In Defence of Knowledge

If you assume that there will always be new and unpredictable events occurring, each time a new event occurs, associated knowledge is only attainable after the occurrence of such event. It means that at any particular point in time, if we assume new events to happen with certainty (as opposed to assuming that nothing new can ever happen) then we can say that for each moment, we do not know "everything" because something else (whatever that could be) is bound to happen in the future, and that event would make at least a fraction of current knowledge obsolete or incomplete.

Of course, when the next "new event" occurs, we can then try to understand it, adding to our knowledge base, but always, at some time in the future, there will events that we could not encompass in our current conception of the present.

If we were to assume that existence is "fixed" then by all means it is possible to "know everything" as everything would be contained in a finite boundary.

So, do we live in a universe spawned of random and chaotic chance, or one that encompasses complete order and predictability?

There is a mix of both in my mind.

a reply to: Bluesma

I believe recognizing one is ignorant is healthy also, but only if it leads to further knowledge.

Science puts faith in their methods, not their knowledge. A belief in knowledge would call for its refinement. A doubt of knowledge calls for its suspicion; a suspicion, I might add, that is without grounds.

Belief is not the same as knowledge. The opposite of belief is doubt; the opposite of knowledge is ignorance. They do not equate. And knowledge rarely soothes as much as ignorance. In fact, knowledge hurts, and as the ckiché goes, ignorance is bliss.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


I believe recognizing one is ignorant is healthy also, but only if it leads to further knowledge.

Science puts faith in their methods, not their knowledge. A belief in knowledge would call for its refinement. A doubt of knowledge calls for its suspicion; a suspicion, I might add, that is without grounds.

Belief is not the same as knowledge. The opposite of belief is doubt; the opposite of knowledge is ignorance. They do not equate. And knowledge rarely soothes as much as ignorance. In fact, knowledge hurts, and as the ckiché goes, ignorance is bliss.

I do not agree. Belief is not the same as knowledge, but I referred to "belief in knowledge".
"Belief" means an end to questioning the information "known". A choice to no longer suspect it of being flawed, or misunderstood, or misinterpretted.

How many times does humanity have to witness that even when we think we've got it "all figured out" , it turns out we were off the mark? We thought we'd tested every angle, but than a new and surprising one is revealed, and the house of cards tumbles. Even Einstein, who we assumed had bequeathed us with (finally) real truth and reliable knowledge, is turning out to have not.

We have faith in our methods, yet our methods used are limited to our present "knowledge", so we can only discover step by step, bit by bit, as we push past our own limits.....sometimes by the wild minds who refuse this belief in the current knowledge, or often even by accident- when someone trips and falls over the framework of our current "true" and "false".

There is a certain pleasure to be obtained from both ignorance, and belief in knowledge.
I find that in almost extreme possible!
The least comfortable position is between the two extremes... in loyalty to your own perception, despite knowledge of your limitless ignorance.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma

I believe recognizing one is ignorant is healthy also, but only if it leads to further knowledge.

But sometimes that requires action and courage, which armchair critics aren't known for. 😉

Science puts faith in their methods, not their knowledge. A belief in knowledge would call for its refinement. A doubt of knowledge calls for its suspicion; a suspicion, I might add, that is without grounds.

Scientists occasionally succumb to scientism, pseudo-skepticism, and apologetics/polemics because they make a belief-system out of it.

Belief is not the same as knowledge. The opposite of belief is doubt; the opposite of knowledge is ignorance. They do not equate. And knowledge rarely soothes as much as ignorance. In fact, knowledge hurts, and as the ckiché goes, ignorance is bliss.

The opposite of belief is disbelief - doubt stands between them and cuts both ways. True skepticism is a double-edged sword. When was the last time you were cut by the edge facing you, LesMis?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
-Charles Darwin

If ignorance begets confidence, what does knowledge beget?

What's the opposite of confidence?

👣

a reply to: BlueMule

you brought here some great quotes ('Silence is the language of god, all else is poor translation.' A fool who persists in his folly becomes wise) thank you for that!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope... the opposite of knowledge is ignorance. They do not equate. And knowledge rarely soothes as much as ignorance. In fact, knowledge hurts, and as the ckiché goes, ignorance is bliss.

It is not knowledge that hurts - it is the endlessly thinking body-mind that constantly creates the illusion of a separate knowing "I" inside the body, that hurts. It is a contraction of the body-mind - notice this when you sit still and allow yourself to release all the unnecessary thinking.

And when one goes beyond this constant thinking to "know" something, and realizes that one cannot know what anything actually IS, this "not knowing" or "ignorance" is bliss because in that recognition, there is non-separation from what we all arise in - reality, indivisible unity, conscious love-bliss itself.

a reply to: BlueMule

But sometimes that requires action and courage, which armchair critics aren't known for. 😉

Scientists occasionally succumb to scientism, pseudo-skepticism, and apologetics/polemics because they make a belief-system out of it.

