I’m glad John is enjoying his the manifestation of his influence while he’s here because I know that his ideas will inspire so many people in in the future. People don’t understand the importance of his ideas but they will eventually...
Vervaeke’s four ways of knowing is a footnote to Heidegger’s, and, more explicitly, Wittgenstein’s approach to meaning that was worked through around 90 years ago. Both developed a social view of mind, a view that mind is embodied and embedded in wider processes, a critique of scientism and materialism, a deep analysis of the ‘sickness of a time’. Wittgenstein identified that we build understanding by criss-crossing the terrain using four aspects: meaning as use, meaning as rule-following, meaning as custom, and meaning as physiognomy, but without the intention of creating a theory, all of which is at least eighty years old (see Finch, 1995). Therefore, what Vervaeke is claiming to be a new approach grounded in cognitive science had already been mapped out in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy. Why does Vervaeke, when interviewed, never flag up these influences? Why has he not seem to have read Wittgenstein and Wittgensteinian philosophy given that V's expertise is in philosophical psychology, the very field that W. specialised in?
John's work is very intellectual and at times difficult to access without devoting hours of time listening to his lectures. This is a clear and succinct breakdown in less than 7 minutes of one of his key ideas. Well done!
Vervaeke’s four ways of knowing is a footnote to Heidegger’s, and, more explicitly, Wittgenstein’s approach to meaning that was worked through around 90 years ago. Both developed a social view of mind, a view that mind is embodied and embedded in wider processes, a critique of scientism and materialism, a deep analysis of the ‘sickness of a time’. Wittgenstein identified that we build understanding by criss-crossing the terrain using four aspects: meaning as use, meaning as rule-following, meaning as custom, and meaning as physiognomy, but without the intention of creating a theory, all of which is at least eighty years old (see Finch, 1995). Therefore, what Vervaeke is claiming to be a new approach grounded in cognitive science had already been mapped out in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy.
Thanks for the comment - I'm mid-way through my second run at Philosophical Investigations after studying it a decade ago. I think we might be able to agree that for the last 70 years people have been extremely busy NOT getting Wittgenstein? I say bringing some of those ideas into a form people can grasp and use is good work well done. As for what counts as "new", Wittgenstein would no doubt have interesting reflections on that.
@@richardwatkins On not getting Wittgenstein: most people won't and don't, but someone like Vervaeke who works as an academic and claims to be both a practitioner of epistemic and ethical virtue should have 'got' Wittgemstein given W's major concern is with philosophical psychology. Anybody claiming to promote a new paradigm of thinking and being, as V. does, who hasn't bothered to 'get' Wittgenstein should not be taken seriously. Furthermore, why does Vervaeke, when doing discussions and interviews, never acknowledge that he is just stating things that W. and H. had already worked out around 90 years ago? I suggest you read W. through Finch (95) and Ray Monk's (97 - I think) intellectual biography: Ludwig Wittgenstein - The Duty of Genius. Fergus Kerr's (1986, etc.,) work is also very good, plus many, many more. On common features between W. and H. read Braver )2014), and of course Dreyfus & Taylor (2015).
You would like JV to more publicly credit W and H? I don’t have much to say on that but I hear you. What this 4ps model does for me is bring an incredibly accessible way-in to sophisticated thought about ways we know things and for me that’s valuable.
@@richardwatkins My concern is that in interviews JV downplays the origins of his thinking, which he does make more explicit in his lectures; however, he fails to grasp the significance of Wittgenstein. I sense he has never read W. or Wittgensteinian philosophy and thus remakes in his own image what Wittgenstein has already mapped out. In a recent exchange (today on this channel) I had with JV, he stated that he had concentrated on H. because of his concern with nihilism, which wasn't the case with W. To which I sent him this quote from W. : "The sickness of a time is cured by an alteration in the form of life of human beings, and it was possible for the sickness of philosophical problems to get cured only through a changed mode of thought and of life." --Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics Does this sound like W. isn't concerned with nihilism? You can read the exchange I had with JV under his comment: "some wonderful things hers'", which is his generic way of responding to all comments on all the UA-cam channels on which he features. Flattery will get you everywhere, especially on UA-cam. Just now, he stopped communicating with me because he thinks I'm being 'insulting'. In this case, the accusation of an insult insulates someone from intellectual and ethical accountability.
This is really good! This is the best video I've seen so far breaking down John's 4 kinds of knowing. Striving Vs Settling in. That distinction was specifically really useful.
Thanks. Glad you like it. Striving vs settling in is my sense of it from my work and my life - I’m not sure if John speaks about it like that. Hope you enjoy the other videos on the channel.
Thanks for making this video man! I was trying to explain the four types to a friend of mine and wanted to link him to a video explaining it when I found this. Great work!
This might now be the go-to summary that I share with people to explicate Four P Knowing. With deep thanks for the way in which you've bottled all of this up, Rich. Great summary here of one corner of John Vervaeke's work!
Nothing is absolute - all is relative. Especially, perspectival and participatory knowledge will overlap and merge and complement one another. The boundaries are clearer and more readily grasped when contrasting propositional and procedural categories.
Yes, i see it that these four ways of knowing are DISTINCT (you can distinguish each way of knowing) but not SEPARATE (as you say, they merge and overlap - or as JV might say "interpenetrate") - thanks for the comment
This is amazing! I referred to this concept clumsily in my podcast with Vickie Pham, and now I can put this in my show notes! So clear and concise! More please!
Thank you for reminding me about John Vervaeke’s work!! Spent many an hour enjoying and learning from him on UA-cam, and I’m about due for a refresher. Keep it up the great work, Rich.
While watching this I found great similarities to the Greek classical four elements philosophy and your four types of knowing philosophy! 🌪️: Propositional knowing, Air = Mind, thoughts, ideas 🌎: Procedural knowing, Earth = To the material World and Its cycles. 💧: Perspectival knowing, Water = Emotional spectrum 🔥: Participatory knowing, Fire = Instinct, will power, vitality. Thank you so much for imparting your wisdom! 🧙🏽♂️
@@richardwatkins7981 There most definitely is! It just sifting through all the new age bs and then trying to understand the original message and mindset of older generations. What's interesting to me is how more or less every culture came to use the elemental system or at least the symbolism of the elements in Nature to symbolise our understanding of our Humanity & the Universe.
@@richardwatkins I do lymphatic health excerise videos that help people with efficient physical, mental and emotional clarity. I'd love to know what you get from them 😀 I'd also love a chat with you because I feel we've got progressive ideas that will innovate the world. An bi-directional interview-style video comes to mind!
Great, I was looking to learn more about perspectival and participatory knowing and here you have such a great video that sends people in the right direction. Your tone and pace were great. Really matching the content! Cheers, keep up!
Good stuff. Someone really aught to make a YT channel clipping bits of knowledge and revelation from John's teachings and putting them in a palatable and entertaining format. Wish I enjoyed doing stuff like that more or I absolutely would. Just combing through his books and videos blows my mind every time within a minute or two.
John Vervaekeneeds to have his clips channel. Between the 90 min of Vervaeke lecture and a 6 min summary clip, people will inevitably choose a 6min clip.🙂👍
Thanks Simon - there’s other stuff up already and in the pipeline ☺️ on JV specifically I want to look at his transparency/opacity shift - seeing vs seeing through
I enjoyed watching this and I appreciate your time an effort in creating this. Please continue to make content that illustrates ways to apply these deep philosophical ideas. Thanks @Rich
I think the net product of applying these four kinds of knowing, would be operating with common sense. When considering the medical issue that is destroying our preferred way of life, 1) I familiarized myself with the workings of the immune system on all levels. 2).I listened to the experts’ on how each one perceived the problem at hand. 3) I evaluated the risk/reward of the various solutions. 4) I settled on the most practical solution for my situation. 5) I will issue a liability notice on anyone who tries to impose a solution in accord with my personal decision. Problem solved.
