Pensieve (was Re: James the Berk?)

[caspenzoe]

No: HPFGUIDX 106050

{Snip!]
Nocturnus: 
> That in the assumption that objective thinking do exist. I had the 
feeling that JK ROWLING has a major flaw in her epistemic point of 
view. There is no possibility of an objective, or neutral, 
knowledge. An aseptic approach to the world is virtually impossible 
for human beings. (I'm following, Berger & Luckmann, Maturana & 
Varela)> 

With all due respect Noctornus, I don't see any evidence of flaws in 
JKR's epstemic point of view (or yours, actually, so it's possible 
I've misinterpreted you). I do see a flaw in both Del's and Aggie's 
epistimology - the same flaw - which as you've pointed out is their 
assumption that an "objecitve" view is in any way accessible to 
human beings. It's not. The statement you quoted, "An aseptic 
approach to the world is virtually impossible for human beings. (I'm 
following, Berger & Luckmann, Maturana & Varela)," is accepted and 
reliable (and as "unflawed" as possible) science and philosophy 
today.  

The object viewed (in this case the memory) is always colored by the 
point of view of the observer both before and after being placed in 
the pensieve. Therefore, there is nothing inherently objective in a 
memory that has been placed in a pensieve. There is however, 
something inherently more distant in viewing the memory in the 
pensieve as opposed to viewing it in one's own mind. The act of 
placing the memory in the pensieve, in and of itself, changes the 
observer's point of view to some extent - allowing for a MORE, 
though, by no means a definitively objective examination. So Del's 
complaint that one may never conclusively know he or she is 
understanding events correctly when viewing them in the pensieve is 
valid; however, his conclusion that this renders the excercise 
pointless is not. 

Casey