The common understanding is that full knowledge of a subject is acquired in the process of exerting a difficult mountain climb, where reaching the summit represents the final enlightenment. More often that not, the opposite is the norm. For example, imagine walking down a path on a steep canyon, observing the wonders of nature around us. The walk is easy, and the observation of our surroundings produces a pleasurable experience, gathering a bounty of new facts and events. But when we reach the end of our path and it is time to go back, we realize that the descent was deceitful to our senses, that our lack of awareness towards the future has placed us in a very troubling situation. The ascent would be much harder that we thought, because the energy that we need has been expended previously on a misleading idea, not taking into account the location of our own limits. Most of us encounter enlightenment at the bottom of the canyon, using our will and sheer strength, as the main engine to get out of our miseries, leaving knowledge for future endeavors.
The struggle of recognizing that our ignorance is the main force that inspires our unexpected knowledge along most of our brief lives can be overwhelming. How else can we understand something that for whatever reason we didn’t know existed previously? Wanted or not, we must deal with the spaces found between our steps and the best way that Man has discovered to do so, is by repeating the event as many times as necessary to overcome fear, and subsequently paralysis. That doesn’t appear very smart. I mean that it is confusing to admit that the basis of our intelligence resides in how well we are able to deal with those voids, mostly by repeating the event and experimenting with the results, not in some sort of abstract juggle of concepts and ideas. Therefore, it is unavoidable that truth could emerge far off from an intelligent person, since fact can be obscured by ravishing fiction.
I want to know his credentials also. But maybe we are falling into a ad hominem trap. I never finished reading the post because it seemed kind of loose. How about trying to understand what this person is saying not who the person is. Especially at first.
I hope not. I’m fully in favour of methods of self-publication (though I think describing a self-published book as ‘the book X’ is a bit like describing yourself as a pop star because you’ve recorded yourself and sold a copy to your granny). I’m not really interested in armchair science, but I’m surprised to see quotations from the INTERNATIONAL BESTSELLER An Autistic World (1) popping up in so many threads where they seem to have little relevance. Anyone would think Kanino was on DISTINGUISHED THINKER Fernando Gomez de Avila’s payroll.
“Never mind the manner (OR THE CREDENTIALS), which may or may not be good; but think only of the justice of my cause, and give heed to that: let the judge decide justly and the speaker speak truly” -Socrates-
Could you summarise the thesis of the OP, please? It doesn’t seem to deal with the meaning of knowledge so much as its nature. We’re all deluded through our mental laziness?
That is a good point. In my humble opinion Nature gives the meaning of who and what we are. Repetition is the essence of our knowledge. What we do, it is who we are.The effect somebody exerts over another individual carries the weight of our civilization. That influence reflects an infinite combination of forces between ourselves, and most of those are directed to achieve the survival of each individual person, developing distinctive single trends on our way which help us to interact with each other. The word “motion” implies displacement. It suggests attraction or rejection from point A to point B, giving to our lives the necessary time and space to try to comprehend who we are. Without movement it would be impossible to distinguish one individual from the other, and that can drive us mad. What we are able to do, it is who we are. We know that since we are born, but often our connection with the world limits our desire to achieve our goals. In a mass society, like the one most of us live in, the interaction of people is exponentially exacerbated by the quantity of numbers. Generally, in our world, a person is able to achieve something if the rest of the community allows it. We prize individuality, but at the same time we are obligated to walk restrictive paths.
The previous consideration based on accepting that the foundation of our knowledge and the fundamentals of our intelligence appears at its core to be a definite repetition of experiences, takes away a great deal of cleverness and ingeniousness from the individual. The word “repetition” removes with a swift blow the outer layers of brightness and skillfulness that we have placed around our lives, to provide us with confidence and self-esteem, shielding us from what we really are, simple and limited human beings.
It takes knowledge to know the meaning of knowledge. But why bother with that vicious cycle? You have been given plenty of knowledge already. Probably more than what you need to survive in this world where just enough knowledge is necessary to give something to your society so as to get something back. You have nothing to give to society anyway and nothing to get from it other than what it wants and in return you will have something for your needs.
At the point that there are multiple links to other sites, or we are urged to buy things. Otherwise, one can take the reference on face value.
Knowledge has nothing to do with ingeniousness. Ingeniousness is mostly the ability to solve problems, to look at things in new ways or apply knowledge to novel situations; precisely the opposite of repetition. So, I disagree.
That is precisely the point that I am trying to make. The common understanding in our societies is that knowledge is linked to cleverness and ingeniousness. The word “repetition” WHICH I SUPPORT, removes with a swift blow the outer layers of brightness and skillfulness that we have placed around our lives, to provide us with confidence and self-esteem, shielding us from what we really are, simple and limited human beings.
I think knowledge is useful in intelligence, as it gives you raw material to work with.
But your argument seems to be “knowledge is not ingeniousness, therefore even with all our knowledge we are stupid” which doesn’t follow. The fact you’re using an international complex of satellites and fibreglass cabling, semiconductors and communication protocols to even carry out this debate would seem to indicate to most people that the ingeniousness of humanity as a group outstrips the knowledge of even the above-average human.
I thought about that. It is a controversial topic. The complexity of our world rejects the idea of simplicity, but the fact is that the tower of Babel that represents our circumstances is based on compounding acquisition and repetition of ideas. The word “stupid” claims unintelligence or a slow pace of connecting distinct thoughts together in order to achieve an specific goal. Small children are not considered stupid just because they can’t quickly connect distant dots. Without apparent knowledge, they teach us that first they need a reason. The bridge that connects stupidity and reason appears to be knowledge, mostly based on repetition and practice. Underneath the bridge, foolishness is always present like an alligator swimming on murky waters.