@@richardwatkins Well, I am currently writing my dissertation on predictive processing and disruptive strategies like meditation that relax the grip we have on our self-model. I think this ties in nicely with four kinds of knowing since therapy is often a way of ganing insight into a different waysof knowing. So possibly something on insight and meditation (if you are interested in that). Likewise, this also ties in with Johns idea of attentional scaling (not sure if its his) which talks about attention (precision weighting in PP model) flowing in and out between the part/whole of a problem, and how we need this kind of process in problem solving. So theres that too! And again, being and having by Eric Fromm! - also ties in with yur video. Theres a whole video just there. If any more come to mind ill send them over.
@@nickpharo5300 i love all these nick... thanks for sharing suggestions and id love to read that dissertation. I'll have a dig around the suggestions. I didn't know the term attentional scaling but the movement from gestalt/whole parts connects to my work over last decade in organisations - it's a big part of what people mean when they say "strategic" thinking. hope you enjoy the other videos on the channel too. Do share what you find useful.
@@richardwatkins no problem! Ill be sure to check out the rest of your vids. And I subscribed so will see future ones too. Yeh the attentional scaling is part of Vervaeke's insight episode related to gestalt/features. You might look at work by Michael Polanyi for that - The Tacit Dimension. Can get a pdf free on pdfdrive.com. Perhaps ill send you the diss after im finished. Anyway, apart from that, all the best Richard.
@@richardwatkins ah what a wonderful journey to have embarked on, congratulations! You’ve already planted your seeds and it’s clear you can create quality work. So I’ll be here if you choose to continue! ❤️
Great job, Rich! Excellent summary. I'm trying to relate/integrate the 4Ps of knowing with the 4Es of 4E cognitive science (+ the 2 more from John). Can you recall if he's done this anywhere? Thanks.
Interesting. I hadn't thought to integrate them and (to me) they don't seem straightforwardly linked.... perhaps we could say that a broader and fuller view of cognition (4E) is a way to move us past an addiction to the "Propositional" way of knowing. But the 4Es seem all related and interwoven. Our cognition is related to the fact that we exist in situations (embedded), are influenced by our whole biological system (embodied), use tools (extended) and understand by doing things (enacted). And, for example our procedural knowing (eg our ability to ride a bike or play tennis) is related to ALL of these 4E factors - and id say the same of our ability to inhabit a perspective (perspectival knowing) or our "at home"ness in particular situations (participatory knowing). But then, thinking it through for the first time as i write, even our ability to grasp propositions seems related to all of the 4Es too. What was your take? Where is your line of enquiry going?
Procedural: Know What Procedural: Know How Perspectival: Know When Participatory: Know Through/Know With Are these valid descriptions? Also, I invite everyone to watch Vervaeke's Awakening From the Meaning Crisis. Really expanded my way of viewing reality
Hey thanks for the comment. Definitely agree re John Vervaeke’s other stuff. On your list, i think there’s lots of ways of seeing it and describing it that work for different purposes... For me I really resonated with know what and know how. The other two don’t seem to me as easy to headline and I found it harder when making the video. For “know when” I take you to mean “know when different things are appropriate” which is a nice way of looking at it - and I see that as one aspect of perspectival knowing but not the whole of it - for me presence gives you a full seeing that isn’t just for that purpose. Thinking through your list I wonder whether you could say that perspectival as a deeper /fuller kind of “know what” and participatory as a deeper/fuller kind of “know how”...
This is wonderful!!!!
Glad you liked it John - I think it's a really wonderful distinction
Great to have a 7 minute video about this important and excellent distictions of knowing. Good job!
I’m glad John is enjoying his the manifestation of his influence while he’s here because I know that his ideas will inspire so many people in in the future. People don’t understand the importance of his ideas but they will eventually...
This is a great way to understand knowledge John - you are definitely plugged into something. Keep pursuing what is True.
Vervaeke’s four ways of knowing is a footnote to Heidegger’s, and, more explicitly, Wittgenstein’s approach to meaning that was worked through around 90 years ago. Both developed a social view of mind, a view that mind is embodied and embedded in wider processes, a critique of scientism and materialism, a deep analysis of the ‘sickness of a time’. Wittgenstein identified that we build understanding by criss-crossing the terrain using four aspects: meaning as use, meaning as rule-following, meaning as custom, and meaning as physiognomy, but without the intention of creating a theory, all of which is at least eighty years old (see Finch, 1995). Therefore, what Vervaeke is claiming to be a new approach grounded in cognitive science had already been mapped out in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy. Why does Vervaeke, when interviewed, never flag up these influences? Why has he not seem to have read Wittgenstein and Wittgensteinian philosophy given that V's expertise is in philosophical psychology, the very field that W. specialised in?
.Recently discovered John Vervaeke, he is brilliant. This is a succinct explanation of a complex idea. Well done.
🙏
John's work is very intellectual and at times difficult to access without devoting hours of time listening to his lectures. This is a clear and succinct breakdown in less than 7 minutes of one of his key ideas. Well done!
Appreciate you saying that
Amazing! you truly have a gift for explaining concepts! Thank you :)
Glad it was helpful - hope you enjoy the others
Vervaeke’s four ways of knowing is a footnote to Heidegger’s, and, more explicitly, Wittgenstein’s approach to meaning that was worked through around 90 years ago. Both developed a social view of mind, a view that mind is embodied and embedded in wider processes, a critique of scientism and materialism, a deep analysis of the ‘sickness of a time’. Wittgenstein identified that we build understanding by criss-crossing the terrain using four aspects: meaning as use, meaning as rule-following, meaning as custom, and meaning as physiognomy, but without the intention of creating a theory, all of which is at least eighty years old (see Finch, 1995). Therefore, what Vervaeke is claiming to be a new approach grounded in cognitive science had already been mapped out in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy.
Thanks for the comment - I'm mid-way through my second run at Philosophical Investigations after studying it a decade ago. I think we might be able to agree that for the last 70 years people have been extremely busy NOT getting Wittgenstein? I say bringing some of those ideas into a form people can grasp and use is good work well done. As for what counts as "new", Wittgenstein would no doubt have interesting reflections on that.
@@richardwatkins On not getting Wittgenstein: most people won't and don't, but someone like Vervaeke who works as an academic and claims to be both a practitioner of epistemic and ethical virtue should have 'got' Wittgemstein given W's major concern is with philosophical psychology. Anybody claiming to promote a new paradigm of thinking and being, as V. does, who hasn't bothered to 'get' Wittgenstein should not be taken seriously. Furthermore, why does Vervaeke, when doing discussions and interviews, never acknowledge that he is just stating things that W. and H. had already worked out around 90 years ago? I suggest you read W. through Finch (95) and Ray Monk's (97 - I think) intellectual biography: Ludwig Wittgenstein - The Duty of Genius. Fergus Kerr's (1986, etc.,) work is also very good, plus many, many more. On common features between W. and H. read Braver )2014), and of course Dreyfus & Taylor (2015).
You would like JV to more publicly credit W and H? I don’t have much to say on that but I hear you. What this 4ps model does for me is bring an incredibly accessible way-in to sophisticated thought about ways we know things and for me that’s valuable.
@@richardwatkins My concern is that in interviews JV downplays the origins of his thinking, which he does make more explicit in his lectures; however, he fails to grasp the significance of Wittgenstein. I sense he has never read W. or Wittgensteinian philosophy and thus remakes in his own image what Wittgenstein has already mapped out. In a recent exchange (today on this channel) I had with JV, he stated that he had concentrated on H. because of his concern with nihilism, which wasn't the case with W. To which I sent him this quote from W. : "The sickness of a time is cured by an alteration in the form of life of human beings, and it was possible for the sickness of philosophical problems to get cured only through a changed mode of thought and of life."
--Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics
Does this sound like W. isn't concerned with nihilism?
You can read the exchange I had with JV under his comment: "some wonderful things hers'", which is his generic way of responding to all comments on all the UA-cam channels on which he features. Flattery will get you everywhere, especially on UA-cam. Just now, he stopped communicating with me because he thinks I'm being 'insulting'. In this case, the accusation of an insult insulates someone from intellectual and ethical accountability.
Wittgenstein is certainly significant
JV’s awesome, thanks for making this vid 🤘
Thanks for comment ☺️
Excellent talk!
thanks
I really appreciate the clarity and succinctness. Thank you.
Thanks Ali - I appreciate the comment - there another JV video and a bunch of others on the channel
@@richardwatkins I'll check them out for sure. Thanks.
Powerful stuff!
💪
Great intro! Thank you!
Glad you like it!
Very clear and accessible. Well done!
Glad you liked it
Beautiful.
Thanks again for the comment Chris - you might like some of the other videos on the channel 😎
This is really good! This is the best video I've seen so far breaking down John's 4 kinds of knowing. Striving Vs Settling in. That distinction was specifically really useful.
Thanks. Glad you like it. Striving vs settling in is my sense of it from my work and my life - I’m not sure if John speaks about it like that. Hope you enjoy the other videos on the channel.
Really well explained. Thanks
Thanks for the comment
Thanks for making this video man! I was trying to explain the four types to a friend of mine and wanted to link him to a video explaining it when I found this. Great work!
glad you liked it
Very inspirational, I want to do a similar thing. Thank you 🙂
Go for it!
Bumping the algorithm. Nicely done mate!
🙏
Your contrasting of the developmental/evolutionary sequence (bottom-up) with the conceptual/meaning framework (top-down) is spot on! Nicely done…
🙏
Great job! really appreciated the quality and thoughtfulness of this video. You are an excellent presenter and I look forward to more videos from you.
thank you - hope you enjoy the others
Absolutely brilliant summary. Keep going! Immediate follow from me:)
Welcome aboard AH
Excellent video. You did a great job of describing, summarizing and applying these concepts. I will be sharing this video with a lot of people.
🙏
This explained the complexity of Vervaeke to me. Thank you so much, hope you keep going with this....so easy to understand such a complex idea
Thanks Maria - new one just posted!
This might now be the go-to summary that I share with people to explicate Four P Knowing. With deep thanks for the way in which you've bottled all of this up, Rich. Great summary here of one corner of John Vervaeke's work!
Appreciate the sharing and comment
Really love this! Thanks for your clear explanation.
Thanks for the comment - hope you enjoy some of the other videos
Nothing is absolute - all is relative. Especially, perspectival and participatory knowledge will overlap and merge and complement one another. The boundaries are clearer and more readily grasped when contrasting propositional and procedural categories.
Yes, i see it that these four ways of knowing are DISTINCT (you can distinguish each way of knowing) but not SEPARATE (as you say, they merge and overlap - or as JV might say "interpenetrate") - thanks for the comment
You are a wonderful orator, you described this concept so succinctly and your voice and cadence is lovely. Well done!
Thank you - hope you enjoy other videos
Brilliant summary - thank you. I have never encountered John until I came across your video. Heading over to watch his videos.
Glad to hear this - you might like the new video i made - John vervaeke in ten minutes
A brilliant theory
thanks for the comment
This is amazing! I referred to this concept clumsily in my podcast with Vickie Pham, and now I can put this in my show notes! So clear and concise! More please!
Thank you so much for saying that and referencing - did you see the other one on JV? Here: ua-cam.com/video/jWLUVyMthkU/v-deo.html
@@richardwatkins I hadn't, thanks!
Thank you for reminding me about John Vervaeke’s work!! Spent many an hour enjoying and learning from him on UA-cam, and I’m about due for a refresher. Keep it up the great work, Rich.
There's so much great stuff there - i'm not an expert on it but i have a nose for a powerful model
While watching this I found great similarities to the Greek classical four elements philosophy and your four types of knowing philosophy!
