Knowledge is not identical to what it's knowledge about. Yeah, and? How would that be news to anyone?Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 4:59 pm1. the objective world is not fundementally linguistic.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:46 pmThat doesn't make sense to me. What exactly is the relevance? Can you spell it out?Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:07 pm
Highly relevant since all knowledge is apprehended by the subject.
It's worth stepping aside for a moment to reflect that we may have knoweldge in the form of pure sensation, or praxis. Knowing where the keys on a piano or the instinctive bodily knoweldge of the feel of a car and the feedback from peddles and stirring wheel we cal take for granted. Etc. Such knowledge may be demonstrable, but langauge is usually relied upon to make sense of that knoweldge to others.
All knoweldge not of this kinetic/bodily kind has to be tranlated from the objective world and filtered through the categories of langauge. Since such structures and categories are predefined by our lived experience and previous knoweldge, knowledge that it purely NEW tends to be seen in relationship to what we already know, or think we know. New knoweldge is only apprehended in view of how it compares to what we already know. This can be problematic.
2. Knowledge about the world is understood in two ways. a) non linguistc knowledge, and b) linguistic knowledge.
3, non linguistic knowledgesuch things as muscle memory, imagery, practical.
4. linguistic knoweldge is textual, representative
ONLY representative. Categories and representations called words and grammar ar different from reality. Words are necessarily reductive. They are different specrums of meaning between people's differing experiences and uses of those words.
Words are connotative as well as denotative. Descriptions of reality are therefore ALWAYS approximations. Descriptions of reality are ALWAYS open to interpretation and misinterpretations.
THe more we live the more we construct a world view, and all new information is modified to accomodate what we expect. Children are better at new stuff, since their world views are still under construction and new stuff is more likely to modify the view rather than the view resisting change as happens with older people.
A world view constructed of abstractions - ask yourself how close to reality could it be??
This is why the difference between knowledge and reality is problematic.
I'll stop here.
Is this making any sense yet?
The reason that we'd be expecting knowledge to be identical to what it's knowledge about, or the reason that it would be a problem that knowledge isn't identical to what knowledge is about is?