http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Acid-epistemology-restarting-a-previous-conversation-tp7594671p7594680.html
"A lot of people don't know this but... " and on the other end,
> Nick,
>
> We assert "knowledge" all the time.
>
> You "know" that is is Friday morning and you need to be on your way to St. John's.
> Person X "knows" that Trump is an A __h_le.
> Everyone "knows' that the sun is 93 million (approximately, depending on position in orbit) million miles away.
> I "know" the sky is blue today, for the first time in three weeks.
>
> The other person is not the only one who believes in auras. I have seen them (and not under the influence). I might have a very different explanation and even a different perception, but that does not mean we both "know" them to exist.
>
> The problem with working understandings is their tendency to become working definitions and simply exclude anything inconvenient from being "known."
>
> Can you think of a working understanding that would allow both of the following sentences to be discussed on equal footing?
>
> I know Nick.
>
> I know God.
>
> davew
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020, at 5:28 PM,
[hidden email] wrote:
>> Two things, Dave,
>>
>> Peirce had actually 4 ways of knowing. Stubbornness, Authority,
>> Reasonableness, Experience, which he tries to treat with equal respect,
>> but his heart is obviously with the last. (The Fixation of Belief).
>> You make me wonder about the relation tween Peirce and that Vedic text.
>>
>>
>>
>> But this begs the most fundamental question raised by your post. What
>> is knowledge, other than belief, and what is belief other than that
>> upon which we are prepared to act? There is one member of our group
>> who, very much in the spirit of William James's altered states, wants
>> to work on aura's He has a tentative belief in aura's. When through
>> experiment and analysis he renders that belief "firm", does he then
>> have knowledge. Already he believes in the possibility of aura's. We
>> know that this is the case because of the effort he is willing to
>> expend in their demonstration. Does he have knowledge of the existence
>> of auras? Does he already know that aura's exist?
>>
>> I think problems with the very idea of knowledge lie at the core of
>> this discussion, and we need some sort of working understanding of what
>> we mean by it, if we are to precede.
>>
>> Nicholas Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>> Clark University
>>
[hidden email]
>>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam <
[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 1:48 AM
>> To:
[hidden email]
>> Subject: [FRIAM] Acid epistemology - restarting a previous conversation
>>
>> Epistemology, loosely speaking, is the “theory of knowing.” What can we
>> know; how do we know we know it; the difference between knowing that,
>> knowing how, and knowing about; and, issues of the “truth” of what we
>> know and/or justifications for thinking we know anything?
>>
>> An associated issue concerns how we come to acquire knowledge. Two
>> means of acquisition are commonly proposed: a priori (independent of
>> experience) and a posteriori (by experience).
>>
>> A Vedic text, Tattirtiya Aranyaka (900-600 BCE), lists four sources of
>> knowledge, roughly translated as: tradition/scripture, perception,
>> authority, and reasoning/inference. Of these the fourth and second seem
>> to map onto a priori and a posteriori.
>>
>> Scholasticism — exemplars include Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, and
>> Thomas Aquinas — was concerned with integrating three of the Vedic
>> sources of knowledge: tradition/scripture (Christian theology),
>> authority (Aristotle and Plato), and reasoning/inference.
>>
>> Modern epistemology (and Peirce) seems to be concerned with two of the
>> sources: tradition/scripture (peer reviewed science journals) and
>> reasoning/inference.
>>
>> Claims to "know" something, in a naive sense of know, like "I know that
>> I am," "I know that I am in love," "I had the most interesting
>> experience at FriAM just now," mystical visions, kinesthetic “muscle
>> memory,” chi imbalance, and, of course, hallucinogen induced altered
>> states of consciousness.
>>
>> Is it possible to construct a theory of knowledge that could extend to,
>> incorporate, a wider range of experience and especially mystical and
>> psychedelic experience? If it was possible, would it be of value? If
>> possible and of value, what parameters could be set to limn the
>> resulting philosophy?
>>
>> davew
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
>>
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>> archives back to 2003:
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>> FRIAM-COMIC
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>> archives back to 2003:
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>> FRIAM-COMIC
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> archives back to 2003:
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> FRIAM-COMIC
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
by Dr. Strangelove