To begin with, an epistemology of the cross can not be used
by knowers whose claims to objectivity are predicated on domination, for it harbors a deep suspicion of power - based knowledge claims and those who make them.
I would accept this stress on the importance of the categories of understanding imposed
by the knower, but I would want to attribute them less to the given structures of the mind (as in Bohr's neo-Kantian view) than to the limitations of our experience and imagination.
Not only because they can only be known if they are brought together by this one cognition under definite common formal principles, but also9 because cognition rightly understood is not simply the conscious taking cognizance
by a knower of an object which confronts the process of cognition in a completely external and uninvolved way.
The universal structure of the universe is not given, as in most other forms of theology; it is in part constructed and deconstructed
by the knower's particular interests and actions.
Necessary existential truth (metaphysical truth) means to be capable, in principle, of being apprehended
by any knower.
Not exact matches
Just as Hartshorne claimed that God is not only the
knower of all, but known
by all, he now claims that God not only causes all (in a supreme but non-determinative sense), but is the supreme effect of all.
Insulated
by the wealth of possibilities the privileges of power confer, powerful
knowers can ignore limits and resolve ambiguities.
Fueled
by this suspicion, it questions the legitimacy of the powerful as
knowers and their right to decide who is and is not «one of them.»
«7 It challenges the definition of power as domination and insists on the partialness of what can be known
by any of its
knowers and / or
by all of us together.
Classical theology has typically responded to this difficulty
by alleging that, since all things other than God depend on God for their existence, their relations to the divine
knower are constitutive of them rather than of God.
We cast ourselves with our repentance on his mercy: only
by an All -
knower can we finally be judged.
Pope Benedict goes on in CiV to affirm the necessary contextualization of the most objective and fruitful use of knowledge, the production of technology,
by the complimentarity of
knower and known:
I believe that similar insights are conveyed
by Whitehead when he argues against understanding the relationship between subject and object as only that between
knower and known in a Cartesian conceptualism (Al 117ff.).
That would mean there is only one state that could not be known
by the perfect
knower — total nothingness.
Hartshorne's reply would probably be that since,
by definition, God is the perfect
knower, and that means there is nothing he can not know, then either total non-being is impossible or the notion of a perfect
knower is nonsensical.
And why indeed should definiteness escape detection
by an omniscient
knower?
The early modern view of
knowers as conditioned only
by the known has given place to a far more insightful understanding of every act of knowledge as conditioned
by the particular historical, cultural, economic, gender, and racial situation.
H. Richard Niebuhr in his classic study The Meaning of Revelation, put this idea in the context of religious revelation:»... no universal knowledge of things as they are in themselves is possible,... all knowledge is conditioned
by the standpoint of the
knower.
There does seem to be something fundamentally wrong with activity exclusively determined
by the pursuit of power, or claims to «know» which simply reflect the imposition of the perspective of the
knower upon the object known.
The claim of Dewey and others that all knowing involves aesthetic valuation is intimately associated with the idea that knowing is purposive, that it is guided and given form
by some end in view, some active concern of the
knower.
As Thomas Aquinas repeatedly mentions, «to know» means, as a first approximation, that a being is not just itself as this determinate actuality, but also is another, that is,
by holding in itself other «forms,» purely as forms, without at the same time itself having the real being that normally attaches to those forms.7 In this perspective, «knowing» expresses the possession of a multiplicity of forms that extends beyond the formal existence of the
knower and includes forms that the
knower in reality is not.
The causal determinist maintains that the future relative to any moment is fully determinate at that moment and is predictable on the ground of natural regularities
by any perfect
knower of the initial conditions and relevant laws.
By rendering feeling as the interactive function of dative and concrescent actual entities, he can maintain that the subject - object distinction does not merely supervene at any special cognitive level and hence need not be identified either with the difference or the identity of
knower and known.
An object is that which has the relationship of being known
by a subject - which
Knower in the final analysis is the Mind of God, in whose image our own minds are made.
The aim of the paper was to blur the boundaries between the
knower and the known
by mapping experiences from the site visit onto a typography that illustrates explicit, implicit, and null perspectives on curriculum (See Eisner, 1994; Gadotti 1994).
If the clear sighted are constrained
by the credulous and when the «followers» are browbeating the «
knowers», the cat is among the pigeons and the age of obscuration is under way.
In the middle of the Retreat you will enjoy a fire ceremony performed
by a special Shaman, a great
knower of the Mayan Calendar.
Mmmmm, so let's see if we can find some «failed socialist states» as defined
by Mr Not
Knower and his trashy group of fellow non-thinkers????