 |
 |
Dear Klaus: You wrote: "what i think you do not realize, and if you do, you should at least admit it, that by locating epistemology in the relationship between real world objects and theories about these real world objects you identify yourself with the cartesian paradigm with the kind of representationalism that philosophers have tried to get out of since vico, which has been recognized as a failure in conceptions of perception since gibson, etc. etc. your need for an ontology is the logical consequence of adopting this view. it has nothing to do with how objects are. i found the conception of humans that this view entails dispicable, and the notion of epistemology eroded to simple representationalism." I fail to see the relation between dispicable conceptions of humans and the erosion of epistemology 'till simple representationalism. Could you please elaborate on that? Until now I only trusted two guys about knowledge: Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres and Thomas Mann. Were they simple representationalists? Were they dispicably viewing humans? I'm worried. Could you or old Giambattista or old Gibson ease my uncomfortable comfort about representation. I remember Hans Castorp lost in the snow and fog with no linearity as reference for time and space as much as I remember Nicolo Paganini's portrait so lost on that same linearity. Their lost faces call upon the ancient Egiptian priests that could calculate the limitis of fields submerged by the Nil river. By making present the flooded places for agriculture during the flood, outside the blurness of the flood, on their minds, they invented immagination which the Greeks came to call "Ideai". If you could explain me the human dispicability of eroding epistemology to anything that one's like, specially to simple representationalism, I swear to God that I'll stop smoking, drinking and dreaming about eating a whole truffle. Best, Eduardo