Not Knowing Any Better

Dear Readers in Humanities and Colleagues
Across the Curriculum (Courses w/o Borders)

 
  Epistemological  Notions on KNOWING  
                  ( gnostications )
           
Triad:
 
                           semi-conscious  (trickster, jester,
                            jesus, hermes, crow, coyote, fool…)
    conscious          UN-conscious
 
If we talk about unconscious-ness, we are talking
consciously, true? And so it  it’s not "unconscious"
at all we’re talking about, but consciousness’s
version, conscientious unconsciousness..
 
Same with Joe Fish, talking about wet and dry:
all wet, yes? And even his notion of "wet" is fishy.
 
My wife’s notion of Samscoville is AnnClark-ed
and not my Samscoville at all, not even close. This
is not to say my version of Samscoville is
“the right one” either.
 
A stunned student  in an earlier class announced:
“This Book (we were reading: The Passion of the
Western Mind)  Sucks” and after a bit of reflection
we agreed he was talking about himself.—regardless
of what he thought he was talking about.
 
A man sits on a rock and declares: “that’s a hard rock,”
but it is not: it’s the relationship (butt-to-rock ratios) that
rightly might be described as HARDNESS  Not fair to
slap a reciprocal characterization onto the rock as
direct object. . But we do.
 
And the same with marriage: the character of the
relationship gets  reduced to one side or the other
as cause.  A habitat of humanity.  
.
We don’t know what we’re talking about except in
manners of speaking, so to speak.  So at least in
 “school” mode,  if not in “church” and “state,”
HOW we say what-we’re-saying is maybe more
important that what we are talking about.
 
Consider: The MEDIA is the MESSAGE,
                not the message.   
 
        Convention: coming together.
       Conspiracy: breathing together.
            Watching our Words
                & Sentences

xxxooo, Sam