>>14319157honestly true knowledge is a bit of a redudancy.
the basic definintion many philosopher work off of for knowledge is the socratic one of justified true belief.
i will tell you theres an anecdote/joke about how much of medieval philosophy and metaphycs can be boiled down to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".
so I'd say that there are paths that knowledge can take you down that don't nessicarily lead there or to something "immediatly applicable".
but theres alot of art that get made and just to say I went down a dead end just for the expierence has a certain zen like stocisim to it.
the way I see it
justification
and belief are deinfinitly processes that reside within the person.
truth is debateable, and they talk about how we never will know if what we are seeing/expierencing can be said to be "what is true".
what we do know is that the self is reacting with something external to itself. or it functions as part of something greater. what those things will always be infintly debateable.
like "knoweldge on a page of a textbook" isn't technically knowledge until it is read and processed then regurgitated back in the selfs own words reflected back to experts in the field to ensure its approproiate perspective.
this all tells me that if ANY knowledge exists at all, then its entirely derivative.
its heavily context based and has to be run through several "epistemic/heuristic filters and or 'internalized noetic devises"
i think its just some sort of authors anarcranism or whatever.
if the author doesn't distinguish between it then I wouldn't worry about it. its mostly likely puffery, or a vague abstraction the author can hide behind so they can say "well I clearly mean this when I ment 'tru knowledge" whenever someone brings up a criticism.
cont
