Your concept of Sazen is really interesting. I think it’s an attempt to name an effect that exists only in an incorrect epistemology. Let’s see if anyone agrees or disagrees:
(This is based on Popper’s epistemology as taught to me by David Deutsch through “the Beginning of Infinity”.)
All knowledge is inexplicit. Meaning no language can “capture” the idea. Instead all knowledge transfer relies on giving the listener enough clues to themselves recreate the knowledge on their own. Then applying the label to it.
Example1: When you learn your first language, you do not look in a dictionary for a definition, you learn by trial and error until you get predictable responses. You point at an apple: “lamp” → no. “ball”->no. “apple”-> yes.
Example 2: Rubbing your hands together makes them warm, we call this friction. Any abstract concept needs a lot of explanation. But the more specific the examples, the easier it is for your mind to grasp.
Example 3: “A Scotsman walked into a bar” can be objectively true, but “Scotsman A is not a true scotsman, unlike scotsman B” cannot be objectively true. Truth is therefore not an attribute of the universe, but rather an explanation of the universe.
Sazen is trying to capture the attribute of truth, not describe a learnable piece of knowledge to the recipient.
(rereading parts and reading some comments, 10min later I am unsure of what the actual point of Sazen is. I might not have commented on the intended point.)
I don’t think I quite agree that all knowledge is inexplicit (or at least, I think something funny is going on with that phrase).
But I agree that this-thing-I’m-pointing-at-and-calling-sazen has a lot to do with capturing the attribute of truth rather than transmitting a learnable piece of knowledge.
Your concept of Sazen is really interesting. I think it’s an attempt to name an effect that exists only in an incorrect epistemology. Let’s see if anyone agrees or disagrees:
(This is based on Popper’s epistemology as taught to me by David Deutsch through “the Beginning of Infinity”.)
All knowledge is inexplicit. Meaning no language can “capture” the idea. Instead all knowledge transfer relies on giving the listener enough clues to themselves recreate the knowledge on their own. Then applying the label to it.
Example1:
When you learn your first language, you do not look in a dictionary for a definition, you learn by trial and error until you get predictable responses. You point at an apple: “lamp” → no. “ball”->no. “apple”-> yes.
Example 2:
Rubbing your hands together makes them warm, we call this friction. Any abstract concept needs a lot of explanation. But the more specific the examples, the easier it is for your mind to grasp.
Example 3:
“A Scotsman walked into a bar” can be objectively true, but “Scotsman A is not a true scotsman, unlike scotsman B” cannot be objectively true. Truth is therefore not an attribute of the universe, but rather an explanation of the universe.
Sazen is trying to capture the attribute of truth, not describe a learnable piece of knowledge to the recipient.
(rereading parts and reading some comments, 10min later I am unsure of what the actual point of Sazen is. I might not have commented on the intended point.)
I don’t think I quite agree that all knowledge is inexplicit (or at least, I think something funny is going on with that phrase).
But I agree that this-thing-I’m-pointing-at-and-calling-sazen has a lot to do with capturing the attribute of truth rather than transmitting a learnable piece of knowledge.