"Learnin"

I think there is a hierarchy for the transmission of knowledge between the source and the common man or woman.

I consider the source of knowledge to be books written by individuals such as Emerson, Kant, McLuhan, Marx, Habermas, Feynman, etc. A second level is the individual who writes what might be called ‘secondary sources’. College professors write these generally, but not always. I think then there is a third level that is written by the ‘populizers’. These populizers have become experts in the particular domain of knowledge and they also have keen writing skills that allow them to convert difficult material into a form readily understood by the layperson.

A fourth level is what I label to be the ‘supplementor’ or ‘populist scholar’. I created this name out of thin air because, to my knowledge, no word exists in the English language for this knowledge transmitter. Perhaps I am not aware of such a word because there are very few who undertake such an assignment or because there is such little use for such a word. There is no money in it so only a unique individual in a unique circumstance is likely to take on such a task. Perhaps this might be a good place for a quote I found that really resonates for me.

“All men, like all nations, are tested twice in the moral realm: first by what they do, then by what they make of what they do. The condition of guilt, a sense of one’s own guilt, denotes a kind of second chance. Men are, as if by a kind of grace, given a chance to repay to the living that it is they find themselves owing the dead.”
“Coming to Terms with Vietnam,” by Peter Marin, Harpers, Dec. 1980.

I consider knowing to be analysis and understanding to be syntheses. Our schooling has prepared us to become good workers and voracious consumers. This preparation has produced a cornucopia of delights for some small percentage of the world’s population. But our real problem is learning how to live together as a coherent group. We need individuals who understand so they can help others to understand.

In my opinion the world badly needs a cadre of individuals focused on helping the population understand where it now stands so that it can begin the arduous task of determining where it might wish to go.

[b]The cadre I speak of are those who recognize that schooling is just the beginning but self-actualized learning needs to be a lifetime project. The action to be directed by this function of ‘supplementation’ goes through the land introducing people to the concept of self-actualized learning. Just as they add Ca to OJ to supply the missing calcium the body needs, we also need an intellectual supplement. I think these post-schooling scholars are these necessary enlighteners the world needs. That is where you and I come into the equation.

We post-schooling scholars become the Johnnie-Appleseeds distributing the seeds called self-actualized learning and wherever those seeds fall on fertile ground there sprout another citizen capable of understanding reality in its many layers.[/b]

Why should one feel guilt over making money (or anything else for that matter) off of what they do (in this case ideas)? If a person has valuble knowledge that no one else has, that would benefit whomever has it, why not sell it? Why give it away for nothing? All effort exerted in aquiring that knowledge would be wasted (unless it came around to benefit you).

However at the end of your post you do make one good point. In order to know where to go, we have to know where we are. So let’s define it, where are we as a society?

I am an advocate of self-actualized learning as a means to better understand the world and the self. I have been questioned as to the importance or such things when compared to the action that needs to be taken to attack the problems evident and immediate. I think we are dealing with the question “self-actualized learning seems to be an empty vessel; can self-actualized learning walk-the-walk?”

The post that outlined this accusation was a mind stimulating experience for me. I had to pause and come to grips with an important consideration.

Sympathy is emotional response humans make in almost a completely unconscious reaction to something perceived. Sympathy causes us to cry at movies and to respond automatically to help an old man who falls to the sidewalk in front of us.

Empathy is however much different. Empathy happens when we, in an attempt to understand another person, attempt to create in our mind an analogy of what that person is experiencing so that we can better understand that person. We may try to empathize with a terrorist in the effort to understand what drives someone to become a suicide-bomber. Citizens of a Western nation may have a very difficult time trying to create an analogy that is suitable for understanding a person of an eastern culture. A person seeks understanding willfully through empathy.

I think that there exists a hierarchy of comprehension. We are aware of many things but conscious of only a few. We often drive while in a state of awareness and become conscious when passing a patrol car or a highway accident. We may be aware of our daughter’s new boyfriend but we become conscious of the young man when the daughter announces their planned marriage.

