reflecting
Typically, questions of ontology (the nature of being) and epistemology (the nature of knowledge) are presented as two separate, albeit interconnected, discussions. Yet I fail to comprehend how these can be clearly separated or distinguished from each other in anything other than a very cursory way. Further, separating these two from methodolgy, from language, from power, also raises questions: What legitimizes the distinction I use in titling this page "onto-epistemology" rather than "onto-metho-epistemolgy"? or "axio-ontology"? or extending Foucault's term and call it being/power/knowledge? I rationalize my naming by claiming ontology and epistemology as more intricately interconnected, but perhaps this is spurious... Perhaps it is more honest to suggest that I link them in order to contrast the more conventional separation but hesitate at making the argument too complicated by extending beyond two: Ontoepistemology is a (barely) usable word/concept; ontomethoepistemology is a bit more of a challenge...
In ancient as in modern times it is doubtful whether it should at all be possible to divorce epistemology from ontology, method from model, the way to know (hodos) from the world order (kosmos)" (Koch 1987: 42).
[R2] One of the central reasons (as I see it) for the pervasive ontological-epistemological split is a socio-cultural dominant belief that there is a reality 'out there' that we have some capacity (but how much capacity?) to grasp or understand. The ontology/ontological existence of 'things' has been (modernistically speaking) rather obvious. The greater question is what we can know about it. Admittedly, this is a sparse argument, however, for the metaphysical(ontological) arguments have not abated over the modernist centuries and the claim that there is a reality 'out there' has certainly been debated, even refuted. It is simply that the materialist-scientific paradigm seems to hold sway.
[R3]
- integrating the observer
- complications and conundrums of self-reference
- skepticism?
skeptical
Typically, questions of ontology (the nature of being) and epistemology (the nature of knowledge) are presented as two separate, albeit interconnected, discussions. Yet the degree of interconnection and feedback between these two aspect of philosophy, of human existence/reality suggests a need to combine the discussion. (Agreeably, it may not end as I have drawn it, boundarylessness you kow... which means there are alternative ways of looking at it... [and so what does this look like? how do i draw ontoepistemology(and methodologyetc. using global local influences, dynamic tension, feedback, etc.? what are teh global directional influences? what are th local attracting/impeding forces (or can these be distinguished from each other?) And what happens when the observer is brougnt into the equation, which is surely where it all has to go? )
Onto-epistemological questions and concerns can range from sensing and perceiving to conceptualizing and conceiving; from objectivity and subjectivity to inter- and anti-subjectivity; from social machinations to social implications; and from in to around and through the complexities and conundrums of self-reference.
[T2] Onto-epistemological questions and concerns can take a variety of forms: from the more radical variations of philosophy (simulacra, schizoanalysis) to the 'hardest' science (Heisenberg uncertainty, Goedel's incompleteness theorem). Ironically both of these can appear at the same end of an epistemological continuum that holds conventional philosophies (realism, even constructivism) and more moderate sciences (biology, economics) at its opposite end - although this is by no means always the case.
- integrating the observer
- bringing forth worlds
- making cuts
- systems
[T3]
<!--perhaps need to be more explicit about why this is onto-epistemological discussion-->
empirical
Typically, questions of ontology (the nature of being) and epistemology (the nature of knowledge) are presented as two separate, albeit interconnected, discussions. Yet examples of such separation are now little more common that counter arguments that bring these together in some way. Most notably, phenomenology, hermeneutics(?), post-modern, constructivist, constructionist and other(?) philosophical perspectives suggest alternatives. Framing the central nature of the relevant questions through illustration/explanation of the connection between 'reality' and the 'observer', various perspectives can be described.
[E2] And what would it look like to frame it in some other way? For that matter, what other ways are there...? Something that begins with mutually constitutive interaction? Something that begins with an artistic (rather than rational/reasoned) expression? Or perhaps beginning, as Levinas does, with ethics, with our relational obligation to, yet fundamental ignorance of, the Other...?
[E3]
[E4]
[E5]
...
critiquing
manifesting
- political implications
- implications for planning: i offer an onto-epistemological challenge...?
[M2]
[M3]
[M4]
[M5]
...
Page info
- "Ontology is the most fundamental branch of metaphysics..." (wikipedia). [epistemology]
- http://ontology.buffalo.edu/
- ontology: a resource guide for philosophers
- OWL Web Ontology Language (wc3)
2003 - 2007