The knowledge of ignorance

@FatalMuse,

FatalMuse;21067 wrote:

When I can establish I don't know something, my knowledge has increased.

Perhaps, rather than 'knowledge' that has increased, it is 'understanding' (or 'awareness')? Then your statement would not be paradoxical.
(There 'is' a difference between 'knowledge' and 'understanding'.)

@nameless,

Nothing is increased! As I said before, it is only conceptual reorgaization by differention between what is the case and what is possible! Your mind contains all the audio-visual-conceptual framework and any external indicator is just a prompt for reorganization.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

Nothing is increased! As I said before, it is only conceptual reorgaization by differention between what is the case and what is possible! Your mind contains all the audio-visual-conceptual framework and any external indicator is just a prompt for reorganization.

Well, thank you for clearing that up. I suppose that I never thought I knew that the capital of Brazil was Rio, and found out that it was Brasilia. It must have been just a dream. Thank you once again. I have been conceptually reorganized.

@kennethamy,

I am not sure that I understand the conclusion to this thread. So if ignorance is the lack of knowledge. When do we truly posses that knowledge to say that we are not ignorant. For example when your mother tells you not to touch the stove because it will burn you. Do you really know that it will. At this point you have only been told so. There is no proof behind the knowledge, there for you are still ignorant to the fact that the stove will burn you. So in order to actually know that the stove burns you is to touch it. ouch that burns: now I know. So unless the knowledge is proven we are still ignorant to the fact.

@savagemonk,

savagemonk wrote:

I am not sure that I understand the conclusion to this thread. So if ignorance is the lack of knowledge. When do we truly posses that knowledge to say that we are not ignorant. For example when your mother tells you not to touch the stove because it will burn you. Do you really know that it will. At this point you have only been told so. There is no proof behind the knowledge, there for you are still ignorant to the fact that the stove will burn you. So in order to actually know that the stove burns you is to touch it. ouch that burns: now I know. So unless the knowledge is proven we are still ignorant to the fact.

If my Merriam-Webster dictionary tells me that the word "weird" is spelled that way, isn't that proof that "weird" is spelled that way, and don't I know it is? My mother may not be an authority on some things, but why would she not be an authority on whether a hot stove will burn me?

@FatalMuse,

FatalMuse;21067 wrote:

Sorry if this is a bit silly or obvious/obviously flawed.

Nah, just a little confused. Perhaps I can offer some Perspective...

Quote:

When I can establish I don't know something, my knowledge has increased.

First, I define 'knowledge' as the sum total of one's memory, at any one moment.
If I lift the hood on my smoking and motionless car on the side of the road, look at the engine all fizzling and hot, I might 'realize' that i know nothing about car engines. I guess that would be a 'knowing' something. A 'knowing' of one's ignorance. A 'realization' perhaps, rather than a 'knowing'.

Quote:

I now know of something that I don't know.

See above. You 'know' what you don't know. The more that you learn about something, the more that you learn that you are ignorant of other aspects.
Every 'answer' leads to many new questions, hence; "the more I learn, the less I know" as ignorance is juxtaposed/contextualized with 'understanding' (knowledge).

Quote:

just becoming aware of your ignorance?

Exactly! Thats the point where 'knowledge' becomes 'wisdom'.
The more that i learn, the less i know, until;
"In Silentium, Verum!" -Book of Fudd
("In Silence, Truth!")

Quote:

The more I think about it, I don't know anything.
But at least I know that much.

Do you?
*__-

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;21348 wrote:

Nothing is increased! As I said before, it is only conceptual reorgaization by differention between what is the case and what is possible!

Perhaps that is true and correct from/for 'your' Perspective, but from this one, all possibilities, all potentialities are manifested/actualized in and as all Perspectives. "What is the case" and "what is possible" is one and the same. In 'this' universe, to 'this' Perspective.
So, as you "said before", was not stating an omniversal truth, but what is true and correct as 'your' Perspective.

@nameless,

I believe that I understand now. The realization of the ignorance is the knowledge in itself. The wisdom is reached through the determination to understand what it is that you are ignorant in.

Leading to caffeine, nicotine and scouring through text Philosophy forums to find another question or proof of knowledge. Just to realize that you don't know. :brickwall:

@savagemonk,

savagemonk;23336 wrote:

The realization of the ignorance is the knowledge in itself.

So, 'knowledge' and 'ignorance' are one and the same...

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

So, 'knowledge' and 'ignorance' are one and the same...

