Sesnse perception + comon sense (I see...)
Memory
Deductive - mathematic
Deductive - logical (same as above, plus macrocosm/microcosm fun)
Inductive/Inference based on past patterns ("It is Bill calling - he always calls at dinner time," "Bill will call at dinner time tomorrow")
Appeal to authority - "Experts say," "the history book says"
Revelation
Intuition
...And my least favorite, the statistical inference, i.e., "Americans feel the next Pope should be liberal" - the part-to-whole based on inference that the part is like the whole
read later
Thanks for the post AG. I saw your discussion on that other thread and thought it was interesting. Looking forward to reading through this thread on the weekend. Thanks for all that you have done.
bookmarking for later reading!
Fascinating...
All persons are infinite, all things are finite. (Actually created persons are potentially infinite while divine persons are actually infinite, but that's a different subject)
Since "comprehension is a species of circumscription" (St. Gregory Nazianzen) persons can know things fully but other persons partially.
Knowledge of entities lower on the ontological scale is by cognition, while knowledge of entities equal or higher on the scale is by love.
There is an innate epistemological gap between persons and things but no such innate gap between persons.
Things are therefore known at an ontological distance by the analytical faculty which circumscribes and breaks things down into smaller things, thus making quantification possible. (We call this science in its most pure form). This knowledge is provable yet less personally meaningful. Which does not mean it is less useful; it is used to control and shape the material universe. Morally, you can legitimatey control and shape what is lower on the ontological scale.
Persons are known by closing the ontological gap in acts of love. This yields knowledge by participation (see Charles Williams and Owen Barfield), not analysis and this knowledge is less certain but more meaningful. It is less certain because it cannot be checked by backing off to enough ontological distance to do an act of analysis.
It is ok, though, for this knowledge to be less certain because it is not used to control and shape; its use is simple union of persons (friendship), with no external objective.
The act of knowing a person analytically reduces the object of the knowledge into a thing and yields false results. This fallacy is variously caled reductionism or perhaps scientism - the belief that all knowledge can be reduced to the scientific method (see Jacques Barzun).
(You can either know a particle's velocity or its position but not both; you can either know an entity as a thing or as a person, but not as both.)
The act of knowing a thing by participation is called romanticism and yields false results.
This is not to say you can't feel affection for things; of course we do. And we also can think analytically about people or God.
But not all affection is love and not all thinking is knowledge. And the order is important; we can feel more affection for things as we understand them better scientifically, and we can think better about people and God if we are thinking about them through the knowledge love produces.
(Applying the analytical faculty to the residue of love is called theology; this is the discipline whereby we reduce the fire of love to concepts the mind can grasp. The purpose of theology is conversation between friends, whose purpose, yet again, is love -- and the pattern repeats forever. This progressive oscillation in friendship between the intellect and love shortens its wavelength as the friendship grows until the two -- the mind and the heart -- unite in what we call, from the outside looking in, ecstasy. What do we call it from the inside? Nothing. It is a sigh. Language is transcended in love.)
So we know by thinking, and we know by loving. Each faculty is good and each has its proper object. The two glories of man are science and friendship. Science is how we keep the Garden; friendship is what the Garden is FOR. (see Genesis 1 and 2)
There are, of course, volumes to write in further subdividing thinking and loving, but this one simple distinction, allowing epistemology to follow ontology, is foremeost.
The difference between belief, faith, and knowledge.
I don't see them as interchangeable, as they each perform separate tasks.
For example, supposing I told you I would pay you ten dollars if you mowed my lawn. If you needed the money badly you would probably consider it.
After a moment, you considered mowing my lawn, BELIEVING I would pay you after you were finished. At this point you have Belief, though not acted upon as yet. Even if you decided not to mow my lawn, you still have the belief that I would have paid you.
As it worked out, you decided to mow my lawn after all and dragged your lawnmower over and cut the grass. You have activated your belief with labor. Labor might also be labeled as FAITH, which is another word for WORKS. You did the work, still believing that you would get paid.
Upon completing the task, I handed you ten dollars.
Know you KNOW your belief was true and your faith/labor/works were justified, for you now possess the the fruits of your labor.
It might also be said that your belief is no longer needed, nor is it necessary to keep mowing my lawn, for you have already have the KNOWLEDGE, the substance of what you believed in and worked for.
Many say, 'faith without works is dead.' Some say, 'I'll show you my faith by my works.'
Wouldn't it be resolved if one could say, faith AND works are synonymous?
In a Christian sense, consider that 'eternal life is the KNOWLEDGE of Jesus Christ and He would sent him.' As we know, BELIEF comes first. Activated by FAITH, and at some point, coming to the KNOWLEDGE -- receiving the substance.
I'm sure the formula can serve as a funcional equation for other endeavors.
Now I can go back and start reading the thread. Thanks again, A-G, for a topic that is sorely needed here.
