What actually happens in the act of knowing is that the relationship between clues and pattern, subsidiaries and focus, is not one of premises and deduced conclusion. When you see Magic Eye dolphins, you cannot fully express in words all the particulars on which you rely, nor all that the focus includes, let alone a step-by-step procedure you followed to move from the one to the other. You cannot express the particulars as premises, because prior to the actual act of integration--before your first-ever seeing of Magic Eye dolphins--you are in no position to articulate the very things that you must rely on if you are to integrate to the pattern. If anything makes the particulars premise-like, it might be that the focus is conclusion-like. Using the terminology then: before you can put the 'conclusion' in words, you must already by relying on the 'premises' that are on ly premises or clues in light of the 'conclusion' you have yet to uncover and express! Logical inference is too impoverished a procedure to capture the grand thing that is going on in the act of knowing.
From Longing to Know: The Philosophy of Knowledge for Ordinary People, Esther Lightcap Meek
1 comment:
That's a great quote. I was listening to Piper recently from his regional conference this year on seeing Christ and he said something similar about not being able to know Christ until we see Him in His glory (from 2 Cor. 4:4 I believe).
Will
Post a Comment