- PL1310 Review with Connections Explained Outline of human cognition as it progresses: sublation General view of knowing and being ... perfectio enim intellectus est verum ut cognitum. (ST I, 16, 2) ... the perfection of the intellect is truth as known Unumquodque autem inquantum habet de esse, intantum est cognoscibile. Et propter hoc dicitur in III de anima, quod anima est quodammodo omnia secundum sensum et intellectum. Et ideo, sicut bonum convertitur cum ente, ita et verum. (ST, I, 16, 3) Insofar as anything has being it is in the same degree knowable. And because of this it is said that the mind (soul, consciousness) is in a certain way everything according to first and following levels of cognition. And so just as the good is converted with being so also with truth (i.e. whatever exists, is being, is good; so whatever, is being, is also truth). Primo autem in conceptione intellectus cadit ens, quia secundum hoc unumquodque cognoscibile est, inquantum est actu, ut dicitur in IX Metaphys. Unde ens est proprium obiectum intellectus, et sic est primum intelligibile, sicut sonus est primum audibile. (ST I, 5, 2) Being falls as the first thing under the grasp of understanding, because according to this whatever is knowable is so insofar as it is in act (i.e. exists). Whence being is the proper object of the intellect, and so is the first that is intelligible (is knowable), just as sound is the first that is "hearable". Knowing must begin from some perspective of how knowing is to relate to known: 1) one begins with being and the knowing subject then shows how being is what one knows Beginning with this view of Being and Rational knowing, the subject one can begin with Being and then attempt to develop an epistemology that connects being with the mind ("adaequatio mentis cum re" = establishing that what is in the mind is what is in fact independent of mind). In order to do this one needs some kind of theory of reality (like prime matter, form, and existence) in order to establish this "adaequatio" (e.g. the intellectus agens, active intellect, is able to inform the intellectus passivus, passive intellect, with the forma, form, in a res, thing). One of the difficulties with this is the notion of prime matter (cf. Flanagan Quest p.31; Insight p.274-5; 507) which has to be posited but cannot be verified or even known in the ordinary manner. 2) One begins with awareness alone then defines being as what one knows when this awareness reaches a certain stage (no theory of prime matter, form, etc. is used) [N.B. how both of these views have their foundation on the principles described above in Latin.] Another approach would be to begin with the knowing subject where one has direct access to the data of cognition (Descartess Cogito ergo sum, I doubt therefore I am, would be an example where even the act of doubting lays the indubitable basis for not being able to doubt ones own existence); develop an understanding and verification of
what actually happens in acts of cognition. Then in terms of potentials of what knowing can reach, define (i.e. reach notion of) what one knows Being to be. We note that if we start with "ens est proprium obiectum intellectus" (being is the proper object of the intellect) then it makes sense to analyze the intellectus (cognitional activity, intellect) and then come to know ens (being). So the key would be to determine whether beginning with ens est proprium obiectum intellectus is a reliable foundation. We might note that to deny this would amount to claiming that one could know ens in such a way that one could KNOW that the adaequatio cum intellectu would be false. So one would be using the intellectus to deny that intellectus is reliable to know being. The analysis of classical intellectus (including data gathering, understanding, and judging) divides into two main descriptions: spontaneously objective and reflexively subjective. Outline of the following material A) Cognitional Theory 1) Spontaneous Objective Awareness 1.1) Immediate (Objective Awareness) 1.2) Mediate [MEDIATED by meaning] 1.2.1) Direct Objective Awareness 1.2.1.1) experience 1.2.1.2) understanding 1.2.1.2.1) common sense meaning 1.2.1.2.2) science meaning 1.2.1.2.3) statistical intelligibility 1.2.1.3) judgment 2) Reflexive subjective knowing B) Epistemology C) Metaphysics A) Cognitional Theory Review of PL1310 Characteristics All cognition is: a) spontaneous i.e. a pure, natural, desire to know b) heuristic i.e. a desire to integrate more and more into ones cognitional horizon c) self-correcting i.e. a desire to change what one thought satisfied the desire to know when it becomes evident that one thought one knows becomes an obstacle to knowing more. Levels or "dimensions" of awareness This pure desire to know is distinguished into four levels ("dimensions") a) EXPERIENCE a desire for concrete, specific data: to give basis for reflexive reaction to ones surroundings.
It is particular, specific, changing (from moment to moment and place to place). Insofar as one spontaneously reacts one does not notice this level of awareness (e.g. like shooing gnats etc.), but once one becomes aware of this awareness it appears as a "booming, buzzing, confusion" (to quote Wm James) and stimulates a desire to clear up the changing, specific, concrete, ... mode of awareness. b) UNDERSTANDING a desire for intelligibility in the mass of data: how there is unity, identity, whole in this mass or some aspect of changing specifics giving one a meaning as a way of relating this mass of change into a stable, intelligible, whole. This level adds stable, intelligibility, unity to the mass of data and converts the awareness of confusion to clarity i.e. to an INSIGHT. One is doing way more than just reacting spontaneously to this data like shooing away gnats. There arises the possibility of many meanings some of which may have been based on insufficient specifics (data) or were poorly understood (confusion not completely dispelled) resulting in what might be called doubt. c) JUDGMENT this doubt stimulates a desire for certitude to eliminate that doubt; there, then, ensues reflection on what one has already done one reflects on the previous levels to note the adequacy of the experience and the clarity of the understanding. Perhaps with more experiencing of data (if need be) along with correction of understanding one reaches certitude that these levels functioned properly and adequately. This certitude appears as a REFLECTIVE insight. In addition this reflective insight determines whether the proposition (understanding) conflicts with what one already believes (ones cognitional horizon). Once one reaches certitude that these conditions have been met one is ready to believe what one understands with certitude. Once again the many beliefs that one may have reached are again form a kind of mass making it impossible to focus on all; so there is a desire to concentrate on what is viewed as worth devoting ones attention to knowing and developing. d) RESPONSE a desire to worthwhile expenditure of ones cognitional activity = appreciation (love of) what one knows; one desires to retain and contemplate what one has come to certitude about. One reverences and honors the truth (certitude) one has attained. This awareness drives out boredom and/or emptiness. 1) Spontaneous Objective Awareness Mankind has the capacity to know both objects and to know ones own self (i.e. knowing all of ones activities). The second requires reflective awareness and seems to have been first universally carried out at the axis of history as described by Karl Jaspers. The first, spontaneous objective awareness, occurs in two forms: immediate and mediate. 1.1) Immediate (Objective Awareness) This awareness first occurs primarily by way of the senses, where one is immediately aware of (and even reacts to) objects either reflexively (by "instinct") or by association. Animals have automatic reaction to certain kinds of sense data stimuli AND can come to associate reactions to certain kinds of sense data stimuli (e.g. Pavlovs dogs and when animals learn from others how to associate chasing, say a rabbit, and getting something to eat (where the desire to eat is innately automatic).
This kind of awareness is found in mankind also; there is automatic jerking of hand back from touching a hot object AND then learning by association not to touch objects known by way of this same sense-data-stimulus. What is characteristic here is that there is reaction to a stimulus without having formed a meaning for what that stimulus was. So learning to avoid hot objects need not have any meaning as shooing gnats away can be a learned behavior without having a meaning of what a gnat is. These examples clearly shows that one can be aware and react without any meaning whatsoever. Nominal Meanings Nominal knowing versus knowing of the nature of an object connecting words to what one senses but without a meaning of the nature of that object producing the sense data borders on stimulus-response behavior that is learnt but without meaning of the nature of the object. Here one associates word(s) with something that is sensed but not understood. However, there is at least the understanding that a word (or words) connect to some kind of awareness: e.g. people were able to sense air for centuries, and even name it, before scientists knew better what its nature was. Knowing the name of an object is not completely without meaning in the sense that individuals learn that this object here, there, now, later, etc. is the same object is moving toward recognizing a "unity-identity-whole" that, at least borders on meaning that will be called substantial being. 1.2) Mediate [MEDIATED by meaning] wherein MANY (data) is grasped as ONE (thing) & one (meaning, universal) expresses many (things, particulars). All acts of cognition have two aspects ("dimensions"): a subjective aspect and an objective aspect e.g. in a visual act there is the seeing (as one aspect, the subjective) and the seen (as the other, the objective). One cannot exist without the other; yet one can focus attention on one without the other as happens when one thinks of the length of a table top without thinking of the width or the thickness. Meaning is formed based on how an individual relates the data of consciousness together: it might be how the subjective aspects "click" together to form a meaning like "seeing", "hearing", "tasting", ... in other words one understands what kind of knowing one did. But one can form a meaning based on how the objective aspects "click" together for form a meaning of that which was "seen", "heard", "tasted", .... (e.g. the tree as what was seen or the house was seen, the bird as what was heard, etc.) Meanings of the first type are called meanings in the realm of interiority (i.e. meanings that describe the cognitive operations themselves). Meanings of the second type are meanings in the realm of exteriority (i.e. meanings that describe what the cognitive operations focused ON. 1.2.1) Direct Objective Awareness [scientific and common sense knowing] One can distinguish the subjective and objective aspects in acts of cognition, but so focus on the objective aspect that the subjective aspect is not considered. One tends to not notice the operation of cognition and focuses on the object or ,,product of cognition (what one knows). The temptation will be to imagine that this meaning is "out-there" much in the same way that one is aware of gnats "out-there" that one shoos away.