The opposite of belief is disbelief - doubt stands between them and cuts both ways. True skepticism is a double-edged sword. When was the last time you were cut by the edge facing you, LesMis?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
-Charles Darwin

If ignorance begets confidence, what does knowledge beget?

What's the opposite of confidence?

I would admit ignorance more frequently begets confidence; and knowledge? perhaps more frequently begets fear. But "more frequently" never means all the time, unless, of course, one is ignorant and confident in being so.

But both doubt and disbelief are antonyms to belief.

a reply to: bb23108

It is not knowledge that hurts - it is the endlessly thinking body-mind that constantly creates the illusion of a separate knowing "I" inside the body, that hurts. It is a contraction of the body-mind - notice this when you sit still and allow yourself to release all the unnecessary thinking.

And when one goes beyond this constant thinking to "know" something, and realizes that one cannot know what anything actually IS, this "not knowing" or "ignorance" is bliss because in that recognition, there is non-separation from what we all arise in - reality, indivisible unity, conscious love-bliss itself.

Your "fundamental awareness" is a separate knowing "I". It's the same illusion, fragmenting the body into an unnessecary and nondemonstrable hierarchy.

a reply to: Bluesma

I do not agree. Belief is not the same as knowledge, but I referred to "belief in knowledge".
"Belief" means an end to questioning the information "known". A choice to no longer suspect it of being flawed, or misunderstood, or misinterpretted.

How many times does humanity have to witness that even when we think we've got it "all figured out" , it turns out we were off the mark? We thought we'd tested every angle, but than a new and surprising one is revealed, and the house of cards tumbles. Even Einstein, who we assumed had bequeathed us with (finally) real truth and reliable knowledge, is turning out to have not.

We have faith in our methods, yet our methods used are limited to our present "knowledge", so we can only discover step by step, bit by bit, as we push past our own limits.....sometimes by the wild minds who refuse this belief in the current knowledge, or often even by accident- when someone trips and falls over the framework of our current "true" and "false".

There is a certain pleasure to be obtained from both ignorance, and belief in knowledge.
I find that in almost extreme possible!
The least comfortable position is between the two extremes... in loyalty to your own perception, despite knowledge of your limitless ignorance.

I disagree. A choice to suspect knowledge of being flawed based on principle alone, or maybe because one is told to do so or becaue it is popular to do so, as opposed to any rational reason, is an irrational doubt, not a rational or irrational belief. To sit on the fence or to irrationally doubt is siding with human ignorance rather than participating in human knowledge. If one simply removes herself from the pursuit of knowledge, and waits—rather, hopes—for the possibility of confirmation, is at the same time removing, by choice and a sheer act of will, one more human from participating in human knowledge, so that they may participate in human ignorance. Suspending judgement is persisting ignorance.

The reason knowledge seems to adapt and refine itself overtime is not because people are sitting on the fence and acting suspicious of it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

I would admit ignorance more frequently begets confidence; and knowledge? perhaps more frequently begets fear. But "more frequently" never means all the time, unless, of course, one is ignorant and confident in being so.

But both doubt and disbelief are antonyms to belief.

Well, you sure seem confident in your assertions. And you don't seem very afraid. So maybe your ratio of ignorance to knowledge isn't one that you should be proud of. Or maybe your confidence is a facade and you are hiding your fear.

👣

a reply to: BlueMule

Fear of what?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You tell me.

👣

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Your "fundamental awareness" is a separate knowing "I". It's the same illusion, fragmenting the body into an unnessecary and nondemonstrable hierarchy.

No, it is not a separate knowing "I". Self-aware consciousness simply witnesses what arises and is NOT separate from what arises - unlike the "observer" function of the body-mind, which objectifies everything and is therefore separate from everything. The "observer" is the abstracted separated knowing "I" - it is not fundamental being (awareness).

Henry Kissinger said on TV, I forgot the context I was surfing, that data is confused to be knowledge. Kissinger went on to say that there is a progression of truth: Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom.

Data is always true, if collected scrupulously and diligently, but it has no direct statement.

Information is factual but must have a context.

Knowledge is pertinent, profound, and applicable to human life.

Wisdom should be the reason for action or non action.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Here is my somewhat qabalistic take on "knowledge" but I will try to use the analogy of a diamond cutter.

Wisdom is the raw diamond (raw unlimited knowledge.- say) . Knowledge (or Understanding) is what is left after the cut.

