Direct knowledge

I don’t believe in direct knowledge. All knowledge, internal, external or otherwise is indirect knowledge. Knowledge is a process of a thing. Processes do not “exist” independent of a thing. Processes are reified by the process of language. Something always has to perform the process. The process itself and the process of verbalizing the process are performed by something. The process of gaining and holding knowledge is performed by something.

2 responses to “Direct knowledge”

  1. Thank you for taking the time to read and reply. I agree. There is no magic from which knowledge appears. It must be worked through.

    From the few posts I’ve looked through it seems you are also going through similar ground with MOI and direct knowledge.

    Looking forward to engage with you in more conversation about these.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Well said. Knowledge, I think like all information, is a snapshot of causality. You can’t get to that state without causal processes. And no use can be made of that state without further causal interactions. The idea of direct knowledge seems to beg the question about dualism, since without it, it seems incoherent, like saying there can be a painting without any process of actually being painted.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: