"Searles O'Dubhain"
wrote in message
news:ipKdnasoh7oI4CrVnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com...>
> "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:7Kidnaod1eCN4SjVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@comcast.com...>>
>> "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"?
>
> To put it simply Tom: one can't push a noodle. Somewhere the idea or
> concept has to have some backbone to it.
There is no backbone to an argument that nothing can be learned if you can't
see a situation from every direction at the same time. Nor is there any
backbone to an argument that your problem is not yours because it's some
other person's problem too.
>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Where an idea originates is not as important as proving it to be true or
> deriving a benefit from it.
One can never "prove" knowledge. One only estimates it. The only certain
knowledge is immediate experience itself, never what we think that
experience means.
>>> 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.
>
> The Druids also taught them.
The Druids were fallible too.
> It's great to belittle great ideas just because some folks also have weird
> ones. Is this inductive reasoning on your part?
Deductive reasoning never changes because it's not based on anything that
actually happens but only on what is assumed without question. Inductive
reasoning is based on past events and corrects itself as events unfurl.
Ideas are "great" only because we like them, not necessarily because they
are true.
> Why not just look at forms of knowledge as they are defined within
> cultures and philosophies?
Because those philosophies may be wrong in any particular and are certainly
wrong in some of them. Only by comparing each particualr of them to reality
repeatedly can we estimate their accuracy. Unquestioning faith in ancient
philosophy was the failing of Western cultures for more than two thousand
years.
