What's the optimum balance between knowledge and ignorance?

Full knowledge would be unbearable if you have any sympathy or empathy. For example, what would you do if you knew that the family next door were a bunch of satanists who tortured animals as part of their 'religious' rituals? It may be perfectly legal but how would you deal with it?

How would you deal with knowing that the married woman or man across the street is being beaten regularly against their will? Would you call the police? The problem with that is, a lot of abused spouses are in denial and they may try to get revenge against you for trying to help them. If things such as that happen enough, you're liable to end up dead or in a mental institution for trying to help people.

Continuing the exploration of the concept of full knowledge of what's around you, you may not be able to live with feeling empathy for all of the death that happens in nature all the time. I don't know how could live with feeling how a worm feels when it's eaten by a bird, 24/7/365 for instance.

I can understand why some say, "Ignorance is bliss" based on arguments such as the above. However, if we stay in ignorance we cannot advance ourselves or humanity. The information in the following chart proves to me that the saying "Knowledge is power" is true:

Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2011

If you really believe "Ignorance is bliss" then you must believe that living in the Stone Age would have been the pinnacle of human life.

All of the above leads me to ask:

What's the optimum balance between knowledge and ignorance?

-

originally posted by: Profusion
What's the optimum balance between knowledge and ignorance?

Since forever, we have had no good, functional definition of Knowledge!
Until Now!;

The new, critically updated, all inclusive, Universal definition of 'Knowledge';

"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

All inclusive!

That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is 'knowledge'.
All we can 'know' is what we perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!!

'Ignorance' is that which is NOT perceived, at any particular moment, by any particular unique Perspective! Here! Now!

Thus, at any moment of existence, for any unique Perspective, this tiny bit that we are experiencing Here! Now! is Knowledge!
Everything else, TO US, is ignorance!
BUT, there is only One Universal Consciousness, so, thus, ALL is Known!

At any moment, the balance of knowledge to ignorance, for any single unique Perspective, is knowledge = 1, ignorance = 'infinite'!
But put us all together, and ALL is Known!

-

a reply to: Profusion

You make seem really... weird hypothetical situations.

Anyways, to answer your title it's simple - question everything.

Even your own beliefs. Then question that.

What we know, is what we perceive what we know. It differs between each and every single person and living being, and how people cannot see this - is beyond me.

There are other things, however, that are knowns. Tectonic plates, and gravity, for instance. Matter of facts and relations of ideas, but as my professor said, "Drunk and stoned philosophy is not real philosophy," and I'm not really following the premise of your thread.

When you realize you know very little and understand even less

If you know everything how can you be ignorant? What you will class as ignorant would be that persons logical opinion of all factors considered, seeing you know and understand all the factors.

Plus I don't know how what you typed led to this question? Strange.

Ignoring human behaviours isn't ignorance, it is ignoring, two completely different things when the premise is on knowledge.

a reply to: Profusion

Answering a question in the title.

For me..." i know now...that i know nothing".

Being humble in thy knowledge...knowing full well...knowledge is fluid and ever changing.

a reply to: Profusion

The perfect balance is to seek knowledge when you realize you are ignorant.

Ignorance will never go away, and there's no way to be knowledgeable about everything in this world. As long as you use your ignorance to seek out knowledge, then all will be balanced.

It's holding on to ideas based off of willful ignorance that creates an imbalance in the force.

What's the optimum balance between knowledge and ignorance?

Yes, you are getting it.
Now repeat after me: What is optimum balance between knowledge and ignorance !!!

Shout it from the rooftops: " "What IS the optimum balance!!!"

Ah, the Great "What"!! Summoner of all things past present and future and
Governor of All.

The Universe is on "God- O-Pilot" . Just accept that it's dynamic balance rather than a static balance.

A way will always be found to achieve an equilbrium of sorts, whether we "help" or not.

"What".........is.........the.........answer!!!

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Profusion

Answering a question in the title.

For me..." i know now...that i know nothing".

Being humble in thy knowledge...knowing full well...knowledge is fluid and ever changing.

But...if you did know something, that would be really something. Being the HUMBLEONE, I know that knowledge is not knowing. It is better to know. Do ya know?

originally posted by: Profusion
Full knowledge would be unbearable if you have any sympathy or empathy. For example, what would you do if you knew that the family next door were a bunch of satanists who tortured animals as part of their 'religious' rituals? It may be perfectly legal but how would you deal with it?

I would not ask them to watch my dog when we went on a family trip.

