Jan 25, 2007 19:39
I've decided that there are (at least) two different types of knowing. I call them "knowing academically" and "knowing viscerally", though I kind of need a better word than "viscerally".
Knowing viscerally is knowledge along with its full impact (mostly emotional, but not entirely). Knowing academically is dry, probably text-based, and theoretical. Like: "I knew academically that the Cambodian genocide was horrible, but I didn't know it viscerally until I saw that video about the killing fields, the one that showed piles of skulls." Of course, there are positive examples too, but that was what came to mind.
It's not really a dichotomy, either. Anything you know, you'll know academically to some degree and viscerally to some degree. I know fully, both academically and viscerally, that MIT's Open Courseware is fantastic. I know academically (and a little bit viscerally) how horrible the Holocaust was. I know viscerally (but not academically at all) that there's something creepy behind me OMG what was that noise.
Comments? I haven't thought this out quite as thoroughly as it deserves, but I know some of you should be interested. I'd especially like to know if this is accepted/debated/discussed in the neurocog community, and if anyone's working on finding neural correlates. (JohnQPublik?)
experiments,
lx,
thoughts,
neurocog,
noticing