[MD] know-how on paper

[John Carl]

Now to my mind, a wasp has all the know-how in the world on making paper.
 In fact it occurs to me that maybe man learned about paper from watching
the wasp chew up cellulose and spit it back into the world with a new
format.

But this know-how was sure different from the "knowing-that" which occurred
to the egyptian or whomever that  first intellectually encapsulated the
whole paper-making into a distinctly human fetish.

And the reason for the paper was no longer a home, it was words.

Man those words!

What a concept!

Something new for the world to chew on, words on paper.  What do we do with
our ability to make words?

A wiki-spouting dweeb might paste in:

In this article, and in epistemology in general, the kind of knowledge
usually discussed is propositional knowledge, also known as "knowledge-that"
as opposed to "knowledge-how." For example: in mathematics, it is known *
that* 2 + 2 = 4, but there is also knowing *how* to add two numbers. Many
(but not all) philosophers therefore think there is an important distinction
between "knowing that" and "knowing how", with epistemology primarily
interested in the former. This distinction is recognized linguistically in
many languages, though not in modern Standard English (N.B. some languages
related to English still do retain these verbs, as in Scots: "wit" and
"ken").

In *Personal Knowledge*, Michael Polanyi articulates a case for the
epistemological relevance of both forms of knowledge; using the example of
the act of balance involved in riding a motorcycle, he suggests that the
theoretical knowledge of the physics involved in maintaining a state
of balance cannot substitute for the practical knowledge of how to ride, and
that it is important to understand how both are established and grounded.

Of course, "words on paper" is an archaic term, soon to be outmoded by
flickers on screen.  But I have a feeling the terminology will be around as
long as there is still thought.  Something about the magic of words, on
paper, that persists.  Despite changes in fashion and distribution.

Carse - 52}

"To look is a territorial activity.  It is to observe one thing after
another within a bounded space--as though in time it can all be seen.
 Academic fields are such territories.  Sometimes everything in a field
finally does get looked at and defined--that is, placed in its proper
location.  Mechanics and rhetoric are such fields.  Physics may prove to be.
 Biological mysteries fall away at an astonishing rate.  It becomes
increasingly difficult to find something new to look at.

When we pass from looking to seeing, we do not therefore lose our sight of
the objects observed.  Seeing, in fact, does not disturb our looking at all.
 It rather places us in that territory as its genius, aware that our
imagination does not create within its outlines, but creates the outlines
themselves.

John:

So what Carse is saying to us, is that we create the outlines of our bucket.
 It's not a hard, fast, rigidly and academically defined shape at all!  But
a creative act of will.  I get it now.

Which means I can play with my sieve and none to say nay.