> From: HKUCC::BLOWERS 31-JAN-1995 18:40:55.02
> To: IN%"pcp@mailbase.ac.uk"
> CC: BLOWERS
> Subj: RE: PCP course exercise
> In response to James Mancuso:
>
> Jim,
> I took Gavin to be making a valid distinction between knowledge
> of self (private knowledge) and knowledge of others based
> on external cues from which an inference is made of "internal
> states". Of course descriptive reporting of such to others
> necessarily uses social sign systems from which one
> can address conventionallly (culturally) agreed states
> such as calmness, when one feels something to which it
> would be appropriate to utter the phrase "I feel calm". Gavin does not construe his self to be calm, but *himself* to be calm. In
> expressing the existential state one does not force the introspective distinction
> of a distant observer of the self. This was, I believe, Titchener's
> mistake.
> That said, its an interesting line of discussion.
> Best wishes
>
> Geoff Blowers
> Hong Kong
Exactly. Thanks very much. I was talking about the situation
of the observer with respect to that which is being observed.
I am in a position to say "Gavin Byrne is thirsty" but I am
not in a position to say "Geoff Blowers is thirsty". It seems
to me that I AM in a privileged position in the first case
but not in the second. Thirst is a state which we can observe
(and report on) directly; I took it that the word 'calm' was
also being used in this vernacular, non technical sense.
It may be something to do with the fact that my training
is that of a mathematical physicist! (as was that of GK).
All the best. Gavin Byrne
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%