Great to see your concern over "the limits of the human senses themselves, e.g., the capabilities for capturing the full spread of the electromagnetic spectrum... ergo, we "suffer" from lack of access to a complete picture of the "outer reality," much more the multivariate workings of the "inner."
This will amplify our understanding of it to a new point of reference: http://www.christiankeys.ca/#key_to_the_invisible_energy ----- Original Message ----- From: Timothy Monicken To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 11:24 PM Subject: [epistemology 10745] Re: Epistemic contextualism I found this at the beginning "backlog" of email from the group... I've so busy that it must have escaped my attention initially.... Firstly, I must apologize for not being completely "up to date" with the speculations/ rationales presented/ purported in this area. As time allows, I can, however, contribute some of what other past researchers have bought under review of that which appears germane or of first order connectedness: a.. The first family of premises are related to that of human awareness - in both the specific and general sense of the word: while these would seem rather to be in the realm of the prima facie, what has remained implicit here is the limits of the human senses themselves, e.g., the capabilities for capturing the full spread of the electromagnetic spectrum... ergo, we "suffer" from lack of access to a complete picture of the "outer reality," much more the multivariate workings of the "inner." b.. Integral to all this is the idea that the contextual underpinnings of both the inner & outer realities of the individual & social group are dynamic, protean, or "forever in a state of flux...." It goes without saying, that this too has an intuitive ring to itl. c.. The crux of this phenomenon of universal systemic variance is traditionally tied to the law of requisite variety, but many view this as an inherent attribute that conveys a deeper "order:" one that comprises both the hierarchical & cyclical, afferent & efferent flow dynamics, etc., i.e., the concept initially popularized by David Bohm referred to as the implicate order. My own research group has taken this to mean that "pre-existing patterns inherent within spacetime" can be gleaned through repeated observations of whole system events, whereby ubiquitous, operational archetypes can be the componential attributes to implicate continua that can be fashioned after these pre-existing patterns that can readily explain/ uncover the not-so-apparent relationships of the contextual backdrops we encounter in everyday "realtime." >> For us, this represents the "developing intellect" - the ability to draw valid & reliable connections - e,g. scalars, indices, matrices - vectored & otherwise. So our own operational/ working intellects are reflections of these acquired abilities to incorporate these "implicate orders." We may do this intuitively or "hardy at all" - but even if we are vaguely aware of our own system "boundedness" and the subsequent causalities that arise from those areas of recursive dimensional boundedness (RDB), then we are indeed "doing this on some basic level." d.. For this, my own group adheres theoretically to what we refer to as the "C.O.I.A.S." or Centrally Operative, Imperative Awareness States - three (3) cyber-environment "symmetries" that comprise the whole of human awareness, that operate at the "hyper-conscious" level - whereby we "carry on" our "meta-cognition," through ongoing "inner dialogues" between these symmetries, i.e., boundedness (RDB), mediation, and transcendence. At any rate, it seems the problem of the contextual has a series of protean continua that can make the contextual mappings we devise more reliable & valid... comprehensive & relative to the inherent limits of the systems involved. TJM Hope this helps - CHREODMAN On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:30 AM, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: I don't know much about it..... I just felt like raising a new topic... treating "epistemology in its broader sense.... not just the "specific approaches" in science or otherwise... http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contextualism-epistemology/ Epistemic Contextualism First published Fri Sep 7, 2007 Epistemic contextualism (EC) is a recent and hotly debated position. In its dominant form, EC is the view that the proposition expressed by a given knowledge sentence (‘S knows that p’, ‘S doesn't know that p’) depends upon the context in which it is uttered. What makes this view interesting and controversial is that ‘context’ here refers, not to certain features of the putative subject of knowledge (his/her evidence, history, other beliefs, etc.) or his/her objective situation (what is true/false, which alternatives to what is believed are likely to obtain, etc.), but rather to features of the knowledge attributor (s)' psychology and/or conversational-practical situation. (Hence this view's sometimes being referred to as ‘attributor contextualism’.) As a result of such context-dependence, utterances of a given such sentence, made in different contexts, may differ in truth value. In addition to marking an important departure from traditional epistemological assumptions, EC is claimed to provide a novel resolution to certain puzzles about knowledge — not least, skeptical ones — as well as to best comport with our everyday knowledge- attributing practices. What follows describes the leading forms of EC, so understood, as well as the principal arguments for and major objections to EC. Along the way, EC is situated with respect to certain other views, both kindred and competing. ....nominal9 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
