions, and note that your replies do not address
> them at all.
I am trying.
>
>> We are in a position to unite Western and Eastern philosophies.
>>
>> As the mindstuff has settled, attention broadens, awareness opens.
>
> What is 'mindstuff'? What does it mean to 'settle'?
Sorry, this is a translation of a Sanskrit word "Citta". Sometimes it
is translated as Consciousness.
To Settle. To relax. Our minds are in a constant stream of thought.
The nature of the mind is to think. Thinking happens spontaneously.
This constant thought is fragmented. Awareness flits from one object
to another. Fragmentation is a feature of a pathology in the mind.
Some people are more prone to this than others.
To settle the mind. Is to allow thought to subside. To allow focus to
rest in one place.
I am sure you have experienced this effect to a degree listening to
really good music, or relaxing on a day off.
It is possible to deepen that relaxation response to the point were all
thought stops.
>
>> And conter-intuitively we do not go into trance. In stead we find
>> ourselves in a state post rational. Subject and object merge.
>> Knowledge flows.
>
> 'Post rational' is as meaningless as 'pre-sensory' without some
> explanation of the model of the mind that you are obviously referencing.
I am sorry I am assuming some background in either Piaget's research on
child development, Freud's concept of a mature ego, Arieti's language
and conceptual levels, Loevinger's conscientious and individualistic
stages, Sullivan's syntax mode, or Maslow's belongingness and
self-seteem needs.
These are basic reading in human developmental psychology. Prolly
beyond the scope of alt.philosophy.
> What is 'subject'? What is 'object'?
You are the "subject" and what you are seeing, smelling, tasting or
feeling is the "object". Again Philosophy 101
> What does it mean for these to 'merge'?
Subject and Object merge. It is the subject of the Bible. It is what
J. talks about when he says he is the father. It is a goal in
Buddhism. It is the main topic of all the romantic author's like
William Blake. It is the reason that even though Communist countries
try to suppress religion, people still have religious experiences and
find themselves driven underground to verify their experiences.
It is the effect you have when you really get into something, like
music or theatre, when you are completely "lost" in it. However their
is a big different from this gross experience and when the object you
are merging with is the self.
> What does it mean for 'knowledge' to 'flow'? What sort of
> 'knowledge' is this that simply 'flows'?
>
>> The Knowledge is non-dual awareness.
>
> What is 'non-dual awareness'? What model of the mind are you
> referencing wherein 'knowledge is *non-dual* awareness'?
See above.
>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> You are posting on a philosophy newsgroup. Philosophy literarily means
>>>> the love of wisdom. Obviously you are clueless about both these terms.
>>>> That may be why you confuse facts with knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> Socrates tells us through Plato that the unexamined life is not worth
>>>> living. The philosopher's role is to rationally explore the world.
>>>> Not only the sensible world but also the intelligible world.
>>>
>>> In what way is the 'sensible' world different from the 'intelligible' world'?
>>
>> Sensible world is filled with physical objects. Subject to laws of physics.
>
> Like your brain?
The brain is not filled with physical objects. We know little about
the mechanics of consciousness. We do know that it relies on
electrical interactions that happen on a quantum level.
At best that makes the brain a "quantum computer". At worst it is a
binary computer. We are far from understanding what limits the brain
has on thought.
>
>> The intelligible world is linguistic, symbolic, rational.
>
> Like in your brain?
The brain is a mass of cells. Language, symbols, rationality do not
reside in cells.
>
>> These are very distinctly different "spaces".
>
> Yes, one requires a brain to exist and one doesn't.
>
>>>> Facts are data from the sensible world.
>
> So then, facts are gathered by our senses and stored as knowledge?
Colloquially you can refer to memory data as knowledge. But that would
be something you do on alt.colloquial.dialogue. I assume on
alt.philosophy we stick to tried and true philosophical jargon. It
makes for precise common communication.
>
>> Knowledge is data from the
>>>> intelligible world.
>
> So then, knowledge is facts gathered by our senses and stored in our brains?
No those are facts. Knowledge is garnered from the intelligible world,
it is then stored.
However it is even questionable if data storage is limited to our
brains. The CNS is a big place and there is now evidence that some
information storage may happen throughout the body.
Recent research has even showed that there is a neural network that
only is occupied with digestion. Apparently 80% of the bodies
neurotransmitters are produced there.
Again if the Physicists are right, and the CNS is operating at a
subatomic level - we may be dealing with Data in an extremely complex
way.
>
>>> Yes, you keep saying this, where from you believe each is sourced, but
>>> you never describe the essential difference between a fact and
>>> knowledge.
>>
>> Knowledge is post rational. It is the data gleamed from the
>> pre-sensory experience of transcendental reality.
>
> What is 'transcendental reality'? What is being transcended?
The intelligible and the sensory.
>
>> It is the basis for religions.
>
> Not mine.
Fine. That means you are of none of the monotheistic religions,
polytheism is out of the question, and the non-theistic religion of
Buddhism is not it.
Can't be pantheism.
What religion believes that everything can be explained by physical change?
Oh yea, scientism.
Wasn't that discredited with the end of the Soviet experiment?
>
>> The object of spiritual quests.
>
> Not mine.
>
>> It is what makes humans human.
>
> I don't think so.
What makes us human?
>
>>>> Knowledge transcends the boundaries of empiricism.
>>>
>>> How do you know that?
>>
>> Because knowledge transcends empiricism.
>
> As I pointed out above, you keep repeating a questioned statement as
> it's own reply. Surely, you see the absurdity of self-referential
> statements such as "Knowledge transcends the boundaries of empiricism
> because knowledge transcends empiricism".
You right. I was not being cogent there.
>
>> I can go by my experiences, or it is possible to read similar stories
>> from many who have taken the path of the perennial philosophies. It is
>> not mystical. It is acquired through many different means.
>>
>>>>>> Facts do not move one closer to wisdom, but knowledge does.
>>>
>>> A totally nonsense statement with knowing what, if any, difference
>>> there is between the two.
>>>
>>>> Suggested reading, Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Metaphysics.
>
> Usually, when some replies to a simple question with "suggested
> reading..." it means that they don't know the answer.
In this case I mean it. These are basic Philosophy 101 texts. If you
want on the next go around, if I have time, I will copy and paste the
appropriate quotes for you. They are both available on line at the MIT
site.
