Never mind. I should know when to be silent.
On May 11, 2010, at 8:35 PM, david buchanan wrote:
>
> Marsha said to 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.
>
> dmb says:
>
> I don't know what you mean. Not even sure what the topic is. Are you talking
> about know-how or knowledge by acquaintance or what?
>
>
>
>> 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 k
> no
>> 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with
> Hotmail.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
> 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
