Re: All the way with Piaget (fwd)
Naoki Ueno (nueno who-is-at nier.go.jp)
Tue, 12 May 1998 19:22:15 +0900
At 9:23 AM 5/11/98 -0600, Dewey Dykstra, Jr. wrote:
>Naoki, this is an analogy. The analogy gets to the meaning of 'fit" as in,
>a statement such as "Our constructed knowledge 'fits' our experience and
>enables us to make predictions." The wine bottle is part of the analogy
>and in that analogy, the person trying the grain of sand and the ounce of
>water does not know, has no way of knowing, it is a wine bottle. The wine
>bottle is not intended to be taken literally but as some sort of container
>whose opening will allow the passage of the grain of sand or the water but
>not the baseball. The wine bottle merely _represents_ "out there".
>
>The analogy has nothing to do with conservation of volume or
>standardization of the bottles established by social conventions. In the
>analogy, the wine bottle could have been *any* container.
My point is that "the world out there" is materially, mediationally,
socially produced by ourselves and by doing that, it can be recognizable
and operatable by us.
Even "pure nature" can be regarded as a kind of artifact.
Without something artifical, one cannot see the pure nature.
Similar example is the things you cannot buy by momey.
The thing you cannot buy by momey is recognizable by money.
"The world out there" something like a container itself is a kind of
mediated description and you are interacting with this artifically
reorganized, socially recognizable "world out there".
First, you represented and produced the world with analogy such as
container metaphor in this way, and, from there, you produced your
epistemology.
You loolk like busy and please be free from writing reponse for a while.
Naoki Ueno
NIER, Tokyo