I really suggest you give them a read. Particularly Aristotle's
Metaphysics. One of the books has a whole chapter (they are called
books) that is nothing but definitions. Another chapter has a terrific
discussion on the conflict between the atomists who believe all reality
can be explained physically and his school who understand that their is
more to the world than substances.
>
>>> Is that the sum total of your reading in philosophy and science?
>>
>>
>> No. You were just looking for definitions.
>
> Only as a first step to understanding your model of mind.
>
>> One of the books in Metaphysics is just definitions. I don't see why I
>> would need to transcribe them for you.
>
> I am not asking for a transcription.
>
>> I am pretty well read in both Western and Eastern philosophies. I have
>> been practicing meditation daily for over 30 years. And I see a place
>> were both Eastern and Western philosophies come together. Western
>> philosophy stops short an Kant's noumenona.
>
> I think you are confusing philosophy with religion and with cognitive science.
Please don't put me in with Smitty. I do not confuse philosophy with
religion. Though I do admit that much of philosophy has morphed into
psychology in recent years.
Please note that in all my post there is a clear distinction between
Mythos and Logos.
>
>> The regressive magical dualism of the Church was inadequate to fully
>> explain a post rational reality.
>
> I have no idea what 'post rational' reality means.
Again, I am using standard models of developmental science. Think Piaget.
But then again I studied him when I was at the Sorbonne.
>
>> The 18th century philosophers chase pre-rational magical forms of
>> monotheism. The 19th and 20th centuries saw philosophers giving up all
>> together on spiritual man. What is left is the eye of intellect and
>> the eye of the flesh. Scientism prevails. Any attempt to discuss the
>> possible eye of contemplation would be dismissed. William James made
>> his name ignoring this important component of humanity.
>
> Have you read _The Varieties of Religious Experience_ by James? If you
> had, then you would recognize your 'philosophy' as a common
> psychological experience.
No. But thank you, It is available on-line. I will give it a shot.
I like James, he uses much common sense like Aristotle. I don't agree
with him.
Though right now I am reading Neal Stephanson's Baroque Cycle. Really
great if your interested in the Age of Reason. The religious nuts were
putting people to death for toying with empiricism.
>
>> Before Camus died in a car crash he had travel plans to visit India.
>>
>> We have seen societies now prosper and perish based on scientism. Even
>> in societies that have outlawed religion, people still have a desire to
>> search out the spiritual. Underground religions prosper.
>>
>> I am suggesting that it is possible to reconcile scientism and
>> spirituality. This does not mean that both are going to have to live
>> together. It means that through science we can go one more step into a
>> domain of expanded consciousness. This does not mean shucking
>> rationality. It means expanding the field of rationality towards the
>> Eye of contemplation.
>
> Whatever that means...
It means that there is a project out there. In the Greek Temples one
finds the inscription, "Know thyself". Evidently I am not the first
one with that project.
--
~Stu
Publius
>> Well, Stu, you are using "knowledge" in an idiosyncratic and
>> therefore uncommunicative way. Knowledge is communicable information
>> describing the state of a system, or which can be used to change the
>> state of a system.
> Then what are "facts"? Sartre discussed the facticity of the world.
> Facts represent the physical data we accumulate. Facts are subject to
> our assigning credibility to them. Now it may be that "knowledge" has
> become an colloquial synonym as fact. But...
A fact is that which is asserted by a true proposition. E.g., "Snow is
white" asserts that snow is white. Facts are not limited to the empirical
(physical) realm. "Two plus two equals four" asserts the fact that 2+2=4.
"In chess, the bishop may move any number of spaces diagonally" asserts
the fact that in chess the bishop may move any number of spaces
diagonally.
Any well-ordered realm of concepts supplies truth conditions for
propositions predicating properties of entities inhabiting that realm.
Propositions which satisfy those conditions assert facts about that
realm.
>> You're not entitled to claim knowledge of "transcendental reality"
>> unless you possess some information about that reality you can
>> communicate to others, and which you and they can use to change that
>> reality.
>
> But we and they do. For example, I came to meditation 30 years ago as
> a way to deal with insomnia. After 6 months the insomnia went away.
> The after a while I had no more nail biting. And then I found I could
> do very well in school with little effort. And later when I began
> work I noticed that I have a much longer attention span then those
> around me. Nothing phases me. I have no neurotic symptoms.
>
> And then after about 15 years of meditation I started to see that this
> was the result of Knowledge. And this Knowledge is verifiable because
> I communicate with other meditators and they report the same stories.
> Furthermore I find there is a corpus of literature (mostly from the
> far East) of other meditators who report the same things. And low and
> behold, there are entire religions, vast communities that talk about
> this Knowledge.
That may well all be true. But all you have described above is a
technique for altering some of your own mental or emotional or
neurological states. And if you were to describe it as "knowledge of how
one may relieve anxiety" or "knowledge of how one may cure insomnia" your
claims would be plausible (though one might still wonder whether
meditation was the most effective or efficient means of dealing with
those problems). Where it loses plausibility is when you construe it to
deliver information beyond your own internal state, or that might allow
you to change anything beyond that state. Learning a relaxation technique
is a far cry from acquiring "transcendental knowledge."
> Then I go back to reread and reexamine Western philosophy. And I find
> that from Plato on there is an ontology that points to Knowledge as of
> something - but they all fall short of really being able to describe
> it - Plato's forms, Aristotle's first principals, Plotinus' The One,
> Kant's Noumenologic and the like.
There are good reasons for postulating a realm of the unknowable, and for
supposing that it must exist despite the fact that nothing about it can
be known. But those same reasons also explain why it cannot be known, via
meditation or Buddhist Enlightenment or by revelation any more than it
can be known through science.
> Meditation alters the body and brain physiologically. Research has
> demonstrated meditation to increase respiratory and pulmonary health
> and longevity. In addition it increases focus and mental acuity.
> Take a look at Pubmed.org. There are now thousands of well documented
> studies demonstrating the positive benefits of meditation.
I have no arguments with those affects. What goes on in our heads can
certainly affect the states of our bodies. We both verify that every time
we strike a key on our keyboards to send these posts.
> Science is not just about
> physical data, it requires validation and review, both of which happen
> on a plane of rationality. A plane of reality that can not be
> touched. It is pre-sensory. It is a major part of the scientific
> method. Sure you can write a formula on a computer. But the meaning
> of formula itself is not contained on the computer. That requires a
> psychic manipulation of symbols.
