topic
discussion
https://discuss.bevry.me/t/2019-08-10-awakening-from-the-meaning-crises-07/848
my notes
A shared Eidos is a conforming to the form of the object (the gestalt)
If you can ‘cause something to be’ you have the deeper understanding of the thing, over simply the describer of the thing, (such as a carpenter knowing the form of a chair greater than the designer)
‘Knowing’ as conforming to the thing in question (contact epistemology).
To rationally confirm a hypothesis you check that your sense-organ is operating normally, the environment isn’t too noisy, and you’re in agreement with others also there.
The Aristotelian-view has an understanding of everything being drawn towards it’s natural and proper place.
There were good arguments FOR the stable earth-hypothesis, and tests they had to show it didn’t turn.
The theory of knowing supported the data for world-with-things-built-with-purpose, and that supported the theory of knowing (This is what’s known as a worldview).
Co-identification, between the identity and the arena: (The football-player can act on a football-field, which allows them to act within that arena, while if you place that player in a different arena, their ability to enact their identity will be stifled.)
The existential mode is to assume an identity and then interpret everything you interact with according to that identity (teach>board>students>etc)
You require a worldview to take on an identity (Peterson’s ‘character in a story’ worldview)