It goes with the word "epistle" which is nigh a 'sermon'. It's fascinating one 
only ever gets the 
current Ahem, dispensation. It is as Whitehead had it with Theology. One gets 
the religious bias 
interpretation of every sect but never such a thing as general theology. In 
effect there's three 
versions, god apart from his'its creation, like laying an egg, god being its 
creation as "living in 
the presence" and god  watching its brood and doing a miracle tinker every now 
and then. And 
Catholic theology mangled it up quite well. How many ways can one understand in 
order to "know"?

The really funny thing is that all epistemologies around are intuitively 
hatched and converted into 
dogma in highly selective ways. Just like Descartes is'was misinterpreted into 
the material 
hypothesis. I recall being told off at Varsity for having the temerity to read 
the original instead 
of the textbook handout.

My definition of gnosiology is, now on onelook: "▸ noun:  the strategy of using 
knowledge, from 
gnosis correlative to "to know"." One could pull the same hat trick, oops 
rhetorical deployment, for 
epistemology. The applied forms insist on logic which none of the originators 
ever use. The same is 
done in politics and anybody who believes politics originated disinformation 
better ask for a refund 
on their education.

"“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I 
have said it, unless 
it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” - Gautama Buddha
""“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends 
on his not 
understanding it.”--Upton Sinclair
""HINTZ PAGELS :"We live in the wake of a physics revolution comparable to the 
Copernican demolition 
of the anthropocentric world -- a revolution which began with the invention of 
the theory of 
relativity and quantum mechanics in the first decades of this century and which 
has left most 
educated people behind."
ET CE TERA, He failed to mention the whole device is older than Sanscrit. It 
has the Rg Veda, its 
constructivist features and three baskets of the other Vedas, glyphed as the 
three faced head of 
Brahm, with ten avatars or incarnations or embodiments.

Like Math and language Epistemology has no foundation except in the make up and 
process of mind.

adrian

Sam Carana wrote:
> Indeed, Adrian, it's very interesting to take the various Indian
> perspectives in response to questions such as:
> "What is Epistemology?"
> 
> I started this thread back in 2005 by posting the following defition:
> "Epistemology: The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of
> knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and
> validity."
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/browse_thread/thread/dde394624efcc033
> 
> .. I added the following Etymological Roots:
> "Greek epistm, knowledge (from epistasthai, epist-, to understand  :
> epi-, epi- + histasthai, middle voice of histanai, to place,
> determine;
> see st- in Indo-European Roots) + -logy."
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=epistemology
> 
> ... and then posted the following questions:
> 
>  1. What is knowledge? Can one person claim or believe to have
> specific
> knowledge, while someone else claims or believes something else or
> even the
> direct opposite?
> 
>  2. What are the foundations and presuppositions of knowledge? Can we
> pre-assume that knowledge exists and can be obtained and exchanged?
> If so, how can one obtain knowledge? What methodologies are
> (un)acceptable or (in)appropriate when gaining, changing and
> exchanging
> knowledge?
> 
>  3. What is the extent of knowledge? What is the difference between
> information, impressions, feelings, predictions and knowledge? What is
> the
> difference between scientific knowledge and other knowledge (if such
> knowledge exists in the first place)?
> 
>  4. How valid is knowledge and how can such validity be assessed? What
> if
> some knowledge is inconsistent with some other knowledge? Should we
> seek
> ways to reconcile differences?
> 
>  5. Finally, what is the width of epistemology? Is epistemology
> restricted
> to the study of knowledge, or does it also cover issues like
> conscience,
> belief, logic, principles, values, science, feelings and information?
> If
> epistemology is limited, does this limit its philosophical
> conclusions?
> 
> Personally, I am very interested in Indian philosophy, where Veda
> means 'knowledge', which is generally seen as a body of Vedic 'texts'
> or Hindu 'scriptures', even though the Samaveda (Sanskrit: सामवेद,
> sāmaveda, from sāman "melody" + veda "knowledge" ), which is the third
> of the four Vedas, consists of a collection (samhita) of hymns and
> verses, to be sung, using melodies called Samagana, by the caraṇa,
> i.e. followers of this school of philosophy. My name Sam Carana
> indicates this preference for singing, as opposed to 'knowledge' that
> was written down and therefore has become static and detached from
> meaning and intent.
> 
> Cheers!
> Sam Carana
> 
> 
> On Nov 18, 1:35 am, adrian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yep, India has, formally stated, six philosophies, although one can count 
>> more. Sankhya or Samkhya
>> is like therevada also unified, as is currently in the west quantum physics. 
>> India, with polytheism,
>> does not have theology either. Anybody can pick whichever godling they like. 
>> If one goes back to
>> earlier versions of a more earth global kind there's no such thing as 
>> epistemology or ontology
>> either. What about tripitaka or the three baskets of knowledge? What about 
>> njana, yoga and and
>> bhakti and all that?
>>
>> adrian
>>
>> Sam Carana wrote:
>>> Thanks for that, Sinhalaya, this issue is worth more thought.
>>> Cheers!
>>> Sam Carana
>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Sinhalaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> In Theravada philosophical tradition (based on Buddhism) there is no
>>>> two subjects as epistemology and ontology. It takes both as single
>>>> corpus of knowledge. It does not accept that the knowledge is
>>>> objective and there is a reality beyond the mind and senses.
> > 
> 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to