The conceptual realm is not presensory (or at least it can't be shown to
be so). The conceptual and sensible realms instead appear to be
interdefined; the two evolve together, and cannot be separated. What we
sense determines what we think, but how we think informs what we see.
> The fallacy of Science is that somehow it was a methodology greater
> than that of the scholastics. But remember scholasticism was rational
> as well. Science depends on the same rationality as a mode.
I'm wondering how you measure methodologies. Is a methodology that can
eradicate smallpox and deliver hi-rez images from Mars not greater than
one than cannot? Or do you think Scholasticism yielded some dividends of
its own I'm overlooking?
Albert Wagner
> Albert Wagner wrote:
<snip>
>> Most often you reply to questions with the
>> very statements that have been questioned, as if you believe that
>> simple repetition of unclear statements will eventually make them clear.
>
> I am sorry. There are those on this group who seem to get it. I am not
> using private meanings. Though I do admit that it helps to understand
> what I am saying if you have read:
> Plato...
> All these terms come from these thinkers.
I am not referring to 'terms' that are well known. I am
referring to circular logic whereby 'A' is true because 'A' is true.
<snip>
>> ...all you can know has been filtered
>> through your senses?
>
> The facts I garner from the exterior physical world come through the
> senses. But how about the intuitive symbolic data that we process
> pre-sensory?
>
> "Gedankenexperiment" is a wonderful German word which means "thought
> experiment". The word refers to any experiment that you can perform just
> by thinking--also known as "introspection." For example, if you are
> wondering how many syllables are in the phrase "Orwellian" you can think
> about it and find the answer. It is actually possible to achieve
> interesting results in the fields of linguistics with
> Gedankenexperiments, because every language speaker has access to
> intuitions and rules about language.
Intuition is a word that has no clear meaning. It is can be said
to be based on the Dormitive Principle:
http://www.oikos.org/m&nmultiple.htm
"...borrowing the word dormitive from Molière. There is a coda in
dog Latin to Molière’s Le Malade Imaginaire, and in this coda, we
see on the stage a medieval oral doctoral examination. The
examiners ask the candidate why opium puts people to sleep. The
candidate triumphantly answers, "Because, learned doctors, it
contains a dormitive principle."
"We can imagine the candidate spending the rest of his life
fractionating opium in a biochemistry lab and successively
identifying in which fraction the so-called dormitive principle
remained.
"A better answer to the doctors’ question would involve, not the
opium alone, but a relationship between the opium and the people.
In other words, the dormitive explanation actually falsifies the
true facts of the case but what is, I believe, important is that
dormitive explanations still permit abduction. Having enunciated
a generality that opium contains a dormitive principle, it is
then possible to use this type of phrasing for a very large
number of other phenomena. We can say, for example, that
adrenalin contains an enlivening principle and reserpine a
tranquilizing principle. This will give us, albeit inaccurately
and epistemologically unacceptably, handles with which to grab at
a very large number of phenomena that appear to be formally
comparable. And, indeed, they are formally comparable to this
extent, that invoking a principle inside one component is in fact
the error that is made in every one of these cases."
> There
> is a great deal of facts we process that may have some of their origins
> in the sensory world, but they become independent concepts in the mind.
> Through the faculty of Expression/Language we can express meanings that
> are clearly not components of physical reality. Symbols/words/concepts
> may inhabit the physical world as sounds or chalkmarks their meanings
> are not intrinsic to their physical appearance.
> The intelligible (in the platonic sense) world is not filtered by
> perception.
I assume that by 'intelligible world' you are referring to the
virtual map of the world that we build in our mind based on
sensory input from the phenomenal world outside. Yes, we often
take those internal images, abstractions, and manipulate them,
creating new abstractions. Also, much of that manipulation and
creation takes place in the cognitive unconscious. It is then,
when pseudo-religious philosophers like yourself take such
creations of their own mind to be some transcendent truth, that
we get into trouble.
>>> Internally we are in a pre-sensory world.
>>
>> What is a 'pre-sensory' world? You are using too many hidden
>> assumptions. You are using a model of mind that does not fit the
>> current findings of cognitive science.
>
> Sure does. In fact it is a important component of cognitive psychology.
Please cite some work of 'cognitive psychology' that defines and
relies on the term 'pre-sensory'. To my mind a 'pre-sensory'
phenomenon is in the world out-there that has not yet reached my
sensory apparatus.
> BF Skinner is old hat. Behaviorism did not work.
Strawman. I am arguing for neither.
<snip>
>> 'Post rational' is as meaningless as 'pre-sensory' without some
>> explanation of the model of the mind that you are obviously referencing.
>
> I am sorry I am assuming some background in either Piaget's research on
> child development, Freud's concept of a mature ego, Arieti's language
> and conceptual levels, Loevinger's conscientious and individualistic
> stages, Sullivan's syntax mode, or Maslow's belongingness and
> self-seteem needs.
> These are basic reading in human developmental psychology. Prolly
> beyond the scope of alt.philosophy.
Please don't pull this: "I am well read and you are not,
therefore it is useless for me to compose concise well
constructed sentences of explanation."
>> What is 'subject'? What is 'object'?
>
> You are the "subject" and what you are seeing, smelling, tasting or
> feeling is the "object". Again Philosophy 101
>
>> What does it mean for these to 'merge'?
>
> Subject and Object merge.
You just did it again: "What it means to 'merge' is that Subject
and Object merge."
> It is the subject of the Bible.
No, it is not.
> It is what
> J. talks about when he says he is the father.
No, it is not. (and Jesus never said that he *is* the father)
> It is a goal in
> Buddhism.
Possibly.
> It is the main topic of all the romantic author's like
> William Blake.
No. It is not.
> It is the reason that even though Communist countries
> try to suppress religion, people still have religious experiences and
> find themselves driven underground to verify their experiences.
>
> It is the effect you have when you really get into something, like music
> or theatre, when you are completely "lost" in it. However their is a
> big different from this gross experience and when the object you are
> merging with is the self.
I suppose we'll just have to take your word for it, in that you
are unable or unwilling to explain it in plain English.
>> What does it mean for 'knowledge' to 'flow'? What sort of
>> 'knowledge' is this that simply 'flows'?
>>
>>> The Knowledge is non-dual awareness.
