"Searles O'Dubhain"
wrote in message
news:krOdnbxBWN831ijVnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com...>
> "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:CtednYaNmYcDIy_VnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@comcast.com...>>
>> "Searles O'Dubhain"
wrote in message
>> news:2qCdnZpw3OrMOy_VnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@comcast.com...>>>
>>> "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:U_idnfysktCrPizVnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d@comcast.com...>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is physically impossible for you to see a sphere from every angle at
>>>> once. It is possible to imagine that one might do this, however. The
>>>> problem there is that what you imagine does not necessarily correspond
>>>> to the world outside your imagination. One of the biggest problems
>>>> metaphysicians face is their tendency to exclude any contradictions
>>>> between the world itself and their imagined model of it.
>>>
>>> It is not purely a problem that is owned by one group only.
>>
>> No problem ever is, but the people for whom this is the biggest problem
>> are believers in metaphysics.
>>
>
> It seems that the problems of one group interplay and give life to the
> problems of other groups since the tension between existence and the
> possible lives beyond, can only be played as transcendental song when
> tuning occurs between the two extremes while discussion and disagreement
> seek to press the points of either upon the ground of pure existentialism
> and egos pluck away after resting themselves in meditative spaces.
What the hell is that supposed to mean besides "It's not my fault"?
>>> I do believe that one's knowledge should be consistant with its
>>> component parts and that all knowledge is connected together. Nyquist is
>>> a sampling theory and hence above I was saying that sampling is OK under
>>> certain conditions.
>>
>> Sampling is all we ever can get. We are not omnipresent. So that's not
>> an option. So under *all* conditions sampling is the best you're going
>> to get.
>>
>
> A painting is an integrated effort beyond sampling inmuch the same way
> that knowledge is beyond thoughts.
A painting is a representation of some particular image. That makes it a
sample.
>>> Knowledge has three forms. What is already known must be studied. That
>>> which can be learned through experience must be done through practice
>>> and experimentation. Discoveries in knowledge are accomplished by those
>>> who explore and inquire. Without all three forms of knowledge, gnosis
>>> cannot be verified.
>>
>> I count only two forms here. 1) Studying things that have previously
>> discovered and 2) discovering new stuff yourself. I suspect the third
>> form, the one you didn't remember to mention perhaps, is divine
>> revelation, which isn't knowledge at all.
>>
>
> You miscounted then:
>
> 1. Accepted knowledge
>
> 2. Experiental Knowledge
>
> 3. Knowledge that comes from testing hypotheses (i. e. scientific
> knowledge and accepted/tested theories)
That's just a particular case of experiential knowledge. You might as well
say that knowledge gained by touch is not experiential but knowledge gained
by vision is. You'd be just as wrong and in the same way.
> (4). Gnosis which is the inspiration that comes from "out of the blue",
> the source of imagination, inference, induction, association and
> synthesis, yet requires experiencing, testing and/or experimenting to
> become accepted or proven.
That's the "divine revelation" that you forgot to mention before. Of
course, when you take a good look at that you see that it's just another
form of accepted knowledge except that you don't really know who told it to
you. You just sort of guess about that.
> I didn't invent these forms. Aristotle taught about them.
Aristotle taught that women grew fewer teeth than men, too. One of the
biggest mistakes made by post-Greek cultures is to unquestioningly accept
the notion that Aristotle was infallible.