However meaning is always related in some essential way with the subjective knowers point of view of interest N.B.!! this desire to know or point of view of interest arises from the knowing subject NOT the object. Once again the following is an attempt to describe conceptually what occurs in coming to know with meaning i.e. where meanings MEDIATES what is known to the knowing subject or the object as known with a particular meaning. One distinguishes in insight the operation of knowing from the object or product of knowing, but focuses on what is known. This "what is known" after being verified is considered as the object(s) known. There is almost no awareness paid to the cognitional operation itself; primarily just what is known as object. The two aspects that make up acts of cognition are called are called experiential conjugates. The recognition of ONE or UNITY in data (that extend in time and space and thus would otherwise be considered as many) results in unity of this data = awareness of THING and then recognizing how many things have ONE meaning makeup the act of understanding. Verifying meaning amounts to recognizing that propositional meanings do connect back to particulars makeup acts of judging. 1.2.1.1) experience gathering of concrete, particular data one gathers data over time and space using the senses, imagination, or reflective awareness of particular states of mind (acts of cognition) 1.2.1.2) understanding formation of meaning = (insight, definition, proposition) one grasps how the many in the data can be grasped as ONE by way of insight and definition guided by a particular point of view of interest. In insight one has the "ah-ha" about how the many data can be grasped as a single THING (= "unity-identity-whole"); then one grasps how many things can be considered as having ONE meaning (= definition or concept); then one grasps how two or more concepts can be considered as one claim (= proposition) which now can be considered as potential for judgment = an understanding which can be questioned (further known) as true/false, good/evil, ... i.e. can be judged. E.g. one can grasp the meaning of bird in the data AND also gasp the meaning of feathered thing in that data (= two concepts). Then one can assert one of the other as: "Birds are things with feathers" (i.e. Birds have feathers). This now is a proposition because one can answer yes or no to its meaning; this is not the case with just "birds" by itself (i.e. it makes no sense to ask: "birds", true or false). Conjugates: (from the Latin conjugo = to yoke together) One can analyze acts of cognition to find what has been linked together in consciousness:\ Experiential conjugates: one can distinguish a cognitive activity and its product; e.g. in a visual act of cognition one can distinguish seeing from seen; in an auditory act the hearing and the heard; in a tactile act the touching and the touched; etc. The "product" will be called the objective aspect while the operation will be called the subjective aspect. The objective aspect together with the subjective make a set of experiential conjugates. Explanatory conjugates are those factors, when "yoked together", one needs in order to grasp how objects relate to each other in order to explain. e.g. as objects we have two events a cue ball at moment of being hit by the cue AND the position of the cue ball
when it stops. Factors like: friction, force, mass, acceleration, etc. are "yoked together" as a way of explaining or bringing about an insight that connects these two events i.e. why the ball moved from position one to position two.. 1.2.1.2.1) common sense meaning One recognizes (insight) as how objective AND subjective aspects relate in some kind of ordered manner. e.g. how iron is empirically recognized by touch, sight, hearing, etc. What is happening is a state of cognitive activities where one is definitely aware of the way ones own experiential operations as well as what the product is. This occurs in so-called practical everyday situations as one recognizes hot frying pans, fumes of gasoline, rainfall, house, etc. These meanings can become more ordered when they are classified in more rigorous manners as Cuvier improved on Linns method of classifying organisms; Mendeleevs classification of the chemical elements. These tended to be descriptive rather than explanatory. 1.2.1.2.2) science meaning The descriptive meanings become scientific when the relation between the things in the classification are explained; so movement of an object from location 1 to location 2 in terms of f(orce), m(ass), and a(cceleration) f=ma. These conjugates have no separate existence but are like dimensions of change from location 1 to location 2. They make up the explanation for this change much in the same fashion that length, width, thickness make up the explanation for the size of the table top. 1.2.1.2.3) statistical intelligibility psychological (common sense) probability: guessing scientific probability: actual measurements are made and mathematical "proof" of no intelligible patterns of divergence from the probability "curve" (cf. example at board) leaves the curve as a statistical mode of grasping a meaning in the data that does not require that one be able to specifically know what the next item in a developmental process is going to be. E.g. life insurance is based on the view that so many will die in the next