[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
- From: Andy Blunden <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 17:20:00 +1000
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <email@example.com> <1515521538.2418985.1441400930198.JavaMail.firstname.lastname@example.org>, <55EA3736.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: <email@example.com>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: <email@example.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
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.,
On 5/09/2015 3:36 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
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.
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.
Sent from Windows Mail
*From:* email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
*Sent:* Friday, September 4, 2015 5:28 PM
*To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
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.
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 ?