The use of "ignorance" to indicate a negative knowledge is what the meaning of the word has come to in today's society, and has belittling connotations. It would be more appropriate to substitute a word (or words) that indicate being unbiased and/or impartial.
I agree. Gaining knowledge is the positive. The lack of knowledge is neutral. In the original use of the term, to be ignorant would necessitate that one come to the meeting, totally unaware even of the topic to be discussed.
A lack of concrete opinion is the desirable starting point. To come to the circle with preconceived notions would inhibit one's ability to give consideration to a subject, freely.
The ability to "see and hear" other opinions, even those which are opposite to one's own; and to do so without emotional responses, is a difficult position, but can bring about the greatest results. The rage that arises with emotionalism is the negative since it inhibits knowledge.
I don't disagree. But I can't be the only one who looks for these emotional responses in myself. We do all have them, even laughter counts..surely.
I should think that there is no such thing as total ignorance, but on the other hand, there is always more than enough of it, and a lack of awareness of that might only be the lack of some additional possitivity with which to neutralise itself when it gets the chance.
My intention was to point out this unformed(?) possitivity that can come from not the absence of apprehending but from apprehending "nothing" (as something).
Oh, an interesting thought about "rage" being negative. But it only works if "knowledge">0. But I'm very curious to know what you think really _negative_ in knowledge concept is? When "knowledge"<0? How would you call that state?
To use negative in the concept of its mathematical terms, would imply the taking away of knowledge.
The point above then would be, zero knowledge would be the starting point, and positive knowledge would be gain.
When I referred to emotionalism as a negative in or to knowledge, I meant to illustrate that rage blocks the mind from thinking clearly, and send that mind into a point of "negativity." This of course is stretching the point regarding the purest definition of knowledge.
This then would bring me back to the agreement on the original supposition, that the starting point of learning is at a zero position, and gaining knowledge then is a "positive".
So, I have to agree with the inference that there can be no "negative knowledge", (unless one can establish a way to remove knowledge from a normal mind).
A lack of concrete opinion is the desirable starting point.
Unnecessarily. One could easily imagine a mind attending the meeting full of "preconceptions" (concrete, ossified epistemic values about the world) while still being fully equipped to give consideration of other conceptions. There's inherent bar made against making further or contradictory conceptions once one assumes a preconception. It just seems to be common for people to stick to their guns once they have them, which, if one considers the following theory viable, might have something to do with implications resulting from the theory sketching a natural evolution of the mindbrain on Earth (cognitive Darwinism).
As you say "emotional responses" are difficult to rationally assuage (a difficulty which I personally feel is deftly described by certain theories in cognitive Darwinism).
I agree. Gaining knowledge is the positive. The lack of knowledge is neutral. In the original use of the term, to be ignorant would necessitate that one come to the meeting, totally unaware even of the topic to be discussed.
A lack of concrete opinion is the desirable starting point. To come to the circle with preconceived notions would inhibit one's ability to give consideration to a subject, freely.
The ability to "see and hear" other opinions, even those which are opposite to one's own; and to do so without emotional responses, is a difficult position, but can bring about the greatest results. The rage that arises with emotionalism is the negative since it inhibits knowledge.
Reply
I should think that there is no such thing as total ignorance, but on the other hand, there is always more than enough of it, and a lack of awareness of that might only be the lack of some additional possitivity with which to neutralise itself when it gets the chance.
My intention was to point out this unformed(?) possitivity that can come from not the absence of apprehending but from apprehending "nothing" (as something).
Reply
Reply
The point above then would be, zero knowledge would be the starting point, and positive knowledge would be gain.
When I referred to emotionalism as a negative in or to knowledge, I meant to illustrate that rage blocks the mind from thinking clearly, and send that mind into a point of "negativity." This of course is stretching the point regarding the purest definition of knowledge.
This then would bring me back to the agreement on the original supposition, that the starting point of learning is at a zero position, and gaining knowledge then is a "positive".
So, I have to agree with the inference that there can be no "negative knowledge", (unless one can establish a way to remove knowledge from a normal mind).
Reply
Unnecessarily. One could easily imagine a mind attending the meeting full of "preconceptions" (concrete, ossified epistemic values about the world) while still being fully equipped to give consideration of other conceptions. There's inherent bar made against making further or contradictory conceptions once one assumes a preconception. It just seems to be common for people to stick to their guns once they have them, which, if one considers the following theory viable, might have something to do with implications resulting from the theory sketching a natural evolution of the mindbrain on Earth (cognitive Darwinism).
As you say "emotional responses" are difficult to rationally assuage (a difficulty which I personally feel is deftly described by certain theories in cognitive Darwinism).
Reply
Leave a comment