"An emperor once asked his cartographers to draw an accurate map of his
empire. The map was so accurate that unfolded could cover exactly the whole
territory."
J.L. Borges
I'm quoting (and translating) by memory

Although connected, epistemology and ontology are not the same thing or one
part of the other. Both require metaphysical work. Both are intended be
built on a “logos”. If you have said “eroding ontology until mere
representationism” I would agree about the connection to that despicable
view of humans. Eroded ontology, as you point out, is the more likely to be
imposed since full ontology would regard the completeness of being.


I accept Jean’s reformulation of my oath.
Or better: since I have two tinny truffles that my wife gave me for
Christmas I will dream of not eating one and dream of eating the other one.

Best,

Eduardo”

Somehow, due to my incompetence with web interfaces, this mail didn’t went
to the list few days ago.

Terry, Klaus and Fil posted on this thread, and I’ve following it along
with the “Freire’s” thread.
Somehow I feel that they are connected since “being in the world” can be
ontologically justified, epistemologically demonstrated and ethically
described.
The good part about knowledge is that it deals with demonstrations. In that
sense, representations are useful since are “working on a logic dimension”
where demonstrations may occur: the simple dimension of "if A represents B"
exists because I can provisory state, by demonstration, that A rep. B.
Until a better demonstration that states that, although A was representing
B, C represents it better, “A rep. B” means knowledge about B. This is a
very clean place. We don’t worry about B itself since it is has a potency
of being that can, only be “provisoryly” defined on a representationist
framework. Some people call it Language and Wittgenstein certainly did it.
Radical Neo-Kantian views like Goodman’s work lead knowledge to logic
riddles from where it seems to hard to get out (maybe I’m too stupid).
Neo-Heideggerian views like Heidegger’s work lead knowledge to emotional
riddles from where it seems hard to get out (maybe I’m too senseless).
For real interest on epistemology and onthology, if you decide to regard
both views it looks like if you were trying to do House Music on samples of
Bach and Beethoven. (Goldberg variations vs 33 sonata opus 111, second
movement)
It seems that the symbological and the phenomenological humdrums are hard
to cope with.
I think that Hegel is to blame since we acquired from him the illusion that
every thing can be reduced to two balls of different pigments that,with the
right solvent, can produce another colour.

Scientific knowledge (representationist truth), can and always be a field
of study for epistemology. The feeling of Knowledge (essencetionalist
truth), can and always be a field of study for ontology. Both are never
definitive.

How can this related to Freire’s thread (besides to Rugby and Football).
The fact is, when you are confusing the role of both that Truths on humans
being on the world you are probably setting basis for oppression because an
whole and complete theory of Truth would leave no room for differences.
Like Ken said, oppression comes with the “there is no other way” way,
proposed by oppressors and acknowledge by oppressed. Absolute Truth is by
definition acceptable by both.

O God, I should set a religion on Drawing…

Provisoryly, best whishes,

Eduardo