How would you deal with knowing that the married woman or man across the street is being beaten regularly against their will? Would you call the police? The problem with that is, a lot of abused spouses are in denial and they may try to get revenge against you for trying to help them. If things such as that happen enough, you're liable to end up dead or in a mental institution for trying to help people.

I would say hey Joe don't you hate it when newscasters seem to always use the logical fallacy of a loaded question? He says, ya I do. Then I would say what is that one famous one I can't remember it...oh ya I remember it now... Have you stopped beating your wife? lol that is a good one isn't it Joe.

a reply to: Profusion

The buddistis list three main cognitive faults that humans have to eradicate from themselves before elightenment is possible and one of them is ignorance.

If you are truly open to what is around you, without preconceived or habitual intrepretations or story-lines, then you can act in freedom for the best of all in any circumstance however 'seemly' horrific.

The others are passion and aggression (attraction/revulsion).

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Profusion

The buddistis list three main cognitive faults that humans have to eradicate from themselves before elightenment is possible and one of them is ignorance.

If you are truly open to what is around you, without preconceived or habitual intrepretations or story-lines, then you can act in freedom for the best of all in any circumstance however 'seemly' horrific.

The others are passion and aggression (attraction/revulsion).

The reason I prefaced the original post with the following is because "preconceived or habitual interpretations or story-lines" are irrelevant to one feeling sympathy and/or empathy. In other words, those emotions come regardless of what you think or believe.

Full knowledge would be unbearable if you have any sympathy or empathy.

My contention is the sympathy and/or empathy you would experience for all the suffering around you would be unbearable if one had full knowledge. However, that only applies if one is capable of feeling those emotions and I realize that some people probably aren't capable of that.

My belief is that most people with full knowledge would be incapacitated by emotion long before they could "act in freedom for the best of all."

Of course, full knowledge would not be possible for a person. I'm sure Buddhists don't think of that as a possibility because it isn't a possibility. I'm just using it as the basis of a thought experiment.

What are the limits of ignorance? I don't want to know anything about the Kardashians/Caitlyn, Bachelor/ette, 4chan, Beiber and/or 'boy bands' & Taylor Swift, spring fashion, and scientology. To name a few.

a reply to: Profusion
I think capacity to deal with things in the world has more to do with how much we feel we control our personal lives. Does the feeling come first, or the action? People who make the right choices will come to control their lives, for example. They'll feel they control their life. But did they feel that way before they made those choices? It's a chicken or egg. I'm well aware psychology argues we're born with certain traits. Some people naturally feel confident from the first day they're born, or so it goes.

We all know there're many sufferings in the world. Good people die young. Bad people might have long lives. Animals die too. Disasters occur, obliterating almost everything in their path. A person with no confidence only sees suffering. A person with confidence, in my mind, seems to appreciate the good things. For example, out of disaster comes strength. Out of death comes renewal. The earth, despite the suffering, refashions things anew. New people are born. New life.

originally posted by: RavenSpeaks

What's the optimum balance between knowledge and ignorance?

Yes, you are getting it.
Now repeat after me: What is optimum balance between knowledge and ignorance !!!

Shout it from the rooftops: " "What IS the optimum balance!!!"

Ah, the Great "What"!! Summoner of all things past present and future and
Governor of All.

The Universe is on "God- O-Pilot" . Just accept that it's dynamic balance rather than a static balance.

A way will always be found to achieve an equilbrium of sorts, whether we "help" or not.

"What".........is.........the.........answer!!!

At least one poster seems to understand how important this question is. It reminds me of a saying:

"There are a lot of dead rabbits at the bottom of the rabbit hole."

As a matter of fact, I started a thread related to that topic:

Do you consider 'the rabbit hole' to be dangerous?

I'm a veteran researcher of the "rabbit hole" and I'll tell you that on more than one occasion I got to a point where I realized that going any deeper in certain directions was not in my best interest.

There have been people who were rumored to have committed suicide based on what they found in the "rabbit hole." Personally, I can see how that can happen easily based on what I know.