year even though the specific ones (and the specific dates of their deaths) is not known or can be predicted with certainty. There is a special caution to be noted especially for common sense meanings. Just as one is aware of gnats "out-there" to be shooed away (without being aware of meaning) so there is a tendency to imagine that the meaning of the sense data is also "out-there". Thus one would imagine that it was the meaning "out-there" that stimulated the formation of the meaning in ones awareness much in the same fashion that the object produces sense data. N.B. how this completely wipes out the fact that the meaning results ALSO from the point of view of interest of the knower (lumen intellectuale & intellectus agens). This is especially the case with common sense knowing; so let us consider how there can be common sense meaning: a) practical (rather than universal) to cover basic needs of knowing for getting things done without having to come to a scientific meaning every time one wants to do something. Similar to this is knowing that is a virtually unconditioned universal but the knower cannot define or systematize it perfectly (Meno, Laches). b) how the object relates to the subject (i.e. meaning involves both subjective AND objective aspects of cognitional acts as happens in descriptions)
c) tendency to imagine that the meaning is "out-there" in the objects completely independent of the knowing subject (rather than realizing that a point of interest from the knowing subject is required for the data to be known with this meaning) perhaps even imagining that the meaning was "given" completely by the object. This would lead to intolerance for any other meaning both in the subject or in society and thus become a kind of intellectual blindness, scotosis. 1.2.1.3) judgment verification of meaning ("objectively" reflexive) One reflects on ones own previous cognitive activities to see if they were sufficient and clear. a) was the data gathered so as to really satisfy the relevant senses? b) was the understanding of this concrete data clear? not "fuzzy"? c) did resulting proposition in understanding make a claim that is incompatible with what one already knows/ believes. a) the adequacy of experiential (concrete) data is rather easy to know in a reflexive insight in judgment about what was done on the first level. b) is more difficult to judge as to whether the understanding was clear or not as the following example attempts to show. Notice the varying degrees or adequacy of understanding (clarity of understanding) in the solving the following problem there is method A and method B: Problem 8 years ago Arvy was 4 times as old as Benke. How many years ago was Arvy 5 times as old as Benke if he (Arvy) is presently twice as old as Benke? Let: A = Arvys age now B = Benkes age now x = years ago when Arvys age was 5 times that of Benke So the given info can be written as: 1 A-8 = 4(B-8). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . relation of their ages 8 years ago 2 A-x = 5(B-x). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . relation of their ages x years ago 3 A = 2B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .relation of their ages now Note the following two different ways of coming to understand what x is (i.e. figuring out x) Method A) first way of reaching an understanding of what x is. 4 A-8 = 4B-32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .transformation of line 1 5 A = 4B-24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .solving line 4 for A
6 A-x = (4B-24)-x. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .to get Arvys age x years ago subtract x from both sides 7 5(B-x) = 4B-24-x. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .substitute 5(B-x) for A-x (line 2) in line 6 8 5B-5x = 4B-24x. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . transforming line 7 9 4x = B+24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . collecting terms from line 8 10 2B-x = 5(B-x). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .substitute 2B for A (line 3) in line 2 11 2B-x = 5B-5x 12 4x = 3B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . solving line 11 for 4x 13 3B = B+24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .substitute 3B for 4x (line 12) in line 9 14 2B = 24 15 B = 12 16 4x = 3(12) = 36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . substitute 12 for B (line 15) in line 12 17 x = 9. . . . . . . i.e. the number of years ago that Arvys age would have been 5 times Benkes Notice we did not find out what A is so we must substitute 12 for B in line 3 to get A=24. To check we develop the following chart: time now 8 years ago x or 9 years ago Arvys age 24 16 15 Benkes age 12 4 3
So Arvys and Benkes present age now makes a) Arvy twice as old as Benke b) 8 years ago 4 times as old as Benke c) 9 years ago 5 times as old as Benke; so 9 is correct. Method B) second method to expressing how an understanding took place for finding x. Let us now try a second way to understand what x is: Strategy: we notice that in line 1 there are only two unknowns (A & B) and we can get rid of one by using the third line. This will result in an equation we can solve for B. Then once we have B we can put it into line 2 and solve for x. This strategy expresses a clear insight of how to relate the data (the given of the problem) so as to come to understanding what x is.