🌪️: Propositional knowing, Air = Mind, thoughts, ideas
🌎: Procedural knowing, Earth = To the material World and Its cycles.
💧: Perspectival knowing, Water = Emotional spectrum
🔥: Participatory knowing, Fire = Instinct, will power, vitality.
Thank you so much for imparting your wisdom! 🧙🏽♂️
This is interesting link - I wonder what John Vervaeke would think
@@richardwatkins As do I! 🤔☁️ Thank you for liking the comment! Makes me feel slightly less crazy for that conclusion! 😂
@@waterwizard9996 not crazy at all - i can totally see where you are coming from and i think there is often a lot of wisdom in these older maps
@@richardwatkins7981 There most definitely is! It just sifting through all the new age bs and then trying to understand the original message and mindset of older generations.
What's interesting to me is how more or less every culture came to use the elemental system or at least the symbolism of the elements in Nature to symbolise our understanding of our Humanity & the Universe.
very good!
🙏
This ignites me!
🔥
@@richardwatkins I do lymphatic health excerise videos that help people with efficient physical, mental and emotional clarity.
I'd love to know what you get from them 😀
I'd also love a chat with you because I feel we've got progressive ideas that will innovate the world.
An bi-directional interview-style video comes to mind!
The rise of a great Channel.
Let’s see…
Very articulate and insightful and brilliantly presented . Thabkyou !
Glad it was helpful!
This is really, really useful. The kind of reference that I need to help me access JV's work!
Very glad to hear that!
Great, I was looking to learn more about perspectival and participatory knowing and here you have such a great video that sends people in the right direction. Your tone and pace were great. Really matching the content! Cheers, keep up!
Appreciate the encouragement!
Good summary
🙏
A great video, I actuall though this channel is bigger than it is. I hope you'll find a chance to get back into the UA-cam game.
Haha - thanks and it's on my radar too - I will take this as encouragement
Good stuff. Someone really aught to make a YT channel clipping bits of knowledge and revelation from John's teachings and putting them in a palatable and entertaining format. Wish I enjoyed doing stuff like that more or I absolutely would. Just combing through his books and videos blows my mind every time within a minute or two.
What ideas would you most want to see?
John Vervaekeneeds to have his clips channel. Between the 90 min of Vervaeke lecture and a 6 min summary clip, people will inevitably choose a 6min clip.🙂👍
Yep, he 100% does! What ideas would you most like to see shareable clips of?
Thank you for a great articulation of this powerful distinction. This has been very useful for me as well. Keep going!
Cheers for the encouragement Ben
Great great breakdown Richard - really well thought out idea by John.
Thanks for the comment :-)
richard, this is really great!
good summary, clear talk. i like it, continue with this kind of stuff.
Thanks Simon - there’s other stuff up already and in the pipeline ☺️ on JV specifically I want to look at his transparency/opacity shift - seeing vs seeing through
Nicely done. Good hand skills for visually cueing the concepts.
Thanks 😇👐 i learnt facilitating workshops that ideas love to live in physical space
That's an excellent summary. Many thanks.
Thanks Evan
I really like how you've explained this :)
Thanks for saying that - hope you like the other videos too
I enjoyed watching this and I appreciate your time an effort in creating this. Please continue to make content that illustrates ways to apply these deep philosophical ideas. Thanks @Rich
Thanks Clayton - appreciate it - I’m enjoying making them!
Super juicer. Very nice work!
Thanks for the comment, hope you enjoy other videos too - another JV one in pipeline
I think the net product of applying these four kinds of knowing, would be operating with common sense. When considering the medical issue that is destroying our preferred way of life, 1) I familiarized myself with the workings of the immune system on all levels. 2).I listened to the experts’ on how each one perceived the problem at hand. 3) I evaluated the risk/reward of the various solutions. 4) I settled on the most practical solution for my situation. 5) I will issue a liability notice on anyone who tries to impose a solution in accord with my personal decision. Problem solved.
Very nice! Does justice to the AFMC series! Keep up the good work - perhaps some more from the series?
