Mapping Knowing

Here I'm trying to think again around the structure of knowing, and what metaphorical maps we might use to provide that structure. It seems to me that most acts of knowing use a structure which involves a human subject engaged in an act of knowing with some object of that knowing (which we might call 'knowledge'). Changing the name of that metaphorical object to 'information' or 'data' takes the emphasis away from the human subject and the act of knowing that they perform but does not alter the basic schema. In a sense I suspect terms like 'data' and 'information' take their meaning partly from their position within this kind of structure. If this is a possible map of the relationships which determines 'knowledge' in these terms; a subject , and act of knowing, and an object of that knowing, then it's worth speculating where this map comes from. I would guess that this is drawn from the perceptual experiences we have with objects in the real world. These fully concrete physical experiences similarly articulate the relationships between subjects, actions and objects, and it may be that this schema is deployed in metaphorical form within our cognition to allow us to understand 'knowledge', with the consequence being that the putative 'objects' of that knowing are structurally separated from the knower just as the objects of perception are rendered as separate from the perceiver.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• knowledge
• knowing
• epistemology
• philosophy
• transcendent
• transcendence
• object
• objectivity
• subject
• subjectivity
• perception
• schema
• metaphor
• Korzybski
• Robert
• Anton
• Wilson
• map
• territory
• data
• information

[NoAddedAnything]

How about looking at it this way; Everything that is thought up as 'knowing' cant have come from nowhere. Nothing in the universe comes from nothing. Therefore, surely a a thinker who 'thinks' upon something...then understands it, is simply just trasforming something in the universe to suit. The idea being that knowing is an effect of something else and so forth...if that makes sense? nice videos i enjoy!

[conferencereport]

i'm not sure I'd agree with the statement that 'nothing in the universe comes from nothing' although I would absolutely concur that this is part of our intuition. I think you're bang on with the idea that understanding necessarily involves transformation, thanks for that.

[conferencereport]

Thanks for the considered response. I'm struggling a bit to stay with your precise meaning but will certainly dwell on it.

Regards

[Russe11john]

i like how u say how your like a subject of yourself that preforming a relationship with the biscuit package. its like there has to be an ultimate subsidizer? but how can there be?

[huntteacher101]

That is all nonsense. I feel the only thing we can ever know of are the conditions that led to us knowing. (our existence) We can also know of the conditions that will lead to our non existence. Those two points seem to be concrete in space-time if we are to subscribe to a logical universal structure. Everything in between those two points is all relative in the relationship that we share between objects presented between the points. That's how I think about this whole ordeal.

[huntteacher101]

Unbounded objects in space-time becomes subject. To make an unbounded object produce subjects requires binding conditions (structure). The logic of this structure is nonsensical to the objects, as long as, it makes sense to the subjects. [perception] I.E. the relation of the subject to the object is bound in space-time. [information] The subject can only know of relations bounded between objects in their space-time. [knowledge] Anything unbounded to the subject can not be logical. [ver of per