>>
>> What is 'non-dual awareness'? What model of the mind are you
>> referencing wherein 'knowledge is *non-dual* awareness'?
>
> See above.
I see no explanation of 'non-dual awareness' above.
<snip>
>>> Sensible world is filled with physical objects. Subject to laws of
>>> physics.
>>
>> Like your brain?
>
> The brain is not filled with physical objects.
But it *is* a physical object in the world.
> We know little about the
> mechanics of consciousness.
You claim to know a great deal, but are unable or unwilling to
share what you know.
> We do know that it relies on electrical
> interactions that happen on a quantum level.
No, we don't.
> At best that makes the brain a "quantum computer". At worst it is a
> binary computer.
Can you explain what a 'quantum computer' is? I don't think
computers of any kind are a valid model of a human Mind.
> We are far from understanding what limits the brain
> has on thought.
True.
>>> The intelligible world is linguistic, symbolic, rational.
>>
>> Like in your brain?
>
> The brain is a mass of cells. Language, symbols, rationality do not
> reside in cells.
But they depend on that substrate of cells. You are apparently
arguing for the classical 'disembodied mind'. It has taken
several posts to reach this point, that was intimated by all of
the pre-enlightenment authors you listed.
>>> These are very distinctly different "spaces".
Just to verify: You are arguing that Mind exists apart from Brain?
<snip>
>> So then, knowledge is facts gathered by our senses and stored in our
>> brains?
>
> No those are facts. Knowledge is garnered from the intelligible world,
> it is then stored.
So, you are arguing that there is 'knowledge' available to the
disembodied Mind that is unavailable to the Brain?
<snip>
>> What is 'transcendental reality'? What is being transcended?
>
> The intelligible and the sensory.
So, using the disembodied Mind you are able to access knowledge
not accessible to the Brain?
>>> It is the basis for religions.
>>
>> Not mine.
>
> Fine. That means you are of none of the monotheistic religions,
> polytheism is out of the question, and the non-theistic religion of
> Buddhism is not it.
> Can't be pantheism.
Wrong. I am Lutheran. Your knowledge of religion is apparently
lacking.
> What religion believes that everything can be explained by physical change?
> Oh yea, scientism.
> Wasn't that discredited with the end of the Soviet experiment?
Strawman.
>>> The object of spiritual quests.
>>
>> Not mine.
>>
>>> It is what makes humans human.
>>
>> I don't think so.
>
> What makes us human?
Our genome.
<snip>
>> Usually, when someone replies to a simple question with "suggested
>> reading..." it means that they don't know the answer.
>
> In this case I mean it. These are basic Philosophy 101 texts. If you
> want on the next go around, if I have time, I will copy and paste the
> appropriate quotes for you. They are both available on line at the MIT
> site.
I have already read most of those who you reference, and other's
that you haven't. I am unimpressed by the ability to quote as a
substitute for clear and concise sentences composed by you. I
take little on authority.
<snip>
>> I think you are confusing philosophy with religion and with cognitive
>> science.
>
> Please don't put me in with Smitty. I do not confuse philosophy with
> religion. Though I do admit that much of philosophy has morphed into
> psychology in recent years.
I have no idea who Smitty is. You are crossposted to
sci.philosophy.meta. And modern philosophy has had to play
catch-up with modern cognitive science in recent years,
discarding pre-scientific ideas such as the disembodied mind.
> Please note that in all my post there is a clear distinction between
> Mythos and Logos.
Actually, I have seen you reference neither here.
>>> The regressive magical dualism of the Church was inadequate to fully
>>> explain a post rational reality.
I have no idea what 'regressive magical dualism' means, just as I
pointed out earlier I have no idea what 'post rational reality'
means. You throw jargon out like confetti and then fault your
audience for you own inability to compose clear and concise
statements of your personal philosophy.
<snip>
>> Have you read _The Varieties of Religious Experience_ by James? If you
>> had, then you would recognize your 'philosophy' as a common
>> psychological experience.
>
> No. But thank you, It is available on-line. I will give it a shot. I
> like James, he uses much common sense like Aristotle. I don't agree
> with him.
Odd that you would disagree with what you haven't yet read.
<snip>
> It means that there is a project out there. In the Greek Temples one
> finds the inscription, "Know thyself". Evidently I am not the first one
> with that project.
No. Nor are you the first to mistake ancient philosophy for
scientific truth.
Stu
Yes. The relaxation technique has physical benefits. I came to the
practice for purely the health benefit.
However after several years of the practice, I have begun to notice a
shift in consciousness that is only explained by reading other people
who have had the same shift in consciousness.
This shift leads to an experience (technically it is not an experience
because it is presensory) of the world internally. This "experience"
is difficult to characterize because it lays beyond the scope of
language or rationality. Though repetition of this experience does
result in altered perception.
The results of this altered perception and how it effects everyday life
are the tangible results of "transcendental knowledge".
However, this experience is by no means universal. It takes a certain
amount of discipline and will to get there.
I only mention it as one way to understand this concept of Knowledge.
>> Then I go back to reread and reexamine Western philosophy. And I find
>> that from Plato on there is an ontology that points to Knowledge as of
>> something - but they all fall short of really being able to describe
>> it - Plato's forms, Aristotle's first principals, Plotinus' The One,
>> Kant's Noumenologic and the like.
>
> There are good reasons for postulating a realm of the unknowable, and
> for supposing that it must exist despite the fact that nothing about it
> can be known. But those same reasons also explain why it cannot be
> known, via meditation or Buddhist Enlightenment or by revelation any
> more than it can be known through science.
I disagree. This "spiritual" domain offers an entry to understanding
the "unknowable". Science because it only deals with the limited
domain of the physical universe can not possible enter this realm.
>> Meditation alters the body and brain physiologically. Research has
>> demonstrated meditation to increase respiratory and pulmonary health
>> and longevity. In addition it increases focus and mental acuity. Take
>> a look at Pubmed.org. There are now thousands of well documented
>> studies demonstrating the positive benefits of meditation.
>
> I have no arguments with those affects. What goes on in our heads can
> certainly affect the states of our bodies. We both verify that every
> time we strike a key on our keyboards to send these posts.
>
>> Science is not just about
>> physical data, it requires validation and review, both of which happen
>> on a plane of rationality. A plane of reality that can not be
>> touched. It is pre-sensory. It is a major part of the scientific
>> method. Sure you can write a formula on a computer. But the meaning
>> of formula itself is not contained on the computer. That requires a
>> psychic manipulation of symbols.
