Have you ever noticed that sometimes, reading TSK’s incisive critiques of ordinary knowledge,\u00c2\u00a0a protest\u00c2\u00a0stirs within and you say, “but I do feel something beyond this ordinariness”?\u00c2\u00a0 And can this\u00c2\u00a0actually be a recognition of a way out of\u00c2\u00a0the ordinariness being critiqued?\u00c2\u00a0 Starting at the last line of LOK 37, “The bonds of country . .\u00c2\u00a0. family . . can be studied from outside . . . but not ‘known’ directly from within.”\u00c2\u00a0 I found myself protesting that this is\u00c2\u00a0obviously true of the selfishness so evident in the behavior of the powerful, but\u00c2\u00a0my own feelings about my children\u00c2\u00a0in fact provide me with my richest sort of inner knowledge.\u00c2\u00a0 A few sentences later, “And this domain (of subjective identity) remains inaccessible to knowledge.”\u00c2\u00a0 This raises\u00c2\u00a0questions for me: Is it not the case that our chief way of knowing who we are comes from the caring, unselfish impulses that arise within us?\u00c2\u00a0 Is it not rather the degree to which we are driven by selfish ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ that closes down our access to knowledge?\u00c2\u00a0 Provided that we are animated by a spirit of caring for others, can these allegiances (“bonds”) be\u00c2\u00a0starting points, which provide us with\u00c2\u00a0a knowledge deeper than the operations of our ordinary, “technological” orientations?\u00c2\u00a0 Or is this just that part of me, which is not ready to challenge my illusions, making a stand? — Michael<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Have you ever noticed that sometimes, reading TSK’s incisive critiques of ordinary knowledge,\u00c2\u00a0a protest\u00c2\u00a0stirs within and you say, “but I do feel something beyond this ordinariness”?\u00c2\u00a0 And can this\u00c2\u00a0actually be a recognition of a way out of\u00c2\u00a0the ordinariness being critiqued?\u00c2\u00a0 … Continue reading