This means that the tree that falls in the forest doesn’t truly make a sound because there’s nobody around to have the insight that it makes a sound.
Precisely! This is really unsatisfactory. However, it is still sometimes useful to think in those terms, to not distinguish between knowledge and truth, or to ignore truth and focus on knowledge. The question “How can I find a way to rethink the following insight in terms of maps and territories?” is not rethorical, and wasn’t meant as a dismissal: I really do have a hard time rephrasing something like that in terms other than that the student is beginning to grok, or beginning to develop a relationship with European History in the same way that he might develop a relationship with a friend. I understand that this might be a crutch, and therefore I asked that question.
By joint-carvey ontologies I mean ontologies that carve reality at its joints. Divisions that point at something significant.
The middle half of your commentary leaves me confused, because I don’t see what prompted it.
Thank you for your polite reply.
Precisely! This is really unsatisfactory. However, it is still sometimes useful to think in those terms, to not distinguish between knowledge and truth, or to ignore truth and focus on knowledge. The question “How can I find a way to rethink the following insight in terms of maps and territories?” is not rethorical, and wasn’t meant as a dismissal: I really do have a hard time rephrasing something like that in terms other than that the student is beginning to grok, or beginning to develop a relationship with European History in the same way that he might develop a relationship with a friend. I understand that this might be a crutch, and therefore I asked that question.
By joint-carvey ontologies I mean ontologies that carve reality at its joints. Divisions that point at something significant.
The middle half of your commentary leaves me confused, because I don’t see what prompted it.