>
> The conceptual realm is not presensory (or at least it can't be shown
> to be so).
> The conceptual and sensible realms instead appear to be interdefined;
> the two evolve together, and cannot be separated. What we sense
> determines what we think, but how we think informs what we see.
Or there are 5 possibilities.
A purely conceptual realm.
A purely physical realm
A purely transcendental realm
A conceptual real operating on the physical universe.
And a conceptual realm operating on the transcendental universe.
Effectively a rational mind before several realities.
>
>> The fallacy of Science is that somehow it was a methodology greater
>> than that of the scholastics. But remember scholasticism was rational
>> as well. Science depends on the same rationality as a mode.
>
> I'm wondering how you measure methodologies. Is a methodology that can
> eradicate smallpox and deliver hi-rez images from Mars not greater than
> one than cannot?
> Or do you think Scholasticism yielded some dividends of its own I'm
> overlooking?
Scholasticism was the "best" mode of rationality for its historical
period. It was for many years the foundation of western European
civilization. I am not entirely sure how you can compare these two
forms of rationality. The jury is still out on Modern scientific
methodology. There have been some il effects from it, nuclear war,
immune strains of bacteria, industrial pollution. Societies based on
scientific methodologies have been horrible experiments - The Soviet
Union was chartered on scientific theory.
I do not want to come off as a Luddite, but there is something to be
said for setting some form of ethical boundaries on science for science
sake. (I am with Bill Joy on this subject).
In any case, rationality on its own linked to a passionless view of the
physical world has proven to be a limited form of consciousness.
I am aspiring to rise beyond it, without falling into the quagmire of
mythology.
--
~Stu
Stu
>>
>> I am sorry I am assuming some background in either Piaget's research on
>> child development, Freud's concept of a mature ego, Arieti's language
>> and conceptual levels, Loevinger's conscientious and individualistic
>> stages, Sullivan's syntax mode, or Maslow's belongingness and
>> self-seteem needs.
>> These are basic reading in human developmental psychology. Prolly
>> beyond the scope of alt.philosophy.
>
> Please don't pull this: "I am well read and you are not, therefore it
> is useless for me to compose concise well constructed sentences of
> explanation."
Or just possibly it means that there are a number of people who have
made this argument before and I certainly don't need to rehash it. The
other night I spent some 3 hours responding to some of the posts here.
That paragraph alone required me to search out a number of texts to
demonstrate that I am not making this stuff up. I was accused of using
my own terminology but here I can point to a number of well known
scientists using the same terminology and concepts.
This basic disagreement between the idealist and the realist has been
around since Plato criticized Leucippus and Democritus (the Atomists).
The terms have changed a bit. It is clear that these are two
completely different world views. These are not opposing views though.
The realist view is a subset of the idealist view. Like nested Russian
dolls. For the idealist realism is valid, however an idealist
recognizes the possibilities of presensory knowledge. The realist
limits the world to that of material change. Non-sensory knowledge is
myth.
In the end one is left with two different world views. An argument
that has been documented for some 2300 years without resolution.
--
~Stu
Balancing mythos and logos.
Albert Wagner
> On 2005-06-24 06:50:37 -0700, Albert Wagner <albert...@cox.net> said:
>
>>>
>>> I am sorry I am assuming some background in either Piaget's research
>>> on child development, Freud's concept of a mature ego, Arieti's
>>> language and conceptual levels, Loevinger's conscientious and
>>> individualistic stages, Sullivan's syntax mode, or Maslow's
>>> belongingness and self-seteem needs.
>>> These are basic reading in human developmental psychology. Prolly
>>> beyond the scope of alt.philosophy.
>>
>>
>> Please don't pull this: "I am well read and you are not, therefore it
>> is useless for me to compose concise well constructed sentences of
>> explanation."
>
>
> Or just possibly it means that there are a number of people who have
> made this argument before and I certainly don't need to rehash it.
Then why did you post it?
> The
> other night I spent some 3 hours responding to some of the posts here.
> That paragraph alone required me to search out a number of texts to
> demonstrate that I am not making this stuff up. I was accused of using
> my own terminology but here I can point to a number of well known
> scientists using the same terminology and concepts.
Actions have consequences.
> This basic disagreement between the idealist and the realist has been
> around since Plato criticized Leucippus and Democritus (the Atomists).
> The terms have changed a bit. It is clear that these are two
> completely different world views. These are not opposing views though.
The embodied and disembodied mind are indeed very opposed views.
> The realist view is a subset of the idealist view. Like nested Russian
> dolls. For the idealist realism is valid, however an idealist
> recognizes the possibilities of presensory knowledge. The realist
> limits the world to that of material change. Non-sensory knowledge is
> myth.
>
> In the end one is left with two different world views. An argument that
> has been documented for some 2300 years without resolution.
>
Then why did you post it? I offered a number of arguments and
posed a number of questions and asked for a number of
clarifications to your categorical assertions. Now, you claim
that you never intended to defend your unjustified assertions and
snip without notification all that I submitted. What were you
thinking? That everyone would proclaim you a guru and fall at
your feet begging for enlightenment? Did you actually believe
that you were the only person in the modern world to have read
from your list of heroes? You are extremely naive to believe
that a millenia old philosophy, known to every literate person,
would somehow be accepted without question simply because you
posted to usenet.
I don't intend to let you off the hook. You can ignore my posts,
but I have access to all of yours that are posted to
sci.philosophy. meta. You could save us both a great deal of
aggravation by no longer crossposting to sci.philosophy.meta.
Acme Diagnostics
Albert Wagner <albert...@cox.net> wrote:
>Stu wrote:
>
>I don't intend to let you off the hook. You can ignore my posts,
> but I have access to all of yours that are posted to
>sci.philosophy. meta. You could save us both a great deal of
>aggravation by no longer crossposting to sci.philosophy.meta.
These three excerpts from Stu's recent posts, in no particular
order, are all anyone needs:
Item #1:
>> And then after about 15 years of meditation I started to see that this
>> was the result of Knowledge. And this Knowledge is verifiable because
>> I communicate with other meditators and they report the same stories.
>> Furthermore I find there is a corpus of literature (mostly from the
>> far East) of other meditators who report the same things. And low and
>> behold, there are entire religions, vast communities that talk about
>> this Knowledge.