But, don't expect the ideologues and religionists on this site to take that idea seriously. It doesn't really matter for them anyway because they aren't really interested in going much (or any) further in terms of personal growth or learning in my experience.

the balance?

simply put wisdom. children are the only ones in a position to not change their situation, unless too damaged from dysfunction not giving them the necessary tools or encouragment to care for themselves as an adult.

so what to do with the wisdom? well using it to know what you can change and what you cant... if the neighbor can claim religious animal sacrifice superceeds laws against animal cruelty, then thats their right but also their karma for willingly destroying sentient life for selfish purposes.

the neighbor getting beaten is staying there by choice unless so controlled they are trapped and have no means of income to escape. of course their abuser has likely trenched the persons self esteem so much they feel unworthy of anything else or different and some how deserve the abuse. wisdom would point out when to report or get the person help... of course them being an adult the responsibility to get out of there ultimately falls on them, one day enough will be enough and they will snap in self defense or leave.

lessons are difficult in life, simply using the wisdom of our experience of situations when the same situation arises, we act according to what wisdom we have learned or shrug in ignorance about what to do when it arises.

theres a story floating around called swimology, it basically goes something like a professor charters a boat and while on the boat enjoys berating the captain about how little the captain knows about astronomy, science etc. driving home the captain had wasted 1/4 of his life with each topic he was ignorant about. well a storm comes and dashes the ship against a reef and the captain yells to the professor have you studied swimology? professor yells no! the captain then retorts well youve wasted your whole life.

knowing your domain and the possibilities that can arise in it and being prepared for it, is far more valuable knowledge than any learned outside of that domain. things not in ones domain are worth very little to know about unless they pay the bills but if the industry or practice tanks? hopefully you diversified your crops and all eggs arent in a single basket. is the moral of that story... if you dont have the knowledge to handle what arises then no matter what knowledge you amassed it amounts to nothing but ignorance in that situation where youve no knowledge to go on.

so knowledge being of any value at all depends on the situation that arises.

originally posted by: Profusion

The reason I prefaced the original post with the following is because "preconceived or habitual interpretations or story-lines" are irrelevant to one feeling sympathy and/or empathy. In other words, those emotions come regardless of what you think or believe.

Full knowledge would be unbearable if you have any sympathy or empathy.

My contention is the sympathy and/or empathy you would experience for all the suffering around you would be unbearable if one had full knowledge. However, that only applies if one is capable of feeling those emotions and I realize that some people probably aren't capable of that.

My belief is that most people with full knowledge would be incapacitated by emotion long before they could "act in freedom for the best of all."

Of course, full knowledge would not be possible for a person. I'm sure Buddhists don't think of that as a possibility because it isn't a possibility. I'm just using it as the basis of a thought experiment.

Actually, by definition, an enlightened being has FULL KNOWLEDGE.

It is possible and many have achieved it, and many more have 'touched' it from time to time.

I think you are confusing empathy (the ability to understand and share the feelings of another) and sympathy (feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune) with your own personal feelings - as you say '...those emotions come regardless of what you think and/or believe'. That is an inaccurate, but understandable, misunderstanding of emotional 'causation' if you will.

Thought (meaning habitual judgmental patterns) precedes emotions. Thought precedes emotion only by a fraction of a second but when you work with your mind consistently you will find that it is true. The more habitual the thought the quicker the emotion intercedes.

You ask for the proper balance between Knowlege and Ignorance. There is none and there is no going back to 'blissful ingnorance.'

You confuse empathy and sympathy with incapacity where it is the beginning point of compassionate action. Trying to hide from the reality of life is a distraction from the true work of life and that work begins with with you, working on your mind.

It’s easy to become overwhelmed by the pain, suffering and apparent evil in the world – to feel helpless to effect any meaningful change for yourself let alone others and that is the lie that fear tells us.

The best think you can do for the world is to become the best person you can in this life regardless of outside circumstance. Keep your feet pointed forward, your eyes, ears and heart open and learn about yourself and how YOU interact with reality.

Full knowledge of yourself is a part of full knowledge – and no you’re head won’t explode. It will feel like it at times.

Regarding living with the fundamental uncertainty and discomfort of life:

“It involves working with your mind, your thoughts, and your emotions in order to notice and clearly acknowledge when you’re trying to escape the fundamental uncertainty of life. What are you doing just to fill up time and space, to avoid being present? How are you acting in habitual ways?....

We all have our familiar exits: zoning out in front of the TV, compulsively checking e-mail…. Sometimes our exit is just chatter, chatter, chatter, aimless chatter… And not just talking aloud. Mentally we’re engaged in almost constant conversation with ourselves…”

“Living Beautifully with Uncertainty and Change” by Pema Chodron

An excellent take on the matter, in secular brain based language is “Wired for Life” by Susan Pearce.

It’s hard work but ‘striking a balance’ is a cop-out and is de-evolutionary both singly and in company.

Getting in touch with your pain and suffering about the suffering of others is the First Noble Truth of Buddhism - "Life is Suffering".

There can be only one:

Phage.