I don't believe there are time boundaries in seeing something one
understands
completely. I art, seeing the unique takes a little longer to sink in.
mando
On Jul 27, 2008, at 4:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 7/27/08 5:46:37 PM, Cheerskep writes:
Recall the Andean shepherd who has never heard of cellphones, but
now finds
one on the mountainside. He discovers that if he puts his thumb on
the front
it goes beep. That's new info about the thing. And Kate would
evidently say
the shepherd now "understands the thing".
Threre's a name for this particular contortion of reason and you
are lucky
I don't remember what it is. Your Andean shepherd is your own, I
wasn't
talking about him.
Further:What I said was:
Can you explain what you think the boundary between seeing a thing
and
understanding it is and how clear that boundary is?
But a jiffy summary of the various imaginable notions of
"understanding" I
mentioned is this: 1. To understand what a thing is for, to
"recognize" it.
"Yes, I understand that's a cellphone, but I have no idea how to
use it." 2.
To
know how to work it. "John recognizes a computer when he sees it,
but doesn't
begin to understand it. He doesn't even know how to turn it on." 3.
To know
WHY it works. 4. "Understand" in the sense of "understanding" a
language.
One would at least think you would ask what seeing meant before
asking what
understanding meant,given that there are any delicate nuances
that your
parsing might grind from my question. I was talking about seeing,
and the
understanding of seeing, and consequently understanding in the
context refers
only to the act of seeing.
Kate Sullivan
**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign
up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