Item #2:
>>The results of this altered perception and how it effects everyday life
>>are the tangible results of "transcendental knowledge".
>>However, this experience is by no means universal. It takes a certain
>>amount of discipline and will to get there.
Item #3:
>> I am sorry I am assuming some background in either Piaget's research
>> on child development, Freud's concept of a mature ego, Arieti's
>> language and conceptual levels, Loevinger's conscientious and
>> individualistic stages, Sullivan's syntax mode, or Maslow's
>> belongingness and self-seteem needs.
>> These are basic reading in human developmental psychology. Prolly
>> beyond the scope of alt.philosophy.
If the cavernous holes in those arguments and naive attempt to
create privilege don't jump out and bite someone on the leg, then
no amount of explanation and no number of excerpts will move them.
Trust that any poster who matters to you is already bleeding.
Larry
Publius
news:2005062513174850073%Nospam@towelcom:
>> That may well all be true. But all you have described above is a
>> technique for altering some of your own mental or emotional or
>> neurological states. And if you were to describe it as "knowledge of
>> how one may relieve anxiety" or "knowledge of how one may cure
>> insomnia" your claims would be plausible (though one might still
>> wonder whether meditation was the most effective or efficient means
>> of dealing with those problems). Where it loses plausibility is when
>> you construe it to deliver information beyond your own internal
>> state, or that might allow you to change anything beyond that state.
>> Learning a relaxation technique is a far cry from acquiring
>> "transcendental knowledge."
>
> Yes. The relaxation technique has physical benefits. I came to the
> practice for purely the health benefit.
>
> However after several years of the practice, I have begun to notice a
> shift in consciousness that is only explained by reading other people
> who have had the same shift in consciousness.
>
> This shift leads to an experience (technically it is not an experience
> because it is presensory) of the world internally. This "experience"
> is difficult to characterize because it lays beyond the scope of
> language or rationality. Though repetition of this experience does
> result in altered perception.
You are still describing nothing more than an alteration of your own
internal state. As I mentioned, there are various ways to alter one's
internal states, including one's perceptual functions. E.g., drugs. But
"knowledge of transcendental reality" is usually taken to refer to a
reality beyond oneself (the self being what is transcended). And Eastern
mystics have demonstrated no control --- much less a mastery --- of any
reality beyond themselves, nor any useful knowledge of that reality ---
any more than have LSD users, who also claimed it in the early days.
Knowledge is information which allows you to change the state of a
system. Mystics, relying only information gleaned from their mystical
practices, can change no system other than their own physiology, any more
than can drug users. Systems existing outside their heads are beyond
their reach.
>> There are good reasons for postulating a realm of the unknowable, and
>> for supposing that it must exist despite the fact that nothing about
>> it can be known. But those same reasons also explain why it cannot be
>> known, via meditation or Buddhist Enlightenment or by revelation any
>> more than it can be known through science.
> I disagree. This "spiritual" domain offers an entry to understanding
> the "unknowable". Science because it only deals with the limited
> domain of the physical universe can not possible enter this realm.
Not the unknowable as Kant used the term, which referred to a reality
external to the perceiving agent. The mystics know no more about it than
anyone else (or at least they've not demonstrated such knowledge by
altering that reality).
> Scholasticism was the "best" mode of rationality for its historical
> period. It was for many years the foundation of western European
> civilization. I am not entirely sure how you can compare these two
> forms of rationality. The jury is still out on Modern scientific
> methodology. There have been some il effects from it, nuclear war,
> immune strains of bacteria, industrial pollution. Societies based on
> scientific methodologies have been horrible experiments - The Soviet
> Union was chartered on scientific theory.
I'd thought the question was which methodology yielded the greatest
dividends in knowledge. To what uses we put the knowledge gained is a
separate question, which in turn raise moral questions also. Those kinds
of questions didn't arise in the Middle Ages (and do not arise today
among mystics) because they lacked the knowledge to do such things. If
you don't know how to do cloning, you need not worry about the ethics of
cloning.
> I do not want to come off as a Luddite, but there is something to be
> said for setting some form of ethical boundaries on science for
> science sake. (I am with Bill Joy on this subject).
I'd certainly agree. But we're not likely to solve those ethical
questions via mysticism either. Ethics demands rationality also.
Stu
Whoa Nelly! I am not suggesting that the willy nilly altering of
consciousness is going to yield results. LSD users and mystics (I have
never met or read any mystics so I am sure who they are but I am
guessing you mean fortune tellers and astrologers) are not approaching
specific internally directed practices with a precise methodology to
yield positive benefits.
Also your use of the word "reality" assumes that the fleshy transitory
physical world is a preferable space than the internal transcendental
world.
I am arguing that there are three "realities". The Fleshy, the
Cognitive, and the Transcendental and that they all yield valid
positive life experiences.
The Fleshy is terrific for base physical experience such as fulfilling
animal urges like eating/sports/sex. The Cognitive reality allows us
to enjoy the vast intellectual pursuits of art and science. And the
transcendental reality has its pleasures in revelations, community
spiritual endeavors, and unifying experiences with nature.
One reality is no better than another. They all have their own
language, ideals, and systems.
>
> Knowledge is information which allows you to change the state of a
> system. Mystics, relying only information gleaned from their mystical
> practices, can change no system other than their own physiology, any
> more than can drug users. Systems existing outside their heads are
> beyond their reach.
>
>>> There are good reasons for postulating a realm of the unknowable, and
>>> for supposing that it must exist despite the fact that nothing about
>>> it can be known. But those same reasons also explain why it cannot be
>>> known, via meditation or Buddhist Enlightenment or by revelation any
>>> more than it can be known through science.
>
>> I disagree. This "spiritual" domain offers an entry to understanding
>> the "unknowable". Science because it only deals with the limited
>> domain of the physical universe can not possible enter this realm.
>
> Not the unknowable as Kant used the term, which referred to a reality
> external to the perceiving agent. The mystics know no more about it
> than anyone else (or at least they've not demonstrated such knowledge
> by altering that reality).
Again I am not sure who these mystics you speak of are. Though there
are those who have great knowledge of the spiritual realm who can be
very helpful to those who have lost that realm and are experiencing
psychological dislocation in the physical realm.
