temporal dimension" although I disagree that it is external to us
(obviously) and find it integral to us, as is (for me) God. The
lovely paradox. We are both finite and infinite. Son and Father.
Our awareness of this requires a quiet mind, and, as you say Vam,
being with the knowing. In our exchange here, we offer each other
connection that reaches out from our being and requires all facets of
who we are (if we are honest.) If we are limited to the finite, in
witness from a limited viewpoint such as one that includes fear, ego,
dualism, we are more likely to be drawn into thinking functions of
mind. Letting all that go is quite a trick, and sustaining a view
without any of it even trickier. We are born into an innate
intelligence that includes much more than rational mind. I often find
that here. Many thanks.
On Nov 3, 1:22 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure... I was aware of that in your context ! Thinking about knowing
> is not knowing enough. It is the being with the knowing that is
> knowing indeed.
>
> On Nov 3, 3:19 pm, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > More and more, I find myself preferring a quiet mind, beyond the
> > thinking about knowing.
>
> > On Nov 3, 3:54 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I do see why "you" should considering the Knowledge vs Belief as a
> > > teaser. It is valid question and has a defined answer.
>
> > > Knowledge is preferable than Belief... because -
>
> > > 1) It is found on known FACTS, usually many more than those specific
> > > to a central matter < way to Larissa >, triggering familiarity with
> > > surrounding terrain too ! So, if there was a cloudburst or a landslide
> > > on the way of belief, knowledge will perhaps offer an alternate way or
> > > the nearest shelter.
>
> > > 2) It comes in a package including the knowledge of secondary or
> > > adjunct facts, paths and PROCESSES, tertiary and sub - processes...
> > > which makes our awareness of any matter, thing, being, person, event
> > > or phenomena more complete, detailed and certain.
>
> > > 3) It always leads to MORE KNOWLEDGE... more accurate, more extensive,
> > > things new, more deep...
>
> > > So, why is it considered a teaser... to those of us ?
>
> > > On Nov 3, 1:38 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The question why knowledge is distinctively valuable has an important
> > > > historical precedent in Plato's Meno in which Socrates raises the
> > > > question of why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief.
> > > > Initially, we might appeal to the fact that knowledge appears to be of
> > > > more practical use than true belief in order to mark this difference
> > > > in value, but, as Socrates notes, this claim is far from obvious on
> > > > closer inspection. After all, a true belief about the correct way to
> > > > Larissa is surely of just as much practical use as knowledge of the
> > > > way to Larissa—both will get us to our destination. Given that we
> > > > clearly do value knowledge more than mere true belief, the fact that
> > > > there is no obvious explanation of why this should be so creates a
> > > > problem. We will call the issue of why knowledge is more valuable than
> > > > mere true belief, the Meno problem.
>
> > > > You can get the rest here -http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-value/
>
> > > > I somehow doubt I will be causing much mouse clicking in posting the
> > > > link! I did some work on knowledge justification and value whilst
> > > > bored out of my tree, recovering from a serious injury. I was
> > > > discovering most of academic study is 'witterpiss for wuckfits' at the
> > > > time. There's a big snag in the Meno problem in that it restricts us
> > > > to argument not much informed by science. We could sit down all day
> > > > trying to define knowledge, which might be nice under the Greek sun
> > > > with some Rakis, local beer and imported coffee. No one has defined
> > > > knowledge - rather as we don't have a precise decimal for pi. There
> > > > are, of course, many definitions.
>
> > > > There are lots of teasers like this in philosophy. My take on this
> > > > is :
> > > > 1.there are some things I believe true and have tested scientifically
> > > > or in mathematical proof - these I trust as knowledge
> > > > 2. there are some things I think true and can't do the above with.
> > > > 3. etc. etc. on what I consider reliable or barking.
>
> > > > we worry too much about this kind of stuff and not enough about the
> > > > issues of the condition of ignorance.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário