[MD] Know-how

[david buchanan]

dmb said to Steve:
What? We are supposing a distinction between knower and known?!? That is SOM and I'm not supposing any such thing. The knower and known are derived from pure experience and so they are in the conceptual buckets, not the pre-conceptual stream. Again, this is an attack on the myth of the given. It replaces SOM. I thought you understood that. You have read Lila, right?


Steve replied:

....Epistemology has always been about a knower and what is known. As the theory of knowledge, what else could it be? I don't know how we could talk about knowledge without using these concepts,..  Radical empiricism takes you so far as to say that "knower" and "known" are both concepts or static quality, but when you get into epistemology we will always be using these concepts in asking what we can know and what ought to count as justification for knowledge claims.




dmb says:

Okay, well that explains why you've seemed so "thick" on this topic. You are stuck in SOM, just like Rorty. 


Radical empiricism is epistemology by the way. For a radical empiricist, experience IS reality and that means that epistemology IS the only ontology you get. When you see that, maybe we can talk. Otherwise, everything I say will continue to be misunderstood. 

I had the wrong idea about you Steve. Somewhere I got the impression that you basically understand what Pirsig is saying but lately I've realized that you are confused about everything. This is a genuinely surprising and disappointing revelation. 






 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2