tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522556176561431508.post8080429787605208543..comments2023-11-02T05:48:40.313-07:00Comments on icecrawler/heelwalker: experiment and failure revisitedmerdariushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06462708760979987103noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522556176561431508.post-59555783358378930212009-09-24T13:18:52.654-07:002009-09-24T13:18:52.654-07:00If one would like to talk about the spatial distri...If one would like to talk about the spatial distribution of knowledge, it seems that we have to face the question of knowledge as something external, something that can be extracted from nature in a naive sence (that of uncovering the essence of an object through a series of operations), or something that is produced, that is, something that is dependend on the actual technologies and notions employed, which has its own mode of production and that does not simply "reflect" the objective in the subjective. And as such, there could also be different operational modes of knowledge itself. Knowledge is not something that is "attained" and then put to use in various circumstances, but something that has different mechanisms depending on the type of field that is investigated (which Merdarius highlights through comparison between the methodology of science and poetry). I would like to propose three fields of knowledge:<br /><br /><i>Profetic knowledge.</i> This would be the traditional scientific knowledge in the sense of being able to predict the outcome of a particular experiment, that is, predict the future in a limited sense. The ability to make a prediction is dependend on the ability to understand the specific dynamics of the phenomena studied, and this dynamics in turn requires a certain set of notions and concept to establish a framework of understanding in the first place. Profetic knowledge thus entails an understanding of specific dynamics and the ability to predict certain effects from those dynamics.<br /><br /><i>Poetic knowledge.</i> This is the traditional knowledge of correspondences, of the sensibilities of things, of their analogies and associations, etc. While profetic knowledge is aristotelian in the sense that a thing can not be A and not-A (that is, profetic knowledge can not say that both this effect and its opposite will be the outcome), poetic knowledge is associative and multiplies itself (I know this, and this and this, and they can contradict each other but be true at the same time). I, Flammarion, would especially like to know more about the mechanism for this type of knowledge.<br /><br /><i>Projective knowledge.</i> This is the knowledge of invariant phenomena or universal processes of the mind that are independent of specific individual biographies and psychological make-up. It is not available for experiment in the same sense as scientific knowledge (which always operates onto something external, while projective knowledge operates onto something internal), but requires more introspective techniques and practices (but has the same high methodological standards, of course). The classical example of this kind of knowledge would be that put together by Patanjali on introspective practices and their effects.Kristoffer Flammarionnoreply@blogger.com