As an example of this is the well documented success the 12 step
program has had for people with addiction disorders. Another example,
would be the success cognitive psychology has had melding Buddhist
teaching with behaviorism in therapy. Cognitive psychology has made
Freud's talking cure completely obsolete. There recently was a large
study (2500 students over 5 years, I think) that showed that learning
meditation helped low income public school children in Detroit increase
self extreme and perform better in school.
>
>> Scholasticism was the "best" mode of rationality for its historical
>> period. It was for many years the foundation of western European
>> civilization. I am not entirely sure how you can compare these two
>> forms of rationality. The jury is still out on Modern scientific
>> methodology. There have been some il effects from it, nuclear war,
>> immune strains of bacteria, industrial pollution. Societies based on
>> scientific methodologies have been horrible experiments - The Soviet
>> Union was chartered on scientific theory.
>
> I'd thought the question was which methodology yielded the greatest
> dividends in knowledge. To what uses we put the knowledge gained is a
> separate question, which in turn raise moral questions also. Those
> kinds of questions didn't arise in the Middle Ages (and do not arise
> today among mystics) because they lacked the knowledge to do such
> things. If you don't know how to do cloning, you need not worry about
> the ethics of cloning.
Agreed. Again I am not a Luddite. I am as much a believer in
empirical methodology as Newton or Hume. However, I assert that
empiricism is only a subset of a wider experience of Human
consciousness. We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We
need to recognize that there are deeper realms of human experience than
the base physical one.
>
>> I do not want to come off as a Luddite, but there is something to be
>> said for setting some form of ethical boundaries on science for
>> science sake. (I am with Bill Joy on this subject).
>
> I'd certainly agree. But we're not likely to solve those ethical
> questions via mysticism either. Ethics demands rationality also.
Not mysticism. By taking some time every day and looking within there
are answers to be had that are beyond the scope of science. I am not
talking about trance states, drugs or even jamming a needle in the eye
socket as Newton did to better understand perception. I am talking
about techniques and practices that through discipline and focus allow
one to better understand the nebulas realm of the self.
--
~Stu
The Sophist
> As an example of this is the well documented success the 12 step program
> has had for people with addiction disorders. Another example, would be
> the success cognitive psychology has had melding Buddhist teaching with
> behaviorism in therapy. Cognitive psychology has made Freud's talking
> cure completely obsolete. There recently was a large study (2500
> students over 5 years, I think) that showed that learning meditation
> helped low income public school children in Detroit increase self
> extreme and perform better in school.
Er, 12 step programs do not have well-documented success. Quite the
opposite, in fact. The relapse rate for 12 step programs is almost
exactly the same as for people who try to quit addictions without the
help of any program.
--
Aaron Boyden
"I may have done this and that for sufferers; but always I seemed to
have done better when I learned to feel better joys."
-Thus spoke Zarathustra
Stu
> Stu wrote:
>
>> As an example of this is the well documented success the 12 step
>> program has had for people with addiction disorders. Another example,
>> would be the success cognitive psychology has had melding Buddhist
>> teaching with behaviorism in therapy. Cognitive psychology has made
>> Freud's talking cure completely obsolete. There recently was a large
>> study (2500 students over 5 years, I think) that showed that learning
>> meditation helped low income public school children in Detroit increase
>> self extreme and perform better in school.
>
> Er, 12 step programs do not have well-documented success. Quite the
> opposite, in fact. The relapse rate for 12 step programs is almost
> exactly the same as for people who try to quit addictions without the
> help of any program.
Here are a few studies that came up on Pub Med to support my thesis.
1: Subst Use Misuse. 2000 Feb;35(3):367-97.
Related Articles, Links
Exploring the additive effects of drug misuse treatment and Twelve-Step
involvement: does Twelve-Step ideology matter?
Fiorentine R, Hillhouse MP.
Drug Abuse Research Center, Neuropsychiatric Institute, University of
California, Los Angeles 90025, USA.
Previous research revealed an additive effect of recovery activities in
that those who attended Twelve-Step meetings on a weekly basis during
and after outpatient drug-user treatment had higher rates of abstinence
compared to those who participated in either treatment or Twelve-Step
programs alone. The current investigation extends the previous research
by examining the possible effects of Twelve-Step ideology on
participation in Twelve-Step programs and abstinence from drug use. The
findings from this treatment outcomes study indicate that the
acceptance of Twelve-Step ideology, particularly strong agreement with
the need for frequent, lifelong attendance at Twelve-Step meetings, and
the need to surrender to a "higher power" are significant predictors of
weekly or more frequent attendance at Twelve-Step meetings independent
from other potentially mediating variables. Twelve-Step ideology,
specifically the notion that controlled or nonproblematic drug use is
not possible, predicted abstinence independent from Twelve-Step
participation and other potentially mediating variables. These findings
often a number of implications concerning group process and recovery
from drug misuse which are addressed in the Discussion section under
the following topics: 1) spirituality and group cohesion, 2) spiritual
transcendence, social transcendence, and recovery; 3) spirituality and
the obstruction of recovery; 4) Twelve-Step ideology and learning; 5)
perceived control of drug use, self-efficacy theory, and recovery; and
7) perceived control of drug use and optimistic illusions. Directions
for future research are discussed.
PMID: 10714452 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
1: Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2000 Aug;2(4):130-133.
Related Articles, Links
Twelve-Step Programs as an Adjunct to Psychotherapy and Psychopharmacology.
Chanin A.
Centinela El Segundo Medical Center, El Segundo, Calif.
With increasing constraints on time for traditional psychotherapy and
patient counseling, it behooves us to find other methods of giving the
patient tools to cope with his or her illness. In addition to
psychotropic medications that have never before been available
(selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related compounds) and
crisis intervention, we have a plethora of 12-step programs that can
give the individual ongoing support. Our goal is to restore the patient
to full psychosocial function, avoiding self-medication, drug and
alcohol abuse, and the cycle of hopelessness, despair, death, and
suicide. We are concerned with the patient's lifelong maintenance and
state of balance, finding a spiritual center from which to grow as an
individual, and ultimately, to help others with similar problems.
Twelve-step programs serve as a viable means of achieving these goals.
Along with medication, support, encouragement, and therapy when
available, patients can be guided to achieve new levels of meaning and
fulfillment in their lives.
PMID: 15014647 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
1: Drug Alcohol Depend. 2003 Dec 11;72(3):237-47.
