Things we will never know?

Suppose you know that you engaged in a discourse with someone. But you are unaware that this discourse had a profound effect on your interlocutor. You know, of course, you had the discourse (assuming you remember), yet you are unaware of the larger event, the impact on the other. From the other's perspective, this larger event is what happened. If you learn about this impact on the other, you, too, will realize what has happened, what event happened. But not until you are informed. So you both do and do not know what event happened until that point, if such a point ever comes.

I would suppose that from the "others perspective", the larger event is what also happened, but that does not mean that the "smaller" event (if I can call it that) did not happen. There is a distinction between saying that the larger event happened and saying that only the larger event happened. I do know that the smaller event happened, and I do not know (perhaps) that the larger event happened. That does not mean that, as you wrote, that "I both do and do not know what event happened", since we there are two different events.

"Philosophy is a constant battle against the bewitchment of the intellect by language". Wittgenstein.

And yet there was only one discourse.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

I just meant that there was one basic event - the discourse between one and the other.

That wasn't the event. The event was what the discourse was about. Not the discourse. Suppose the event was that X lost a ring. That Y does not know that the loss of the ring also means that from the perspective of the loser, this is a great tragedy does not mean that Y does not know that the ring was lost. It certainly does not mean that he does not know about a "discourse".

I don't understand you, kennethamy. The discourse was the event in my hypothetical. Are you saying discourses themselves are not events? I don't follow you there.

No. I am not saying that. But now, you have to be specific about what event you are talking about, and what it is you want to say about it. Since I have no grasp of your point. Let's try to be literal rather than so figurative.

The problem we're having, I think, is that I am saying something can be both one and many at the same time - one discourse, many effects. I am asserting that the effects are not separate events, but are integral parts of the discourse itself. You are, of course, perfectly within your rights to disagree with that approach to the phenomenon of a discourse, as I believe you do. But that's how I see it.

The problem we're having, I think, is that I am saying something can be both one and many at the same time - one discourse, many effects. I am asserting that the effects are not separate events, but are integral parts of the discourse itself. You are, of course, perfectly within your rights to disagree with that approach to the phenomenon of a discourse, as I believe you do. But that's how I see it.

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 04:23 PM ----------



Perhaps it is better for me to say: one discourse, many discourse. I hope that helps clarify my position.

I don't understand the relation between what you are saying now and what you said at the start about events. They seem to have nothing in common.

In one's personal history, for instance, events may have happened the import of which remain unknown for many years. Does one, in the mean time, know the events happened?

I think this is what I first wrote:



The example of such an event is a discourse.

Why can I not know that a discourse happened, but not know the import of the discourse? For example, I may know that a certain conversation occurred, but not know what it was about.