Yes, divisions are caused by some believing they have all the facts when they don't. In the case of Terri, I would hope that the division is a result of some not having enough of the facts and fail to subscribe to a human consensus on what we do have (for not all the facts will be known) rather than defects of the heart. Best -- Dave
I've naught participated in these deep treads before so forgive my simplicity. There is another type of knowledge, may I suggest 'communal knowledge'. Communal knowledge is much different as as communities. It explains many things which are too bizarre for comprehension. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and even Napoleon. It also explains HEP and any other cheap street riot. Communal knowledge is often used by con-men, or charismatics or political leaders or even riot leaders. There is a subconscious wave which binds up all. A person can stand within the wave, its length is limitless, and the person may be swept up with the wave or stand against the tide of the wave. To accept that there is the tie that binds us means to accept that we can affect that bind. Standing against the wave will not change its direction, but by joining the wave you may gradually do so. Yeah, I know, I'm nutz ;^)
ping to self
As for knowledge and sensation, how do you know when you are having a sensation? Is there a sensation that you are having a sensation? And then a sensation that you are having a sensation about that sensation? And how does that become knowledge about that sensation?
Only our God-given spirit can make it intelligible...
bttt
Knowledge was whatever it took to arouse women to pay attention to me in exactly the manner I liked. I learned a great deal. All other information was supportive detail in that aim, but there it is ... I had a one track mind. A great many conclusions were reached as a result of this, and I know alot ... I thought.
Knowledge post-conversion?
That 'fearing' God is just about impossible to describe - but is nonetheless the real starting point for getting that blissful "aaaaasaHA!!!!!" sensation of really knowing something. I don't 'fear' God in the sense I am deeply afraid of what he might do to me .... I am fearful of him in the same sense that one feels when you visit the Tiger cage of a zoo ... and witness the feeder leave the cage door open a crack by accident. It is a kind of respectful fear ...
Since then, knowledge has changed as an idea for me, basically from what P. Henry defines to what you defined...
bookmark for later bump
I notice that your entry had a lot of 'feel' and emotional subtext.
You must be a woman. ;^)
Evaluation of Information: A-1 being best
Source.......................................Information
A.Completely Reliable............1.Confirmed by Other Sources
B.Usually Reliable..................2.Probably True
C.Fairly Reliable....................3.Probably True
D.Not Usually Reliable...........4.Doubtful
E.Unreliable............................5.Improbable
F.Reliability can't be Judged...6.Truth can't be Judged
Well, though late to the game, I've decided to make a honest effort at answsering your query.
Not being a scientist nor a philosopher, I feel quite inadequate in even begining to talk about classifying and valuing knowledge. However, disregarding how fools rush in where angels fear to tread, I will accept your challenge. And, since I can only speak for myself, I'm speaking for myself...
There are only two kinds of "knowledge" for me personally:
1. Realized knowledge | the information which I've gained throughout all the experiences of my life, through whatever means: sensory, intuition, etc.
2. Potential knowledge | all that I have yet to experience.
Estimated ratio of potential to realized knowledge in Ronzo's life: 99.999999 : 0.000001
Notice that I don't give any valuations at all for either group. That's because I automatically consider almost all information/experience to be basically true, good & beautiful. (The exception would be when the source is a liberal…but then we're talking knowledge here…) Of course not all information/experience is ultimately true, good and beautiful.
So how do I know what in this great mess of information/experiences needs to be valued, and what needs to be discarded? Well, to be quite honest, it really depends upon how I feel about the information/experience.
At this point let me state that for me there is a significant difference between emotions and feelings. I would define emotions as they would be commonly understood, the agitations of our being that often have physical manifestations like crying, laughing, and so on. But feelings I define more like awareness or consciousness; there is a definite link to emotions, but from my perspective, emotions proceed forth out of feelings, not vice versa.
I cannot help but notice that almost all information/experiences have an impact on my feelings. The impact is either positive (pleasurable), neutral, or negative (painful).
Information/experiences that I value are those that bring forth pleasure of some sort. Information/experiences that I would rather forget have brought forth feelings of pain or suffering. And then there's a whole lot of stuff that is somewhere in between, neither all that painful nor pleasurable.
Of course, this is all entirely subjective. I can communicate my feelings to someone else, but I certainly can't force someone to feel the way I do. Nor can I prove my feelings using math, logic, or anything else. They just are. Whether or not anyone else perceives my particular feelings is ultimately meaningless; for I can certainly perceive my own feelings, and to a certain extent even measure their intensity. But don't ask me to explain it to your understanding or prove it to you, it's simply not possible. At best I can communicate my feelings, often imperfectly, and hope that the receptor has the ability to properly interpret what it is I'm communicating. (Amazingly enough, this isn't so hard as it seems, assuming the receptor also has feelings!)
So I can communicate my information/experiences to someone else, perhaps even "prove" them to a certain extent, but so what? Some people will believe anything with no proofs what-so-ever, other won't believe anything no matter how many "proofs" you give them. It's not that people are irrational, it's just that if someone feels good about your explanation, they'll buy it. If they don't feel good about it, then they aren't going to be convinced no matter what. We are not just a bunch of ultra-rational computers testing each and every bit of data that comes are way: our feelings often seem to be the only real test that we actually use.
Another problem is that my feelings may or may not lead me to ultimate truth. Yet, I don't really believe that I'm going to find ultimate truth in this life anyway. I can easily settle for approximate truth for a vast majority of my purposes (apologies to Kierkegaard). I don't need to know the biology of the coffee plant or the inner workings of the coffee industry to enjoy my cup of java in the morning.
RATIONAL THOUGHT
As for rational thought, I find it to be most useful as a means of categorizing all my various information/experiences. My rational thought process (what little there is of it) simply makes some quick little logical determinations about the knowledge/experience, then stores them away for later processing. Most of this happens in the background, unconsciously. Again, for a vast majority of my purposes, this background processing is all that is needed.
My rational mind also serves to test & process particular types of information/experience depending upon my feeling that further analysis is necessary. The rational mind then works the problem until it feels right. Then the problem & solution gets placed back in their little pigeon-hole somewhere in my memory, often only to be eventually forgotten--erased from memory. So the very core of my being is nothing more than a lump of feelings, or awareness. All the rational-minded stuff is actually in service to my feelings, not vice-versa. And I have a feeling that this is true for more people than just me, no matter how much they trumpet their superior rationality, as if they were the very incarnation of Mr. Spock.
And speaking of Star Trek analogies, I find my rational thought process is often most fully engaged when having to deal with other people; whether it is through personal contact, books, lectures, or whatever. Then I use my rational processes like the shields on the starship Enterprise: they guard my feelings by filtering all the garbage that often comes forth from human beings, and categorizing it a priori, before it gets to the core feeling level. The information/experiences deemed worthy is then passed on to my feeling mechanism (believe it or not, I have read such a thing does actually exist in the brain!) and then it's my feelings which ultimately decide what to do with the information/experience. Of course, there are times when I don't want my rational mind to get involved with my experiences at all, because the experiences might be bringing me quite a bit of pleasure! At that point, logical analysis only gets in the way.
Come to think of it, a huge chunk of my daily living needs little to no rational analysis. Normally it only comes into play when another of my fellow human being says they've found THE TRUTH, and that's when the real fun begins...
THE BIG QUANDRY
Now here is the biggest problem I face: the information/experience that I find the most valuable of all, that which I'm willing to die for, is almost entirely subjective. I cannot "prove" it to someone else. Of course I've proven the value of this information to myself, and have no doubts about it what-so-ever. I can even say I'm completely certain that it's true, good, wonderful, etc. Yet, because it is somewhat beyond the scope of the five senses to study and observe, regular, physical proofs are impossible.
It's like going to Florida, and then explaining to your friend in North Dakota what Florida is like. You can tell him everything about it in great detail, but you cannot really "prove" there is a Florida until your friend has experienced the place for himself.
That brings up the interesting problem of just how much of our "knowledge" is really just the belief in other's testimonies. How can we really "know" something until we ourselves have experienced it? Just how much of that which we hold dear is just what "feels" right? I think many people would be very embarrassed at how much of their "knowledge" is based on nothing more than good feelings, or even bad feelings!
Well, since there are no right or wrong answers, there you have it! And of course you can neither prove or disprove anything I've just posted, since it's all just Ronzo's subjective musings anyway…
as betty boop often says: FWIW.
All people have the capacity to gain knowledge to some extent. Few people have the ability to convert that knowledge into wisdom.
I appreciate your letting me know about the launch of a thread in which I may be interested. But one ping is sufficient to get my attention; if I have the time and the inclination to participate, I'll do so. I don't constantly need to see that there are New posts to you in a thread in which I haven't been participating.
1) Immediate Revelation (meaning no mediator, just God-to-you) and
2) Mediate Revelation (meaning a mediator--the only one acceptable for Protestants being the Bible itself)
Puritan thinkers rejected the idea of immediate revelation, on the basis that with the Bible being complete, there was no logical need for God to speak directly to people--other then through the mediation of His word.
I apprecite their piety, and serious faith, but at the same time I don't want to put restrictions on God which I don't see in the Bible (even to protect the Bible).
I would call the terms myself:
1}Subjective (personal direct knowlege from God) and
2}Objective (that written in scripture, which I know for certain is true)
The subjective, personal leadings must always be subject to the objective standard of God's revelation in scripture.
Similarly too, classical Protestants have divided revelation itself into 2 categories:
I) General revelation: what we can know about God just from observing creation, without scripture (see Romans 1:19,20) and
II) Special revelation: The Bible, both Old and New Testaments (and only how we find out about the good news of Jesus Christ).
Hope this all helps the discussion.