Of course not. What would make you think so? Knowledge of ignorance is not ignorance anymore than knowledge that something is an apple is, itself, an apple.

@FatalMuse,

What if we are on a 'need to know' basis. It is evident that our brains are not equipped to know everything all at once. If that were possible, it might be fatal to the human body. I don't know if it would be, but it seems it would be a possibility.

Be that as it may, what is faith if first we have to know. If we know, we don't have to have faith. I am not talking about faith as in some religious doctrine. I mean faith in any of the numerous things we do each day and faith that we will be guided by an inner knowingness which we can't even define. Can we define intuition? We know it as a gut feeling but sometimes our intuition will give us warnings about something that makes no sense.

Like for instance a person I read about who had always honored his gut feelings, his intuitions. Well, he was driving on a mountainous road, one where it was a shere drop down of hundreds of feet on the one side, and solid mountain clift on the other. He was driving his car on this road that made these 'S' like turns where you could not see the road ahead. Suddenly he felt that he was suppose to go around the curve on the wrong side of the road . (made no sense) but he knew to honor his gut feeling. Sure enough there came barreling around that corner a huge truck which was on the wrong side of the road. Had he not listened to this inner voice, he would have been smashed.

So we don't know everything. We live in a world that is what I call in a state of flux. Sometimes to know to be somewhere, or to do something, because we learned it by rote would not work in a world that is in a state of flux, because we have to be flexible. We have to know that we are on a need to know basis about much of life. Some things we can know and that is good, but there are just some things in life that we have to be content with knowing that it will be made known to us, when we need to know it. Smile

@Diana Grace,

Nice one... sort of "you know but don't know you know it"-kinda thing

@Khethil,

Yes, you know but you don't know that you know it, yet at the same time you also know that if the need arises, you will know what it is that needs be done, or said, or demonstrated.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;24060 wrote:

nameless wrote:

So, 'knowledge' and 'ignorance' are one and the same...

Of course not. What would make you think so? Knowledge of ignorance is not ignorance anymore than knowledge that something is an apple is, itself, an apple.

By beginning the sentence with "So" indicates that the post is the finale of a few posts previous (a conversation). Perhaps if you read the exchange, and attempted to understand, you might find some meaning. Or not.

(Ultimately, all is One, Complete, 'ignorance' and 'knowledge' inclusive.)

@Diana Grace,

Diana Grace;24085 wrote:

What if we are on a 'need to know' basis. It is evident that our brains are not equipped to know everything all at once. If that were possible, it might be fatal to the human body. I don't know if it would be, but it seems it would be a possibility.

Be that as it may, what is faith if first we have to know. If we know, we don't have to have faith. I am not talking about faith as in some religious doctrine. I mean faith in any of the numerous things we do each day and faith that we will be guided by an inner knowingness which we can't even define. Can we define intuition? We know it as a gut feeling but sometimes our intuition will give us warnings about something that makes no sense.

Like for instance a person I read about who had always honored his gut feelings, his intuitions. Well, he was driving on a mountainous road, one where it was a shere drop down of hundreds of feet on the one side, and solid mountain clift on the other. He was driving his car on this road that made these 'S' like turns where you could not see the road ahead. Suddenly he felt that he was suppose to go around the curve on the wrong side of the road . (made no sense) but he knew to honor his gut feeling. Sure enough there came barreling around that corner a huge truck which was on the wrong side of the road. Had he not listened to this inner voice, he would have been smashed.

So we don't know everything. We live in a world that is what I call in a state of flux. Sometimes to know to be somewhere, or to do something, because we learned it by rote would not work in a world that is in a state of flux, because we have to be flexible. We have to know that we are on a need to know basis about much of life. Some things we can know and that is good, but there are just some things in life that we have to be content with knowing that it will be made known to us, when we need to know it.

That seems possible that you would be preprogrammed to know what you needed to. The thing that steers me away from the theory is that if that where the case, we would always be able to access the knowledge.

To me that seems more of quick critical thinking. I don't agree that an acute ability to analyze and judge the statistics of the crash possibilities is latent knowledge.

Who knows though you could have discovered the reason for the other 90% of the human brain. Live would sure be easier if we could unlock that knowledge on command.

@savagemonk,

One would not always be able to access the knowledge, as is evident since so many people can't access knowledge about so many things. But the ones who do access the knowledge have in them a "knowingness" for lack of a better word. When we know and know that we know, without doubt, without having to have some little concern that maybe it might not be true, that kind of knowingness is a power.