We are conscious of much and knowledgeable of little. We have knowledge of much and understanding of little. Sympathy leads to consciousness and empathy leads to understanding. A lack of understanding makes it possible for a person to avoid occasions of sympathy because some people prefer the occasion of “out of sight out of mind”.

Empathy is a form of understanding but it, of course, is not THE form of understanding. Empathy does give us an idea of the difficulty inherent in the process of understanding. It also gives an idea, I think, of the very individualized nature of what understanding is. Understanding is a far step beyond knowing and it must be worked at until we each one become conscious of our particular means to understanding.

I think that some talents are best suited for trying to enhance understanding. I think that the goal of both types of effort might be the same but the techniques are different; but I think that both types of approach to the same goal are necessary and need not be exclusive.

Reality is a multi-layered thing and requires much effort to penetrate beyond the surface. There exists a whole phalanx of ideological enculturation constantly undermining any effort by the citizenry to become an understanding people. Anti-intellectualism must be constantly attacked. I think that the greater the understanding of the citizens of a democratic nation the better the democracy of that nation.

reading science books to learn is pointless, you will never be content because you will always need more.

Some would call being content pretty pointless, and learning for its own sake pretty pointful.

good point. but if there is no end to the knowledge science provides, then there’s is no beginning, so when you learn somthing its not like your climbing a latter of smartness, or even accumulating anything. with that said whats the point, why not read somthing like a kurt vonnegett book, instead. (or whatever)… i suppose if the science books are actually fun for you to read, like some kind of soap opera, then it would be worthwhile, but if your only reading them to gain intellegence, your waisting your time. get turntables and a girlfreind and stare at the stars, because reading about them wont help you understand them anybetter then looking at them. plus girls can often be lovely, causing you to fall in love, and love is the only thing that makes a dream turn into a fairytale. i dont smoke pot anymore. or read science books.

p.s. i was under the impression that the reason people learn was to become content. to get some closure on the human predicament. what im saying is their is no closure to be found, only more and more questions, that get bigger and bigger the further you get down. its pointless. that is probobly the reason most philosophy professors advise their brite students not to waste their energy on philosophy.

I think that humans are born with a desire to know. I suspect we would not have come to the place we now are if such were not the case. You might argue that where we are is not so good. My goal for learning is to understand the world and myself. Ignorance is not, in my opinion, a very satisfying condition.

i think humans were born knowing. learning is cool, i have an unlimited amount of respect for people who learn science to help others (doctors ect.) But people who learn about blackholes, they dont understand them, they are no more intelligent then someone who learns about fairytales. fairytales are cool. when i die the most i could hope for is; to be as smart as i was when i was born.

coberst–through learning you can come to understand yourself. …the only thing left for you to learn about the world, is; that its magnificane is uncomprehendable. good luck, sir.

coberst wrote:

Wonderful post! I agree with your ideas, for there are levels to everything.

I dont think the answer here is to attack anti-intellectualism, but rather to simply apply those higher facets of intellectualism that create this understanding. I believe there should be a class in school called “who you are” or something that like. I mean if from the beginning children were taught truly who they were, they would understand and realize this fact much quicker. Each individual will interpret the information accordingly, and I think inevitably it will speed up the evolution of consciousness on a wide scale. This is why I believe it is important for us individuals, though almost seemingly pointless in this society, to study the ideas surrounding the evolution of consciousness, so as to prove it fact. For the individuals who run our capitalist society definetely wont be for their millions of puppets to begin realizing and understanding the truths to themselves, but this will inevitably make for a better society, ultimately bringing this understanding into place more and more. The Great Work is at hand!

ill…

Amen Brother!

Coberst,

I find it amazing that you don’t see a parrallel between your use of hierarchical metaphors (‘levels’ and so on) here, which seems to be taking these metaphors as signifiers of something more substantial, and the critique of metaphors that you outlined in one of your many other threads…

There should be parallels because I am sold on this theory and it has had a major impact on my thinking. I might paraphrase a bumper sticker I saw while in college that said “before I came to college I couldn’t even spell engineer and now I are one”. A year ago I did not know a metaphor from a toad stool and now I are one (metaphor that is).