4 2B-8 = 4B-32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .substituting 2B for A (line 3) in line 1 5 2B = 24 6 B = 12 7 A = 2(12) = 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . substituting 12 for B (line 6) in line 3 8 24-x = 5(12-x). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .substituting 12 for B (line 6) and 24 for A (line 7) in line 2 9 24-x = 60-5x 10 4x = 36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .solving line 8 for 4x 11 x = 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .solving line 19 for x Notice which of these two modes of coming to understanding or reaching x is better? Is either one wrong? Why is one better if both are right? Does the clearer expressing of the understanding indicate that there is a clearer or better understanding in one case over the other? Notice that the answers to these questions do not depend so much on the length as upon how all the "pieces" fit together in a satisfying "ah-ha" or understanding of what x equals. In judgment, as one reflects back on this understanding, one notices the difference. Let us note why the second is clearer: there is a unity in the second that is not found in the first. In other words there is a clear strategy in the second that unifies the steps which is not found in the first so there is greater clarity. There is no apparent strategy in the first. One starts out fiddling around hoping that perhaps the pieces might fall together sufficiently so that one would get the value of x. In other words it lacks internal intelligible unity. We can say that there is a unity (determined by the strategy) in the second that is missing in the first. Even though one gets the value of x in the first, the manner of getting of connecting the "pieces" (the strategy) is missing; so there is no clear insight of how the pieces "fit together", but in the second as one reflects on what happened in the act of insight (understanding) that gets the value of x one recognizes in a reflective insight about that understanding that it was clear. Conclusion If one used the first method to get x=9 there would not be the SAME certitude that one would get from the second, because on the level of judgment when one reflects back on the first and second levels one notices in method 1 that there was clear first level experience of the given data, but in the satisfaction of understanding was "fuzzy" whereas in method 2 one judges that there is definite clarity as a solid basis for certitude that x=9. While this example focuses on clarity arising from putting mathematical data together clearly and then reaching judgment the same applies to understanding any data or ideas. If there is lack of unity in how the ideas or data connect there is greater difficulty in believing the result. So any kind of writing to be convincing must have unity or clarity of how the data support the conclusion (proposition that one wants to assert).