The one who cuts well gets the big beautiful diamond. The one who cuts badly eventually ends up with a tiny little diamond after many attempts. Moral of the story : the mind is the cutting tool. Use it well and don't cut off your feelings or you will end up with little knowledge.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


I disagree. A choice to suspect knowledge of being flawed based on principle alone, or maybe because one is told to do so or becaue it is popular to do so, as opposed to any rational reason, is an irrational doubt, not a rational or irrational belief. To sit on the fence or to irrationally doubt is siding with human ignorance rather than participating in human knowledge. If one simply removes herself from the pursuit of knowledge, and waits—rather, hopes—for the possibility of confirmation, is at the same time removing, by choice and a sheer act of will, one more human from participating in human knowledge, so that they may participate in human ignorance. Suspending judgement is persisting ignorance.

The reason knowledge seems to adapt and refine itself overtime is not because people are sitting on the fence and acting suspicious of it.

Suspecting knowledge of being flawed is rational, for the reasons I already presented- experience over hundreds of years shows us repeatedly that our knowledge is usually incomplete, if not completely wrong. There is always more to things than what we currently see.

This is the how the pursuit of knowledge is stirred and motivated! This is what eliminates hope for confirmation, in exchange for joy in discovery and anticipation of more discovery. This is what stimulates people to participate in pursuit of knowledge!

There is nothing which stagnates people quicker than belief that "I already know"; no more reason to look into it.

For those who insist more bliss lies in ignorance than in belief in knowledge, just take a look at the ecstatic states provoked in one who states to another "I know the truth, and you do not". Belief in knowledge makes possible a blissful state of superiority and power- a sense of control over other humans, ...... and nature itself.

a reply to: Bluesma

That's like saying children are flawed because they have not yet grown. We should be suspicious of them when they make mistakes.

Plato and Aristotle were wrong about almost everything, but everything we know now is founded upon them. Western countries used Euclid's Elements as a geometry text-book up until last century. Doctors still say the Hippocratic oath.

When people seize power by claiming they possess the truth, it is usually a truth they could have no way of knowing, for instance God, for instance the superiority of a race, for instance the superiority of a religion, for instance the superiority of a country. What knowledge is the Jihadi carrying with him on his way to martyrdom? None. He carries only ignorance. Claiming ignorance is truth is still ignorance. This is not a belief in knowing.

Being easily convinced does not mean one possesses convincing knowledge. Saying I already know without reason to do so is still ignorance. Being comfortable in Ignorance is the stagnation.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma

That's like saying children are flawed because they have not yet grown. We should be suspicious of them when they make mistakes.

Not quite sure I understood the idea there, but the word "suspicion", as you originally brought it up, hits a false note for me... because it indicates something is "not as it should be" or evil.

I expect children to make mistakes, that is natural, it is part of being human. I just expect they are making some often, whether I see it or not. Some of those (most) will probably be very valuable learning experiences.
So..."suspecting" them of having valuable experiences in learning? I will go with that term if we're clear on the lack of a moral judgement that a human being (child or adult) "should be" flawless.

As well as a lack of judgement that knowledge "should" be complete, unquestionable, and universally static.
I don't suspect it is not, I celebrate that it is not.

When people seize power by claiming they possess the truth, it is usually a truth they could have no way of knowing, for instance God, for instance the superiority of a race, for instance the superiority of a religion, for instance the superiority of a country.

I am referring to everyday prise du pouvoir - the every day disagreements we have with those around us, in which are able to inform an ignorant, and have a moment of power.
The sense of power over the elements and nature, that we can because we "know" about it, which soothes our primal fear of lack of control over our destiny and our survival. Hoping for our knowledge to grow to become "complete" or flawless... why? So that we could then master and manipulate the forces around us, and no longer be subject to the whims of nature!

Being easily convinced does not mean one possesses convincing knowledge. Saying I already know without reason to do so is still ignorance. Being comfortable in Ignorance is the stagnation.

I simply don't bother with the "convincing knowledge" thing... if you are concerned about convincing others, that is your business. See, me? I don't say I know with or without reason. I think, I feel, I perceive, I observe, I suspect, I wonder, I hear, I read, I weigh, I analyze.... but know?

I know nothing. That's my position on the question, for now, and I'll stand by it, until it changes.

The truth and power of knowledge enables action. Knowledge has no truth or power in itself, knowledge must be used to achieve some end. Using knowledge proves its truthfulness or shows its limitations.

Planes, skyscrapers, Allopathic surgery, planetary orbits and such are knowledge. Gravity always pulls down, is knowledge. Knowledge has certainty.

People who doubt knowledge are using something other than knowledge, like wishful thinking, or superficial examination or outright bias towards an ideology. When their mislaid plan fails, the easiest apology, especially in politics, is to blame their "knowledge" as human and uncertain.

Uncertain knowledge is not knowledge.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Uncertain knowledge is not knowledge.

That's fair. I take action, based upon what I perceive, without true certainty.
(That includes perceptions of current scientific theory )
I guess think more in terms of probabilities. The probability that a ball placed on a ramp will roll downwards are very high, so I'd bet on that and act on it, without having to be certain.