This was pretty interesting! I like that interpretation of Eden. Only thing that I was a bit unclear about is your distinction between knowing-what and knowing-that. I've usually heard this framed in terms of knowing-what vs. knowing-how. Are you using knowing-what in place of knowing-how? Or do you see knowing-that as a third option?
Otto, Thank you for commenting and for asking questions. I feel honored by your interest in this story. I hope my answer is not too lengthy.
I consider ‘Reality And Being’ to be Art more than anything else. The medium is the words I use plus the natural ideas the reader brings. The more wordy ideas are from my experiences with Western and Eastern philosophies and religions, while many of the images and stories are from events in my life. I can trace almost all of the wordy ideas, no matter how simple or complex, to people and texts that inspired me or to what I derived from those; but I seldom reference those sources because either I altered them too much or my interpretation runs contrary to what is commonly accepted. My goal was to create art; my guide in that was my reading of Kant, that art is valued to the extent that it exhibits or indicates intrinsic value. I tried to create Reality And Being as a figurative arrow that is pointing at something. I chose this something, the subject of the book, from my own experiences (which I sometimes fictionalize in the text) because I found the substance of these experiences to be absolutely indescribable—and that idea itself is a constant theme in the book.
More to your question about knowing, I did not take into consideration alternative ideas about knowledge such as knowing-how which I thought equivocal; nor did I take into account the academic notion that “true knowledge must be based on justified belief” which I think is absurd. An instance of knowing-how could fit either -what or -that: I know what raising my arm is by noticing it when it happens; or I know that “I can raise my arm by doing X to raise it.” The distinction I am emphasizing is direct knowledge (which is indescribable and indisputable) and indirect knowledge (which is always in the form of falsifiable statements or similar gestures). I think I maintain that distinction throughout the text, and I think this is sufficient for my purpose. I was reluctant to adopt pre-existing language that did not suit my purpose; and in the chapter, Words (An Introduction) https://archive.org/details/BurntEliot/page/3/mode/1up p. 3ff, I caution the reader about the way I am using words. (These language-related ideas are adapted mainly from Jacques Derrida and Willard Quine.)
If you would like to explore the ideas of knowing-what and knowing-that, the story you read here is more at the end of a trail than at the beginning. Have a look at On Reality and Being https://burnteliot.substack.com/p/on-reality-and-being for an annotated outline. Ch. 15, where the story above would have appeared, is under the general heading, ‘True and False’ (from ideas about Logic and language). But the idea was introduced earlier under the general heading, ‘Container and Content’ (from ideas about set theory) Ch. 13, ‘Knowing and Intuiting.’ The basis for this was laid in Ch. 11, ‘Experiencing and Representing.’
That said, it is a brief book at only about 25k words. I think you will quickly get frustrated if you try to read piecemeal—that is why I posted only the stories and other stuff on this Substack—but it should make better sense when read through from the beginning.
I like the way you approach this sort of philosophy more as art than traditional philosophy. That's an approach that I myself am sympathetic to, and one of the reasons that I don't see my music as completely separate from my philosophy.
I have such a long list of books piling up that I don't think I can realistically read yours right now, but I will keep it in mind!
This was pretty interesting! I like that interpretation of Eden. Only thing that I was a bit unclear about is your distinction between knowing-what and knowing-that. I've usually heard this framed in terms of knowing-what vs. knowing-how. Are you using knowing-what in place of knowing-how? Or do you see knowing-that as a third option?
Otto, Thank you for commenting and for asking questions. I feel honored by your interest in this story. I hope my answer is not too lengthy.
I consider ‘Reality And Being’ to be Art more than anything else. The medium is the words I use plus the natural ideas the reader brings. The more wordy ideas are from my experiences with Western and Eastern philosophies and religions, while many of the images and stories are from events in my life. I can trace almost all of the wordy ideas, no matter how simple or complex, to people and texts that inspired me or to what I derived from those; but I seldom reference those sources because either I altered them too much or my interpretation runs contrary to what is commonly accepted. My goal was to create art; my guide in that was my reading of Kant, that art is valued to the extent that it exhibits or indicates intrinsic value. I tried to create Reality And Being as a figurative arrow that is pointing at something. I chose this something, the subject of the book, from my own experiences (which I sometimes fictionalize in the text) because I found the substance of these experiences to be absolutely indescribable—and that idea itself is a constant theme in the book.
More to your question about knowing, I did not take into consideration alternative ideas about knowledge such as knowing-how which I thought equivocal; nor did I take into account the academic notion that “true knowledge must be based on justified belief” which I think is absurd. An instance of knowing-how could fit either -what or -that: I know what raising my arm is by noticing it when it happens; or I know that “I can raise my arm by doing X to raise it.” The distinction I am emphasizing is direct knowledge (which is indescribable and indisputable) and indirect knowledge (which is always in the form of falsifiable statements or similar gestures). I think I maintain that distinction throughout the text, and I think this is sufficient for my purpose. I was reluctant to adopt pre-existing language that did not suit my purpose; and in the chapter, Words (An Introduction) https://archive.org/details/BurntEliot/page/3/mode/1up p. 3ff, I caution the reader about the way I am using words. (These language-related ideas are adapted mainly from Jacques Derrida and Willard Quine.)
If you would like to explore the ideas of knowing-what and knowing-that, the story you read here is more at the end of a trail than at the beginning. Have a look at On Reality and Being https://burnteliot.substack.com/p/on-reality-and-being for an annotated outline. Ch. 15, where the story above would have appeared, is under the general heading, ‘True and False’ (from ideas about Logic and language). But the idea was introduced earlier under the general heading, ‘Container and Content’ (from ideas about set theory) Ch. 13, ‘Knowing and Intuiting.’ The basis for this was laid in Ch. 11, ‘Experiencing and Representing.’
That said, it is a brief book at only about 25k words. I think you will quickly get frustrated if you try to read piecemeal—that is why I posted only the stories and other stuff on this Substack—but it should make better sense when read through from the beginning.
You might also like reading about sources of the ideas in the stories, The 18 Story-Puzzles https://burnteliot.substack.com/p/the-18-story-puzzles.
I like the way you approach this sort of philosophy more as art than traditional philosophy. That's an approach that I myself am sympathetic to, and one of the reasons that I don't see my music as completely separate from my philosophy.
I have such a long list of books piling up that I don't think I can realistically read yours right now, but I will keep it in mind!