- if you know that what you know and how you know is constructed from nothing but distorted inputs, and that the truth can only be glimpsed by crossing and comparing these with the reflections of someone else who also recognises the distorted nature of their own inputs, then you are doing pretty well.
I am a bit hooked on this word "epistemology" - knowledge about knowledge. We would want those to close to us to know things in a similar way to ourselves. Not necessarily to know the same things, but to have a similar (recognisable) way of knowing whatever we do know.
Absolute truth may never be reached, but we can move towards it. Knowledge has a form, a shape, and it has gaps, which have shapes too. An important step is to recognise that you - like everyone else - have an epistemology, i.e. that your knowledge has been formed and shaped by more-or-less distorted sensory inputs from before birth, (does the fetus hear mother's voice more or less truly than the newborn infant?) and the distortions continue to shape and refine our knowledge gathered in the present in a similar way.
The distortions of earlier inputs will necessarily affect the way the distortions of more recent inputs are perceived and recognised. In many cases, when the distortions do not contradict each other, those distortions will become invisible, which can lead almost 'everybody' to believe that the world is flat, or that the devil is out to get us, or whatever. Anyone who had an alternative epistemology would be marginalised and/or lonely. (The sufi story 'When the Waters Were Changed' is relevant here).
It is precisely in the margins where we find the best clues about the distortions we accept and reject, and therefore get a better idea about whatever truth may be approached. (Conspiracy theories and heresies will always hold some interest, even if we must guard against being trapped by the restrictive 'armour' which protects them from corruption by the mainstream). For some people the margins are provoking, for others they are a ridiculous waste of time, for still others, it is soothing for the soul to discover: I am not alone in being alone with my epistemology.
Perhaps the only true knowledge we have is the body knowledge which has guided the formation of our body parts in the womb, a program of unfolding ("bootstrapping", as the hackers would call it) which is written into our DNA from the start. Much of this programming is shared with our fellow creatures, and with plants.
The 'automatic' processes of puberty can be another site where we can expect humans to be more animal/vegetable, but our awareness of this is partly distorted by consciousness and culture - not least the whole teenage racket - but in spite of this, secondary sexual characteristics do manage to unfold successfully. They must, or the game is over within a single generation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fumbling
A unified theory of everything is perhaps too much to hope for, and "everything is one" explains nothing, though it may be true. Still, I seek beyond disciplinary boundaries and in depth, for the general guiding principles which may be known either scientifically and irrationally. I am a confirmed fortean: Hoaxes and fakes interest me just as much as genuine specimens. What is a genuine fake? Indeed I believe that some of the most important enlightenments available to us humans arise from 'fooling' the senses or the intellect. Just as infinity in the set of integers is distinct from infinity in the set of rational numbers, so there are multiple truths, nested in rule sets, wheels within wheels, trances within trances.
I really enjoyed reading this post (and damn you for not writing more often!).
I don't even know where to being, so I will just comment randomly and hope, the essence (if any) will shine through somehow.
Distorted sensory inputs, that is a new way of thinking for me. And it makes sense. New species arise from distortions in the DNA, with or without human involvement.
Also, I come to think about the 'Nærvær' book, where there is a description of how we categories new inputs. We usually let the inputs follow the path of old ones. Noticing the traffic light go from yellow to red and knowing what to do about it, that is not something we would want to create new paths of knowledge to figure out.
But sometimes we do need to create new paths, and noticing distortions makes us capable of doing so. This means, further connections can be made, and the whole system of thought will expand somehow.
We are told not to use irony and sarcasm towards children, because they won't be able to understand the mixed signals.
Personally, I grew up in a family where those where more normal than clear speech (you just wouldn't have guessed, would you?!), and so the distorted inputs must somehow have forced me to find the deeper meaning of the words spoken and chosen. It must have been the same approach as to learn a second language.
And as a side note, bilingual children may have a slower start in learning how to speak (mixing the two languages), but at the same time, they have a much easier time learning new languages when they grow older. I believe your blog post offers the explanation.
But perhaps it is not the contradicting inputs on their own, that gives a person an alternative epistemology? Every child will have conflicting inputs somehow. I'm thinking, there has to be a motivational factor for paying attention to the distortions?
There are people, who never sees the marginal clues, even if they were capable of it. Because they have no motivation for dealing with it? No desire to search for alternative truths.
And most people are only sensitive towards distortions within a certain area. We cannot go through life always tuned in with the worlds marginal changes. So we focus on a specific area, that we are motivated for knowing more about.
A wine expert can give accurate description of country, conditions of growth, age and more about a wine, just from a single taste.
But he may not be able to hear, when he is supposed to shift gear, when driving his car on the way to the wine congress (or whatever that is called).
So there must be a motivation for looking at specific types of distortions, even if the ability to spot those distortions are there from birth.
Oh, forgot to mention!
I love the new look, but... There isn't enough contrast between text and background. At least for my tired old eyes, it gets to be quite blurry.
Other than that it looks veeery nice!