What key concepts would you most like to see explained? My thing is powerful ideas that you can really get a grip on
@@richardwatkins Well, I am currently writing my dissertation on predictive processing and disruptive strategies like meditation that relax the grip we have on our self-model. I think this ties in nicely with four kinds of knowing since therapy is often a way of ganing insight into a different waysof knowing. So possibly something on insight and meditation (if you are interested in that). Likewise, this also ties in with Johns idea of attentional scaling (not sure if its his) which talks about attention (precision weighting in PP model) flowing in and out between the part/whole of a problem, and how we need this kind of process in problem solving. So theres that too! And again, being and having by Eric Fromm! - also ties in with yur video. Theres a whole video just there. If any more come to mind ill send them over.
@@nickpharo5300 i love all these nick... thanks for sharing suggestions and id love to read that dissertation. I'll have a dig around the suggestions. I didn't know the term attentional scaling but the movement from gestalt/whole parts connects to my work over last decade in organisations - it's a big part of what people mean when they say "strategic" thinking. hope you enjoy the other videos on the channel too. Do share what you find useful.
@@richardwatkins no problem! Ill be sure to check out the rest of your vids. And I subscribed so will see future ones too. Yeh the attentional scaling is part of Vervaeke's insight episode related to gestalt/features. You might look at work by Michael Polanyi for that - The Tacit Dimension. Can get a pdf free on pdfdrive.com.
Perhaps ill send you the diss after im finished. Anyway, apart from that, all the best Richard.
Awesome man ! Great work :)
Thanks for comment... new one coming soon
💗
Too many great UA-camrs these days! Subscribed (and wondering where I'll find the time to participate in the growth of your UA-cam channel) 😅😅
Ah thanks Aaron - I haven't recorded much recently as i had a baby!
@@richardwatkins ah what a wonderful journey to have embarked on, congratulations!
You’ve already planted your seeds and it’s clear you can create quality work. So I’ll be here if you choose to continue! ❤️
Great job, Rich! Excellent summary.
I'm trying to relate/integrate the 4Ps of knowing with the 4Es of 4E cognitive science (+ the 2 more from John). Can you recall if he's done this anywhere?
Thanks.
Interesting. I hadn't thought to integrate them and (to me) they don't seem straightforwardly linked.... perhaps we could say that a broader and fuller view of cognition (4E) is a way to move us past an addiction to the "Propositional" way of knowing. But the 4Es seem all related and interwoven. Our cognition is related to the fact that we exist in situations (embedded), are influenced by our whole biological system (embodied), use tools (extended) and understand by doing things (enacted). And, for example our procedural knowing (eg our ability to ride a bike or play tennis) is related to ALL of these 4E factors - and id say the same of our ability to inhabit a perspective (perspectival knowing) or our "at home"ness in particular situations (participatory knowing). But then, thinking it through for the first time as i write, even our ability to grasp propositions seems related to all of the 4Es too. What was your take? Where is your line of enquiry going?
Procedural: Know What
Procedural: Know How
Perspectival: Know When
Participatory: Know Through/Know With
Are these valid descriptions?
Also, I invite everyone to watch Vervaeke's Awakening From the Meaning Crisis. Really expanded my way of viewing reality
Hey thanks for the comment. Definitely agree re John Vervaeke’s other stuff. On your list, i think there’s lots of ways of seeing it and describing it that work for different purposes... For me I really resonated with know what and know how. The other two don’t seem to me as easy to headline and I found it harder when making the video. For “know when” I take you to mean “know when different things are appropriate” which is a nice way of looking at it - and I see that as one aspect of perspectival knowing but not the whole of it - for me presence gives you a full seeing that isn’t just for that purpose. Thinking through your list I wonder whether you could say that perspectival as a deeper /fuller kind of “know what” and participatory as a deeper/fuller kind of “know how”...
Knowledge, Practical skills, Analytical skills, Active Participation. I wouldn't call these "knowledge".
But it’s fair to say you can “know” how to do something? Or you can “know“ what it’s like to be in flow in a situation?