He shared with me this statement, " you could fill a textbook with what I do not know".
But, Charles still will tell you, "you could fill a textbook with things I do not know".
It qualifies me to be almost, an ignoramus.
I hear false humility. I find that distasteful. I know that it sounds so... 'humble', but no one considers himself an (almost) 'ignoramus'. I might be reading this 'wrong', but "ego will argue it's 'humility'"; it's just a 'feeling' as I have, too, 'been there'.
We begin learning the day we are born. We learn something every day. Doesn't matter what we learn, that is not the point. The point is, we are , if we are consiously aware, learning continuously. So, if we are learning something, beginning on the day of our birth, "again, doesn't matter what," then we accumulate a library of knowledge . Let me again stress, it is not the quality of what we learn, just the quantity.
Have you factored in the fact (and it is demonstrable) that people learn at differnt rates? One person can learn an incredible amount in an incredibly short time. The 20 year old can
have more knowledge than a 60 year old. The disparate rates of learning would at the very least, I imagine, heavily affect your hypothesis that time available to learn is the sole determinant factor in the equation. I would say that without a very good study of the individual rates of learning amongst all sentient creatures, logically, your hypothesis cannot be validated and verified. Time elapsed might well be negated by individual cases. Generalities about people tend to break down at the 'personal' level'.
So, Nameless. I'll assume, that you are a relatively young man.
Assume as you like. If you really were interested you would have asked me rather than make assumptions.
I know, that I am a relatively old man.
See? You are the authority on you!
Keeping in mind that we are not discussing quality, but simply quantity, who knows more?
Lets say that your assumption of my age is correct, lets make me 20 years old. As I have demonstrated (and your ego might not like) I might be a fast learner and know more than you at 100 if you are a very slow learner. Your hypothesis is flawed.
another problem, what about the 'knowledge' that leaves your mind? More and more so as you get older! Stuff it in one end and it leaks out the back!
the greatest learning curve is when young. It plateaus rather soon after that! Time does little to change that reality...
, at any single moment, as I have already posted (of which you have not made mention), there is no 'room' (or 'time') for the heaps of cognitive memory/belief/thought... 'knowledge'... that you claim.
At any moment, I suggest that there is actually very little existing 'knowledge' in your awareness/perception. Your 'claim' implies 'cumulative' and I deny that there is such a thing to be demonstrable.
Old man, you are running on old and obsolete notions, or, what you call 'knowledge'!
I think that quite the opposite of your hypothesis is also true, that the older you get the less you 'know' (if wise).
Now, Charles is older than I. Mathematically speaking, it is impossible for me to know more than Charles.
Math has nothing to do with it. And the statement is incorrect, as I have demonstrated.
But remember, Charles stated that you could fill a book with what he does not know.
Yeah, heard it before, false humility...
He therefore implied a great amount of ignorance residing in himself.
Yawn... (false humility is sooo boring...)
"If your abilities are merely mediocre, modesty
is mere honesty; but if you possess great talents, it is hypocrisy"- Schopenhauer
(italics mine -n)
I therefore must imply a greater amount of ignorance in myself than is in Charles.
Ok, you win! You are humbler than Charles.
Heres a secret; a truly humble person would never consder himself so. It is for others to define you as such. Such 'bookfilling statements' are 'bravado/ego', IMO.
That is why I use the word dummy. So, Mr. Nameless. If you are younger than I, mathematically speaking, now remember, this is quantity and not quality, what does that say about you?
It says that, even though I may not
have the quantity of knowledge that you might have
(according to your flawed hypothesis), I am, perhaps, 'wiser' and 'smarter' than you in that I found and demonstrated the possible 'flaws' arising from your 'heap of knowledge'.
What do you have to say for yourself. LOL.:whistling:
I say that you could fill a book with what you think
that you 'know'! LOL.:whistling:
I say that from 'this' Perspective, your hypothesis fails on the various mentioned points.
"The only way that we shall ever recapture the sort of knowledge Lao-Tsu referred to in his dictum, "Those who know, do not speak", is by subordinating the question "how shall we know?" to the more existentially vital question, "How shall we live?"
To ask this question is to insist that the primary purpose of human existence is not to devise ways of piling up ever greater heaps of knowledge, but to discover ways to 'live', from day to day, that integrate the whole of our nature by way of yielding nobility of conduct, honest fellowship, and joy. And to achieve these ends, a man need perhaps know very little in the conventional, intellectual sense of the word. But, what he does know, and may only be able to express by eloquent silence, by the grace of his most commonplace daily gestures, will approach more closely to whatever 'reality' is, than the more dogged and disciplined intellectual behavior."
(With all that awful weight of 'knowledge' that you (feel that you) 'possess', how is it that you can still speak? Especially as according to Lao Tsu, "those who know, do not speak"? Was Lao incorrect? I don't know... *__-)