Take Jesus, he knew he could multiply the bread and fish for the multitude. So maybe you don't believe in Jesus. Then take Sia Baba who manifest things out of the thin air. There are many examples. It is documented fact that he can manifest all kind of items, even one time a Rolex watch for someone and other things as well.

So if you would rule out "knowing' as a power, then you will just be stuck with the forever questions about everything that can not be adequately answered.

There are laws of a higher order that override the laws of physics. Man needs to learn them quickly and begin to apply them because each day the need for them is greater and greater.

But they are not to be found in a material way for they are spiritual powers that affects the material world. Just as your thought is not a material object, yet your thought can affect the physical world. So thought, (especially believing without doubting) is a power. Quantum physics are grappleing with this even now since they have done experiments that show that the observer's thoughts affect the outcome of their experiments with photons of light. Thought is a power, and it is being proved in many ways by some of our scientist.

In fact I will throw this one out to you. The only real reality is consciousness, or "thought". The apple is not real but is a thought, you yourself are a thought. You are a thought eating a thought if you are eating an apple. But since we are part of the illusion called the material world, we think that our five senses tell us the truth because we see things that look real enough.

So you live in the illusion and one has to deal with the illusion each and every day. It's real enough to us. BUT when one begins to understand that everything is an illusion and uses thought as God does, then the illusion becomes maleable. We can affect change with 'thought' . We can contact others with "thought". We may even want to someday walk through a wall or on the water.

That other 90 percent of the brain is there for some purpose. Maybe we activate it when we begin to "get understanding" and know that we know.

Having said all that, "Am I there yet". I wish I were. I know it is so but there must be something yet I have to unlearn that is preventing me from moving into the mastery of this illusion. I keep on pursueing this knowing. I have been reading a book on my you tube account which is called, "The Life and Teachings of the Masters of the Far East". They (these masters) used thought, and could do all kind of things we would look at as impossible. And they taught that it was for us to find that we also can do the same things as they. But we will have to change our thoughts.

@FatalMuse,

FatalMuse said:

Quote:

Sorry if this is a bit silly or obvious/obviously flawed.

There is no flaw in philosophic inquiry. Smile

Quote:

When I can establish I don't know something, my knowledge has increased. I now know of something that I don't know. But this seems completely contradictory. Can establishing that you do not know something increase your knowledge, or are you just becoming aware of your ignorance?

Establishing that you do not know something, in my opinion, does not neccessarily increase your knowledge, but it does increase your wisdom if you are willing to admit that you don't know something.

@FatalMuse,

If I may let me offer a scenario. Imagine a universal mind that has within it all that man has ever experienced. From the roads he has built, the skyscrapers he has erected the signs he has put up, and that roller skate at the bottom of the stairs your youngest child left. All of that is recorded in that universal mind. Now imagine it like a GPS system that can guide you utilizing all that information. I promise you that GPS system exists. Ha. I live in the Dallas area and if you know what is is like to be on a freeway in a metro-plex as this, it is normally bumper to bumper during certain hours of the day. I was fumbling around with some paperwork I had in the front seat not concentrating as I should on my driving when after finally situating the papers I looked up and I was all alone on the freeway. Their were a great deal of cars but they were at least a 1/4 of a mile in front of me and 1/4 of a mile behind me giving me plenty of room. I laughed, looked up as I always do and said, "Thanks, buddy". I know this is not an easy thing to explain and even more for other's to understand, but I assure you there is a power such as this that exist. Every one is capable of attuning with it, but most are traveling through life at such a rate of speed both mentally and physically the GPS is just out of range and they are on their own. IMO
William

@OctoberMist,

OctoberMist wrote:

FatalMuse said:

There is no flaw in philosophic inquiry.

Establishing that you do not know something, in my opinion, does not neccessarily increase your knowledge, but it does increase your wisdom if you are willing to admit that you don't know something.

I once believed I knew that Rio was the capital of Brazil. Later I discovered that was not true. I now know something I did not know before, namely that I did not know that Rio was the capital of Brazil.
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

@kennethamy,

I think the basic idea that is eluding you K is that knowledge is not absolute and is, therefore, akin to ignorance. In other words, knowledge is a dignified form of ignorance; knowledge is ignorance renamed; neither has anything to do with 'the truth.' Every peice of supposed knowledge is no more certain than the wildest speculation, nor nearer 'the truth.' You might say that knowledge is ignorance which does not know itself.

Philosophy Forum

The knowledge of ignorance

Quick Links

My Account

able2know