[FRIAM] Acid epistemology - restarting a previous conversation

[Prof David West]

Epistemology, loosely speaking, is the “theory of knowing.” What can we know; how do we know we know it; the difference between knowing that, knowing how, and knowing about; and, issues of the “truth” of what we know and/or justifications for thinking we know anything?

An associated issue concerns how we come to acquire knowledge. Two means of acquisition are commonly proposed: a priori (independent of experience) and a posteriori (by experience).

A Vedic text, Tattirtiya Aranyaka (900-600 BCE), lists four sources of knowledge, roughly translated as: tradition/scripture, perception, authority, and reasoning/inference. Of these the fourth and second seem to map onto a priori and a posteriori.

Scholasticism — exemplars include Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, and Thomas Aquinas — was concerned with integrating three of the Vedic sources of knowledge: tradition/scripture (Christian theology), authority (Aristotle and Plato), and reasoning/inference.

Modern epistemology (and Peirce) seems to be concerned with two of the sources: tradition/scripture (peer reviewed science journals) and reasoning/inference.

Claims to "know" something, in a naive sense of know, like "I know that I am," "I know that I am in love," "I had the most interesting experience at FriAM just now," mystical visions, kinesthetic “muscle memory,” chi imbalance, and, of course, hallucinogen induced altered states of consciousness.

Is it possible to construct a theory of knowledge that could extend to, incorporate, a wider range of experience and especially mystical and psychedelic experience? If it was possible, would it be of value? If possible and of value, what parameters could be set to limn the resulting philosophy?

davew