[ 11.08.2002 ]
'kfthlUlQltpbrvbvomnvmnvrveoeaoeaoeacscsI'm back in business...
though I sure don't know for how long, not until noon... testing - I'd say - this uncertainty and waiting... thinking feverishly, suspecting bad news and the worstgrowing smaller and smaller beyond measure, is it time to go out looking for a strong brach and good rope, eh? For a swing of ONLY ONE rope? ...
Just how can you know what exactly you don't know?
That's definitely a weird and unarguably a philosophical question (not that all definitely weird and unarguable questions were philosophical ones): if there is a point of knowledge blank to a person, how can one be aware of it? I think this is almost as weird a question as the classical concerning the onthological status of holes (if there can be any). "Holes?" Yes, holes. They are something nonexisting in things existing if you didn't know that. So what are they
themselves outside their surroundings that exist? Back to epistemology from onthology: If the thing that you don't know is by definition something you don't know, how the hell can you tell you don't know the thing in question? Or is it that you really honestly
can't know? "Sure you must know it - since you write about it!" No... I don't mean it that way at all. Like things you don't know, holes are seen in everyday thinking as being something natural in their context and rather as a feature in their surroundings than a thing in themselves, in middle of plank or wall or - metaphorically - space (black holes) or knowledge. On the level of everyday concept of "not knowing" one can just as easily fall to think of knowling (something) by listing things he/she isn't aware of on (say, sensory-) level: like electricity we usually shouldn't see if the electrician knew what he was doing. Or atoms. Or But they are differrent. They are positive subjects of mind thinking them, believing in these as experience has taught to be safe, and wether you know it is true or false is a matter of belief rather than of knowing. Anyhow these are
positive aspects of knowledge. Unlike the things people really don't know of. Like that they are pround owners of a wreck they've so dilligently been washing and waxing, after loaning their car to oldest son going for a ride. And say this thing that they don't know, the truth about wreckage isn't expose to ex- car owner yet because of his trip to Alaska. Art and joys of philosophy now, anyone? Isn't it that if it wasn't a car but a painting that got stolen and replaced by a replica the culturally challenged and rightful richpig-owner never could tell apart from the original without an art curator
the poor bastard will never know he don't know this thing.
I have thought of making serious academical essay on this. But I don't know, it's rather... hard to tell if I can write about something I really didn't know. But what I'm really concerned about right now is my job. Will I be performing these official duties I've used to call
MINE after November, when the position is being made parmanent. I don't know, but that's like a hole - something I can see from miles as positively uncertain thing. What I really don't know behind the scenes - but maybe ought to know - is something I really don't know.
Mr EagleOwl [1:18 AM]
[ 11.05.2002 ]
I'm
cold. My hands are colder than the plastic keyboard. I'm freezing, and feel
very ill though so many other things are once again just fine and nice for me (better than just "better", actually). Guess I won't be tomorrow either at work...
Mr EagleOwl [9:59 AM]
