[Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science

[Andy Blunden]

My apologies if I caused you puzzlement, Larry.

Formerly, before Hegel, philosophers argued about what it 
meant to say something existed, whether only sensations 
existed, or ideal types, or matter, etc., and about the 
limits to knowledge, whether it was possible to know 
something which could never be experienced, whether a clear 
idea was proof of knowledge, etc. These argument went on 
from ancient times into Hegel's own life time and never 
reached a conclusion, but Ontology and Epistemology were 
taught as subjects in the University.
Although I think the fashion of referring to these in the 
plural is from the last few decades, not an invention of 
Hegel's, Hegel subsumed these "subjects" into his Logic, and 
never discussed them in singular or plural so far as I can 
remember, after 1807. Each formation of consciousness 
(culture if you will) has its own "ontology" and 
"epistemology," which collapses under internal criticism, as 
demonstrated in his Logic.,

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 5/09/2015 3:36 PM, lpscholar2@gmail.com wrote:
> Andy, Haydi,
> I also am puzzling on this topic and reflecting on having 
> the 2x2 grid in hand to help refer to notions of the 
> general, abstract, ontology and epistemology in relation 
> to the idio, singular, specific, unique.
>
> Andy, you suggest Hegel came to realize that both ontology 
> and epistemology are actually PLURAL ontologies and 
> epistemologies that emerge within social formations.
> however,
> the assumption that with the realization of their plural 
> *character* these concepts then become bankrupt and must 
> be *transcended* leaves me puzzled?
> why with the realization of both plural ontologies and 
> plural epistemologies actually residing in “beliefs” do we 
> feel compelled to transcend or go beyond the plural 
> character of ontologies and epistemologies.
>
> in other words, using the 4 quadrants in a 2x2 grid as a 
> guide is it not possible to acknowledge the “adequacy” of 
> each quadrant as expressing a particular character of our 
> pluralistic ontologies and epistemologies and each having 
> value without the necessity of reducing one quadrant to be 
> derivative of the other quadrant.
> Mike and Peg explored the metaphor of “amplification” and 
> is it possible that to amplify any particular quadrant 
> gives that quadrant more “power” but  the ensemble 
> structurally remains the same. To re-organize the 
> conventional relational pattern into novel arrangements of 
> the 4 quadrants (with the quadrants in hand) may be the 
> way new “third spaces” open new ontologies and 
> epistemologies within social formations. the “goal” 
> remains the same [opening third s/places] but the 
> relational patterning of the quadrants remains plural.
>
> if I am making links that don’t make sense and not 
> expressing a legitimate knowledge [too idio in formation] 
> just ignore. I was reflecting on William James notion of a 
> pluralistic world of beliefs.
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Windows Mail
>
> *From:* ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> *Sent:* ‎Friday‎, ‎September‎ ‎4‎, ‎2015 ‎5‎:‎28‎ ‎PM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity 
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> Haydi, on the question of ontology and epistemology ...
> Ontology is the study of being. That does not mean that it
> is concerned only with independently existing entities. It
> is the study of what forms of being there are, such as
> "thoughts". In recent decades this has come to mean a person
> or a culture's belief in the array of different entities
> that may be talked of, e.g. gods, classes or individuals, so
> it is an aspect of cultural difference.
> Epistemology is the study of knowing, in particular the
> limits and validity of knowledge. It is not necessarily a
> study of reflection. In recent decades it has comes to mean
> a person or a culture's beliefs about the legitimate sources
> of knowledge, e.g. priests, books or experience, etc.
> It was Hegel who first proposed that these sciences were
> bankrupt and should be transcended, because every social
> formation had its own integral "epistemology" and "ontology"
> and there was no final answer to the question these sciences
> proposed, so Hegel's view leads us to the modern way of
> talking about epistemologies and ontologies in the plural
> and aspects of a way of thinking and acting in the world.
> Hegel's Ontology is the first Book of the Logic, and I can
> see a sense in which you could say that the Second Book is
> about epistemology, but I don't think this is accurate.
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> On 5/09/2015 7:08 AM, ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪ wrote:
> > P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to 
> differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet I've 
> stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach tells 
> us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the objects 
> there to themselves without any wrestling on our part to 
> get involved with them , then science / genuine 
> materialism would not present any meaning to us . All 
> things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On 
> this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking 
> power are involved except that with ontology , we try to 
> conceive things as existent and trace them as external 
> transformables in themselves while with epistemology we 
> deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in 
> the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean 
> "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and 
> gnoseology which is the province of the second of our 
> division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would 
> mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial 
> philosophical term .
> > In what ways am I completely mistaken ?
> > Best
> > Haydi
> >
> >
>