It is in JUDGMENT, when one is aware of ones own awareness that one judges this clarity or satisfaction of understanding (i.e. has the reflective insight or "ah-ha" that the understanding of the proposition being judged was indeed clear). Even though one is reflecting in making this judgment one is NOT recognizing the acts of cognition as objects: e.g. one does NOT notice that one is experiencing, understanding, or judging as cognitive THINGS; one just does them. So all this awareness is direct or spontaneous. Now we take another form of awareness where one reflects on the acts of awareness in order to know them i.e. awareness of awareness. What this amounts to is taking remembered acts of cognition as if they were objects (data) to be experienced, understood, judged, and responded to much in the same fashion that we any other data as something to be experienced, understood, judged, and responded to. So we will be trying to experience, understand, judge, and respond to what things called acts of experiencing, acts of understanding, acts of judging, and acts of responding. To gather this type of data one reflects on, remembers, recalls ones own acts of cognition. So one will try to understand what experiencing is, what understanding is, what judging is, etc. This we now take up as reflexive subjective knowing. 2) Reflexive subjective knowing characteristic of the Axis of History Here, in contrast to the previous, one becomes aware of the very acts of cognition as THINGS to be experienced, understood, and judged or known. Epistemology results from experiencing, understanding, and judging what these same acts of knowing are (i.e. knowing knowing; e.g. experiencing ones own experiencing, experiencing ones own understanding, ... understanding what ones experiencing is, understanding ones own understanding, ..., ...) Here by recognizing the distinction of the subjective and objective aspects of cognition one can come to focus in on the cognitive operations (subjective) as "objects" to be known; thus the knowing subject can come to knowledge of ^his own knowing and thereby be able to direct these acts more intentionally. The data whereby one comes to know ones own knowing is the most direct that one can ever have being directly aware of ones own acts of awareness. By becoming aware (by reflecting) on the very acts of cognition one now comes to knowing ones own knowing i.e. actually experiencing ones own acts of cognition then understanding, judging, and valuing them. Thereby one comes to know knowing itself and thus realize that one is responsible for who one is, i.e. as the one who directs and becomes responsible for these acts. The main discovery is that in every act of knowing one can recognize that the cognitive operation of knowing is distinct from but united with the product of the operation of cognition. One becomes explicitly aware of how subjective and objective aspects of cognition ,,explain what happens in ,,spontaneous cognition and thus develops an epistemology or science of what knowing is. One distinguishes subjective aspects and objective aspects of acts of cognition that lays the basis for knowing where one distinguishes the subject of cognition from the object of cognition i.e. one distinguishes the cognitive operations as being directed by the knowing subject from what results from these operations. So what happens in spontaneous objective knowing is explained as ones knowledge of what did in order to become aware of those objects. The various levels become the basis for an implicit definition of cognition. One explains what happened in spontaneous knowing where one
came to know objects and in the process forming a single cognitional structure for all that is known. B) Epistemology So epistemology = forming a clear understanding of the distinction between subject and object in acts of knowing and in some sense grasp why the activity of the subject is authentic knowing that continually improves and increases how attempts of subjects at knowing fail that can lead to self-correcting as part of cognitional activity. The data for epistemology is concrete even though it is not directly empirical; one does not see, smell, hear, etc. an act cognition. Yet when one becomes aware of ^his own awareness one can recognize meanings that refer to this data just like meanings in spontaneous awareness refer to the empirical data that result in the formation of meanings like trees, birds, etc. The resulting classifications of what experiencing is, understanding is, judging is make up the science of interiority called epistemology. So insofar as the concrete data is expanded to include this other form of data (the acts of cognition itself) such an epistemology is called generalized empirical method. (We might recall how the time of Galileo an emphasis was placed on gathering concrete data that was not there previously. The scientific revolution was characterized by its emphasis one gathering concrete data; not simply "arm-chair" understanding. So here the corresponding revolution is to give emphasis to gathering the concrete data of acts of cognition.) Knowing is NOT an impoverishment of data but an enhancement or sublation nothing is lost of experience when one understands it; rather the higher forms of knowing enhanced what one has already came to know. Characteristic of epistemology before Galileo was the view that one wanted to abstract away the particularity of the data so as to get UNIVERSAL "hidden away inside of it". In sublation one keeps all the awareness of particularity and ADDS