Related Articles, Links
Examining mechanisms of action in 12-Step community outpatient treatment.
Morgenstern J, Bux DA, Labouvie E, Morgan T, Blanchard KA, Muench F.
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY 10029, USA.
jon.mor...@mssm.edu
Twelve-step theory hypothesizes that changes in specific cognitions and
behaviors, including adoption of disease model beliefs and involvement
in self-help programs, lead to symptom reduction. We examined the role
of self-help affiliation in treatment outcome using causal chain
analysis. Baseline, end-treatment and follow-up self-help affiliation
and substance use were assessed in 252 drug and alcohol abusers
attending a community program. Participants were randomly assigned to
one of three cognitive-behavioral or 12-Step oriented individual
counseling conditions. Participants also were assigned, based on
problem severity, to one of three treatment settings (partial
hospitalization; intensive outpatient; standard outpatient) that varied
according to intensity of additional 12-Step programming.
Repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that self-help affiliation increased
overall during treatment, particularly in the 12-Step counseling
condition (versus cognitive-behavioral), and the partial
hospitalization setting (versus standard outpatient). Multiple
regression indicated that self-help affiliation was negatively
associated with substance use 6 months post-treatment, and that this
was not moderated by condition. Self-help affiliation predicted outcome
most strongly in the partial hospitalization setting and not at all in
outpatient; however, this effect was accounted for by participants'
initial problem severity: high-severity patients had poorer outcomes if
they failed to increase self-help affiliation, relative to those who
increased affiliation and to low-severity patients regardless of
affiliation. Results indicate that, in this community-based program,
self-help affiliation increased as a function of exposure to 12-Step
oriented treatment programming, and significantly predicted better
outcome among patients with high levels of problem severity.
Implications for future treatment process and dissemination research
are discussed.
PMID: 14643940 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
1: J Stud Alcohol. 2003 Mar;64(2):257-61.
Related Articles, Links
Prior Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) affiliation and the acceptability of
the Twelve Steps to patients entering UK statutory addiction treatment.
Harris J, Best D, Gossop M, Marshall J, Man LH, Manning V, Strang J.
National Addiction Centre/Institute of Psychiatry, South London and
Maudsley NHS Trust, Denmark Hill, London, England.
OBJECTIVE: The study investigates levels of affiliation with AA and
beliefs about the organization and its philosophy among a cohort of
alcoholics entering a UK (non-AA) alcohol treatment service. METHOD: A
total of 150 consecutive admissions (75% men) were interviewed by an
independent researcher within 5 days of their entry into a residential
alcohol treatment unit. RESULTS: Although about three quarters of these
patients had previously attended AA meetings, levels of affiliation
were low, with only 16% having worked any of the Twelve Steps. Previous
AA attenders were more likely to be older, drinking greater daily
quantities prior to treatment and to have first sought alcohol
treatment at a younger age. Roughly equal groups expressed "positive,"
"neutral" and "negative" current attitudes towards AA (38%, 36% and
26%, respectively). Each of these three AA-attitude groups expressed
greater endorsement of "Personal Responsibility" steps than of "Higher
Power mediated" steps. CONCLUSIONS: Few participants were universally
negative to AA or the Twelve Steps--most regarded some of the steps as
positive, but many rejected those referring to a Higher Power. Most
also regarded some aspects of the organization and its philosophy
worthwhile, with attitudes spread across the continuum of opinion. As
AA remains one of the most widely sought forms of help for alcohol
problems, a clearer understanding is needed of its impact on patients
and the appropriateness of its integration within substance misuse
programs which are not explicitly Twelve Step in orientation.
PMID: 12713200 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
1: J Addict Dis. 2003;22(1):35-55.
Related Articles, Links
Why extensive participation in treatment and twelve-step programs is
associated with the cessation of addictive behaviors: an application of
the addicted-self model of recovery.
Fiorentine R, Hillhouse MP.
University of California, Neuropsychiatric Institute, Drug Abuse
Research Center, Los Angeles 90025, USA. Fi...@ucla.edu
Applying the Addicted-Self Model of recovery to explain why extensive
participation in recovery activities predicts abstinence, it was
hypothesized that high levels of participation in treatment and
Twelve-step programs promote abstinence because these activities
reinforce the notion that controlled use is not possible for dependent
alcohol and drug users. Findings from a prospective treatment outcomes
study (n = 356) indicate general support for this hypothesis. Yet the
cognitive transformation described by the Addicted-Self Model involving
acknowledgement of loss of control over alcohol and other drugs is only
a partial explanation of why extensive participation in recovery
activities promotes recovery. Reiterating the conclusion that "more is
better," frequent counseling participation, treatment completion, and
weekly or more frequent participation in Twelve-Step programs promote
absti- nence independently from their influence on controlled use
self-efficacy. Theoretical and clinical implications, and directions
for future research are discussed.
PMID: 12661978 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
1: J Holist Nurs. 2000 Mar;18(1):11-26.
Related Articles, Links
Alcoholics Anonymous and nursing. Lessons in holism and spiritual care.
McGee EM.
Boston College School of Nursing, USA.
Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) is a worldwide, million-member organization
that has assisted countless alcoholics to achieve sobriety through a
spiritual program of recovery from alcoholism. Based on spiritual
principles known as the "Twelve Steps" and "Twelve Traditions," AA has
provided a model for other recovery programs such as Narcotics
Anonymous (NA), Gamblers Anonymous (GA), and Sex and Love Addicts
Anonymous (SLAA). Recovery in AA appears to involve a process of
self-transcendence. In recent years, nursing scholars have increasingly
explored the concepts of self-transcendence and spirituality as they
apply to nursing theory and practice. This article explores the roots
and spiritual dimensions of 12-step recovery programs. It further
explores the ways in which theoretical and clinical knowledge about the
delivery of spiritual care interventions may be gained from an
understanding of AA's spiritual approach to recovery.
Publication Types:
>>> • Historical Article
>>> • Review
>>> • Review, Tutorial
--
~Stu
cat rancher
"The Sophist" <sop...@brown.edu> wrote in message
news:tPKve.29259$%Z2.8918@lakeread08...
Why should anyone take statistics from someone
as anonymous as a poster on usenet without a
cite?
Sleepyhead
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."
BuddhaThu
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
"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!
BuddhaThu
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
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.
BuddhaThu
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
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'.