dmb,
It is quite easy to reject intellectually reject our own habits There are
examples all around us; there is self-contradiction and levels of
experience: priests, attorney generals, politicians, etc. When you
know it in your bones, than you have transcended it.
Marsha
On May 11, 2010, at 1:49 PM, david buchanan wrote:
>
> James
> In 1890, William James, agreeing there were two fundamental kinds of
> knowledge, and adopting Grote's terminology, further developed the
> distinctions made by Grote and Helmholtz:I am acquainted with many people and
> things, which I know very little about, except their presence in the places
> where I have met them. I know the color blue when I see it, and the flavor of
> a pear when I taste it; I know an inch when I move my finger through it; a
> second of time, when I feel it pass; an effort of attention when I make it; a
> difference between two things when I notice it; but about the inner nature of
> these facts or what makes them what they are, I can say nothing at all. I
> cannot impart acquaintance with them to any one who has not already made it
> himself I cannot describe them, make a blind man guess what blue is like,
> define to a child a syllogism, or tell a philosopher in just what respect
> distance is just what it is, and differs from other forms of relation. At
> most, I can say t
o
> my friends, Go to certain places and act in certain ways, and these objects
> will probably come. (1890, p.221)
>
>
> Russell
> According to Russell, knowledge by acquaintance is obtained through a direct
> causal (experience-based) interaction between a person and the object that
> person is perceiving. Sense-data from that object are the only things that
> people can ever become acquainted with; they can never truly KNOW the
> physical object itself. A person can also be acquainted with his own sense of
> self (cogito ergo sum) and his thoughts and ideas. However, other people
> could not become acquainted with another person's mind, for example. They
> have no way of directly interacting with it, since a mind is an internal
> object. They can only perceive that a mind could exist by observing that
> person's behaviour.To be fully justified in believing a proposition to be
> true one must be acquainted, not only with the fact that supposedly makes the
> proposition true, but with the relation of correspondence that holds between
> the proposition and the fact. In other words, justified true belief can only
> occur if I kno
w
> that a proposition (e.g. "Snow is white") is true in virtue of a fact (e.g.
> that snow is indeed white). By way of example, John is justified in believing
> that he is in pain if he is directly and immediately acquainted with his
> pain. Not if John makes an inference regarding his pain ("I must be in pain
> because my arm is bleeding"), but feels it as an immediate sensation ("My arm
> hurts!"). This direct contact with the fact and the knowledge that this fact
> makes a proposition true is what is meant with knowledge by acquaintance.On
> the contrary, when one is not directly and immediately acquainted with a
> fact, such as Julius Caesar's assassination, we speak of knowledge by
> description. When one is not directly in contact with the fact, but knows it
> only indirectly by means of a description, one arguably is not entirely
> justified in holding a proposition true (such as e.g. "Caesar was killed by
> Brutus").
>
>
>>> Matt:
>>>> I remember reading a transcript of a lecture Pirsig gave
>>>> once where (if memory serves) he used Bertrand Russell's
>>>> distinction between knowledge by appearance and
>>>> knowledge by description to catch hold of the same thing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Steve:
>>> Are you talking about SODV? If not, I don't think I ever read that one.
>>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
___
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
