Rosan Chow wrote:
> I really have to admit I don't grasp the concepts of 'knowlege' or 'knowing',
> if
> you prefer, and 'understanding' all that well. However, just assume for now
> there are real meaningful differences between the two. And they exist
> independently. My question today is:
>
> What kind of knowledge do we have if we don't have understanding?
Rosan
Below is a brief quote from the preface of my book 'In search of semiotics'.
I think this is the idea that Norm Sheehan may be refering to in his post.
"[A]llow me to caution you about the nature of understanding. Understanding
is achieved when, for a moment, there are no more questions to ask.
Understanding is the dead spot in our struggle for meaning; it is the
momentary pause, the stillness before incomprehension continues; it is the
brief relief from doubt that is the norm. Thus understanding is a temporary
state of closure. When we understand something we are effectively saying
there is no more to ask, no more to question, all is revealed. But of course
Œall ¹ is never revealed and the sensation of certainty always passes."
If you take this view then many of the traditional problems of epistemology
(the philosophy of knowledge) disappear. Indeed the questions we are left
with are to do with how we cope with our recurent incomprehension. Or
putting the matter in terms that make sense to us as designers: how do we
create moments of structure and sense in an incomprehensible universe.
BTW there is no necessity other than of our own making that there should be
'knowledge' or 'understanding' Much philosophy is a response to what
Bernstein calls 'the Cartesian anxiety'.
David
--
Professor David Sless
Director
Communication Research Institute of Australia
** helping people communicate with people **
PO Box 398 Hawker
ACT 2614 Australia
Mobile: 0412 356 795
phone: +61 (0)262 598 671
fax: +61 (0)262 598 672
web: http://www.communication.org.au
|