Didn't you say much the same thing as I did here? I understood what I said... — Banno
know (v.)
Old English cnawan (class VII strong verb; past tense cneow, past participle cnawen), "perceive a thing to be identical with another," also "be able to distinguish" generally (tocnawan); "perceive or understand as a fact or truth" (opposed to believe); "know how (to do something)," from Proto-Germanic *knew- (source also of Old High German bi-chnaan, ir-chnaan "to know"), from PIE root *gno- "to know."
What I experience as my outside... — Joshs
The properties of the object and the intentions of the subject are not only intermingled ; they also constitute a new whole — Joshs
Kants thing in itself, direct notions of eternity, nothingness, etc, at first thought, seem to represent thing which are unknowable. — Aidan buk
Why decided to experience it as outside? Why put in place the subject-object?
That's what is here:
The properties of the object and the intentions of the subject are not only intermingled ; they also constitute a new whole
— Joshs — Banno
As a kid I often use to think that words were like falsifications of thoughts - inchoate blocks used to construct a shared notion of experience - a notion that necessarily reduced or entrapped that personal experience in a kind of verbal prefabrication. It often seemed to me that when my thoughts become words they were heavily truncated or even diverted by the process. It led me to think that in the process of becoming verbal there's a concomitant loss of experiential wisdom. Maybe that doesn't make sense to others - words again... — Tom Storm
It might have been clearer if we had different words for knowing that and knowing how. — Banno
The subject doesn’t decide to experience an object as outside. The outside imposes itself on the subject. The ‘subject’ here isn’t an entity but merely a pole of an interaction. — Joshs
I think we know many things which cannot be put into words or at least definitively explained in words. Much of what we know is pre-cognitive, but I don't think that is the same as the different things the Daoists and Kant, in their different ways, were trying to get at. — Janus
From the relatively little I know (compared to the specialist) of Daoist ideas I have formed the impression that they are positing, by hinting at, a universal movement of life and energy that flows as an undercurrent to our common life as it is conceived, in all of us. This universal dance of life will be intuited directly by those who are able to work effectively on their dispositions such as to quiet the dualistic mind that blinds us to its mistaken views. — Janus
Kant, to my knowledge, denies the Spinozistic idea of rational intuition, which for Spinoza (and the Daoists) is the source of ideas of the eternal and the universal. — Janus
I wouldn't go as far as to say that our naming of things brings our world of things into existence, and I don't think Kant would either. — Janus
Picture yourself in what nowadays is called a "flow" state; when you play so smoothly that there is no distinction between you and the guitar; when you cruise the corner perfectly, no distance between you and your chosen ride; when you look up to find that you've been coding for hours but it seems a few minutes. — Banno
The anticipative aspect is what drives this experience and keeps it unified , and this is the subjective contribution. — Joshs
The subject doesn’t decide to experience an object as outside. The outside imposes itself on the subject. The ‘subject’ here isn’t an entity but merely a pole of an interaction. — Joshs
That’s being in itself in a nutshell. Irreducible subject-object reciprocal relationality.
— Joshs
— frank
when you play so smoothly that there is no distinction between you and the guitar; when you cruise the corner perfectly, no distance between you and your chosen ride; when you look up to find that you've been coding for hours but it seems a few minutes. — Banno
But feeling is already an expressing , and as such it IS a kind of talking. — Joshs
Yes, but saying one knows them is also wrong. They just are the case; explanation stops here. — Banno
But feeling is already an expressing , and as such it IS a kind of talking. — Joshs
You're changing the meaning of the word "talking." Talking uses words. — T Clark
Should I just be satisfied with the unknown being these blanks, and leave it at that? — Aidan buk
In my understanding a self is a self organizing system identical to the body of knowledge (derived from information) that creates it, and this body of knowledge extends to a universe of some conception. So a boundary of self is related to the information a self possesses, which extends to the edge of a universe. This would mean that the object ( other ) is also contained within the boundary of self . The other thus becoming an object relative to self, within self, thus no separation possible. — Pop
Pattee would say a cut ( a separation ) is necessary to separate the knower from the known, and thus maintain a subject object distinction. The counter argument is that a subject / object boundary has not been identified and so the cut is applied arbitrarily. Pattee acknowledges that the cut's location is arbitrary. — Pop
Perhaps our resident Kant specialist Mww might weigh in on this question. — Janus
Surely if you can think it, I can know it?
— Aidan buk
This is the heart of the question that Lao Tzu, and I think Kant, are getting at. How can you know something that can't be put into words? — T Clark
They purport to represent things outside of human cognition. — Aidan buk
But, surely, all there is is human cognition? — Aidan buk
But, surely, all there is is human cognition? In such an instance, there is no unknowable, in the way it is commonly assumed, instead, the unknowable is always knowable. — Aidan buk
I wouldn't go as far as to say that our naming of things brings our world of things into existence, and I don't think Kant would either. — Janus
I think our world of things is already precognitively implicit — Janus
I think language makes things determinate for us in highly abstract ways. — Janus
So the question becomes, what is the boundary of a subject ( self )? — Pop
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.