generality awareness. C) Metaphysics: focus on WHAT one knows when sublation of awareness has reached authentic judgment. This is the foundational aspects of knowledge about what IS, about BEING the development of the notion of being in terms of what the power of knowing is oriented to attaining. If one attempts to claim that what one knows is completely independent of knowing (i.e. "pure" objectivity) there arises a performative incompatibility where what one is doing (performing, or linguistically asserting) is incompatible with the assertion being made. While it may not be a formal inconsistency it amounts to almost the same. While all of this may sound rather strange it is well to note how people try to put themselves in a bizarre position with regard to knowing: E.g. they will claim that there is no truth, or that each individual has ^his own truth; AND in order to justify this position they will take the position that what exists cannot be known as it really is. N.B. such a position makes a claim that something exists AND that it is not known. This amounts to KNOWING that something exists and then claiming that one CANNOT know that. Such reasoning is often presented to justify relativism. One can reach certitude of only high probability that one will come to know something one did not know before; but this is not equivalent to asserting that what exists cannot be
known. Coming to realize that after self-correcting one is closer to ultimate truth is an indication that there is the perfection of knowing and that one is closer to this ultimate; so such is not a denial of this ultimate. Exercises or induced acts of cognition to bring out the above: a) pure experience: Ex.1: E.g. when one is talking animatedly with someone in the quad, and during this conversation one shoos away some gnats. (no meaning, yet some kind of awareness). One does not have to become of aware of the meaning of gnats as pests and that one ought to shoo them away. The reaction, like stimulus-response, is simply to drive away the pest without thinking of any kind of meaning. Give more examples. How is a coyote aware of the rabbit it is chasing? Response: reflex action; feelings. Scientific discoveries of lunar influence of the tides but never noticed with meaning for years. etc. indicate that there was sense data but it was not understood or known with meaning. b) nominal experience/understanding: Ex.2: Show a poising tool, give its name, and ask if it has any meaning. (common sensically, it is recognized as a THING but nothing more i.e. something one could ask about: ,,whats that while one can give it a name, nevertheless it has little or no relation to anything other than language it fits in nowhere else.) c) Insight (grasping ONE in MANY) One grasps some kind of single (ONE) pattern (scheme of recurrence) that applies to MANY ,,bits of data.. c.1: Look at what is given determine the pattern that is to recur; then continue that pattern placing the rest of the letters of the alphabet so half the letters are above and half below. (Grasping thing, recurrent pattern, substance, unity-identity-whole, what makes all this fit together as ONE) Ex.3 A DEF BC When has one come to know all there is to know given the data? Is there only ONE answer? Determine pattern in the following and continue it for two more members: Ex.4 1, 2, 4, ... Ex.5 1,1,2,3, ... When have we grasped THE intelligibility in a series of data so as to know how it will expand into future data?
c.2: Determine what characteristic (concept) does the following group of objects have: (grasping universal in particulars. What is the ONE (pattern) which is shared by all the particulars? Ex.6 Billy, Sally, Patty, Sunny, Hook, Commercial, Resurrection c.3) Proposition (connecting two patterns): Ex.7 c.3.1: Determine how a characteristic of objects on the left RELATES to the objects on the right. Billy John Sally Hook Patty Sunny Commercial Resurrection Sal Sinker Pod Son Economy Die
State this relation as a relation between two concepts or patterns (i.e. as a proposition.) c.4) Inverse insight: Ex.8 How can one go south for one mile, east for one mile, north for one mile, and then be back at ones point of origin. Inverse insight is realizing that the way one is trying to get an insight is wrong; one needs to struggle for insight in some other way. Hint: problem seems to call for insight about points in a plane; but this orientation of desire for insight must be rejected and pursue insight in another "direction". Some solutions to the examples above Ex.3: 1233443321 OR 12377321 OR 12321123211232 OR ...??... Ex.4: T=2^(n-1) OR T=(n-n+2)/2 so for the second the sequence is: 1,2,4,7,11,... Ex.5: T=P(n-1)+P(n-2) & P(1)=1 & P(2)=1 (Fibonacci) Ex.6: double-lettered words; OR first three may give notion that the series is a series of names, OR words using Roman alphabet, OR words with more than three letters, OR capitalized words, OR words used in English, ... When has one COMPLETELY understood this series of data? Ex.7: Let "Doobles"=those words with double letters (one concept or recognition of recurrent pattern)
and "Baches"=those words without double letters (denial of concept) so proposition = "No dooble is a bache." One could also form other propositions using these concepts: "All doobles are baches", "Some doobles are baches", "Some doobles are not baches", but not all of them are true. These examples serve primarily to distinguish Experience from Understanding AND to illustrate how particular data may be understood in a certain way or in more than one way, but when more data is gathered the first understanding may have to be changed in order for the recurrent pattern to be recognized in all of them not necessarily because it was wrong in regard to the data considered but because of added data show the pattern being considered does not recur in further data. In addition to show how inverse insight functions as a mode of reaching understanding. An inverse insight is NOT realizing how one erred in reaching understanding, but rather it is the realization that what one thought the question (quest) was wrong i.e. there was nothing to be understood in the way one was questing or questioning or searching (expecting an answer or insight). Review: The key act of the psyche in knowing is insight. Even judgment is a form of insight in that one has something akin to "ah-ha" when one has reached a proposition in understanding and then in judgment SEEKS to know if IT IS SO; one reflects on the previous acts of cognition (as data for reflection) and has an "ah-ha" that the first level of data gathering was sufficient; and another "ah-ha" that the understanding really did satisfy the desire for "what is it, why is it, etc."; and another "ah-ha" that the proposition being judged is compatible with what one already knows. The characteristics given by Lonergan are: an insight 1. comes suddenly and unexpectedly; 2. results in the release of the tension of inquiry; 3. is a function of inner conditions not of outer circumstances [i.e. the outer circumstances do not "force" the insight; rather the inner conditions like desire to know, intelligence, ... etc. are essential in reaching insight] 4. pivots between the concrete and abstract; [the insight connects the evidence, data from first level experience, with the pattern or scheme of recurrence grasped "in" this data recall: grasping ONE in the MANY] 5. enters into the habitual texture of the mind. [once one reaches an insight one develops a way of "processing" future similar data; one tends to "see" reality through a developed capacity to grasp MANY as ONE.] Bias toward regarding understanding as a form of experience (like sense data). Upon experiencing something like pesky gnats one reacts not by being aware of ones own awareness but by shooing away what one is aware of. In a similar manner when one understands and judges, say X is Y, such an individual can react as if this knowledge is "out-there" just like the gnats rather than as a result of cognition involving both subjective and objective aspects. One wants to believe that the "X is Y" is given just like the awareness of gnats rather than as a product both of data and a subjective point of view
of interest that inclines one to meanings arising out of this type of desire to know plus what already knows (even mistakenly). e.g. if X becomes impatient with Y when Y does not recognize an object the way Xs point of view of interest led X to a meaning and certitude and says: "Well, LOOK at it, stupid!" [X calls the object a cylinder and Y calls it a chalkholder.] In this example X expects that the meaning (insight) is "out-there" in the object and the object gives this meaning just like it gives data of color, texture, etc. to the senses. So X thinks Y is stupid or simply being difficult. What is happening is that X does not realize that knowing involves understanding that is guided by a subjective point of view of interest (desire to know). While this can give different meanings depending on the point of view of interest (desire to know), and thus be different from person to person; nevertheless the truth of the meanings is not so subjective. Judgment reaches certitude that the meanings did arise from sufficient data (so not purely subjective) and that this data provided basis for grasping a recurrent pattern or insight (so again is not purely subjective), and other data did not form judged meanings that are incompatible with the meaning being judged (so once again the final judgment is not purely subjective, but it is not purely objective either i.e. as if it were completely given to awareness.. So while theories and meanings are heavily inclined in the direction of subjective point of view of interest, the cognition of their truth or goodness is dependent on the concrete evidence found in experience. But there is also a tendency or bias to regard ones "pet ideas", theories, insights as if they were discernible just like sense data is grasped purely in the object "out-there" rather than to realize that a lot of subjective point of view of interest was involved. Summary - Recall: The four levels of cognition are distinguished by the type of desire to know that one has and so what one accomplishes in cognition on that level: Experience since there is no meaning in this type of awareness there is no way to express this curiosity or desire to know with a question, but is certainly immediately observable even in infants who are not yet aware of meanings it makes up the given Understanding desire to know expressed as: who?, what?, when?, where?, why?, how?, ... seeking insight or meaning = desire to clear the confusion of much data to form an intelligible unity or pattern in this data (seeks clarity so as to eliminate confusion). Judgment desire to know expressed as: "Is it (i.e. what is understood) so?" seeking certitude, belief = seeks to eliminate doubt so as to reach certitude about the meaning. Response desire to know expressed as: "What makes beliefs worth incorporating into ones life?" = seeks to eliminate emptiness or boredom so as to reach worthwhile existence.