1. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    13 Dec '05 06:06
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    True. But there's the knowledge that pretty much anyone with the drive can get, and then there's knowledge, which is the basis for understanding.
    Kind of like getting an encyclopedia's topical take on the Civil War, and then doing an actual in-depth study of the same.
    But, that's another issue...


    I was hoping you could perhaps expand upon the realms of knowledge that you
    were discussing in this post.

    Nemesio
  2. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    13 Dec '05 06:14
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    [b]True. But there's the knowledge that pretty much anyone with the drive can get, and then there's knowledge, which is the basis for understanding.
    Kind of like getting an encyclopedia's topical take on the Civil War, and then doing an actual in-depth study of the same.
    But, that's another issue...


    I was ...[text shortened]... d perhaps expand upon the realms of knowledge that you
    were discussing in this post.

    Nemesio[/b]
    I am a little slow on the uptake. Specifically?
  3. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    13 Dec '05 06:20
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    I am a little slow on the uptake. Specifically?
    You said 'there's knowledge...and there's knowledge.'

    What precisely does this mean?

    Nemesio
  4. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    13 Dec '05 06:54
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    You said 'there's knowledge...and there's knowledge.'

    What precisely does this mean?

    Nemesio
    The first knowledge is the superficial acquiescence of a topic, not truly understood, either by value system or measurable standard.
    The second knowledge undertands, with at least a general appreciation and exposure to an unwavering standard.
    It's the difference between historical perspective which does not require constant alterations/adjustments, and a perspective that is captive to the last persuasive argument heard.
  5. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    13 Dec '05 07:05
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    The first knowledge is the superficial acquiescence of a topic, not truly understood, either by value system or measurable standard.
    The second knowledge undertands, with at least a general appreciation and exposure to an unwavering standard.
    Can you give me an example of this not involving the Bible?
  6. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    13 Dec '05 07:14
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Can you give me an example of this not involving the Bible?
    Easy one, which may incite all types of flames.
    Civil War. The naive view is that the Union was right. That naive view will continue to assert the issue was slavery, and who could possibly be against freedom?
    Marijuana. The naive view is that marijuana is demon weed from, well, demons. That naive view will continue to assert the issue is illicit drug use/demon activity, and who could possibly be for that?
    Abortion. The naive view is that abortion is murder. That naive view will continue to assert the Bible calls it such, and who could possibly argue with the Bible?
    Nationalism. The naive view is that nationalism causes war. That naive view will contine to assert that we really all want the same thing, and can't we all just get along?
    More?
  7. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    13 Dec '05 07:18
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Easy one, which may incite all types of flames.
    Civil War. The naive view is that the Union was right. That naive view will continue to assert the issue was slavery, and who could possibly be against freedom?
    Marijuana. The naive view is that marijuana is demon weed from, well, demons. That naive view will continue to assert the issue is illicit drug ...[text shortened]... ntine to assert that we really all want the same thing, and can't we all just get along?
    More?
    Ok.

    In all of your positions, the naive view is founded on the premise of incomplete
    or basic knowledge. That is, using the Civil War example, that the war was
    about slavery. Naturally it is more complicated. But a close and detailed
    study will reveal that.

    Certainly, you aren't suggesting that I haven't done a close and detailed study of
    the Bible, right?

    Nemesio
  8. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    13 Dec '05 07:43
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Ok.

    In all of your positions, the naive view is founded on the premise of incomplete
    or basic knowledge. That is, using the Civil War example, that the war was
    about slavery. Naturally it is more complicated. But a close and detailed
    study will reveal that.

    Certainly, you aren't suggesting that I haven't done a close and detailed study of
    the Bible, right?

    Nemesio
    Slavery, to a degree, yes. But the issue could just as easily been the health implications of tobacco. The underlying issue was a tad more complex than the topical, fire-in-a-crowded-theater, headline-grabber.
    To understand the cause of the war, one must understand the historical mindsets, the people and ideas which were influential at that time. Contextual study, for lack of a better term.
    I am not suggesting that you haven't done a close and detailed study of the Bible. However, one can gather many tidbits of information regarding any subject, even getting so far as to be able to regurgitate salient points of the same, without being able to grasp the essence of the issue.
    Case in point. One of my boys--- at four years old--- was able to recite each and every president, from Washington to Clinton, before he was able to read their names. Didn't know squat about their administrations, let alone what a president does.
  9. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    13 Dec '05 07:46
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Slavery, to a degree, yes. But the issue could just as easily been the health implications of tobacco. The underlying issue was a tad more complex than the topical, fire-in-a-crowded-theater, headline-grabber.
    To understand the cause of the war, one must understand the historical mindsets, the people and ideas which were influential at that time. Conte ...[text shortened]... d their names. Didn't know squat about their administrations, let alone what a president does.
    But you're claiming that you don't really know anything until you know everything. That is silly.
  10. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    13 Dec '05 07:55
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    But you're claiming that you don't really know anything until you know everything. That is silly.
    Actually, I am not claiming that only all-knowledge is any knowledge.
    Re-read my earlier post, specifically the second part, relative to the beginning of understanding.
    One begins to understand only with humility, which says, to a degree, I defer the judgement to one superior.
  11. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    13 Dec '05 08:02
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Slavery, to a degree, yes. But the issue could just as easily been the health implications of tobacco. The underlying issue was a tad more complex than the topical, fire-in-a-crowded-theater, headline-grabber.
    What I was saying was that most people say that the issue of Slavery (i.e.,
    Abolition) was the cause of the Civil War. It is a naive view, because
    the issue of Abolition was auxiliary to the suceding of the South. It was
    much more complicated, as a detailed study would show.

    You are correct in that the ability to regurgitate facts, even correct ones,
    is not necessarily indicative of understanding.

    But certainly you aren't suggesting that I am just regurgitating facts, right?
    So what knowledge do you feel I am lacking?

    Nemesio
  12. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    13 Dec '05 08:06
    Originally posted by Nemesio

    So what knowledge do you feel I am lacking?

    Nemesio[/b]
    It really isn't my position to declare what you may be lacking, per se.
    My post on knowledge relates to understanding the intent verses understanding the content.
    For lack of a better analogy at this stage of the morning, 'forest for the trees' jumps to mind.
  13. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    13 Dec '05 08:12
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    It really isn't my position to declare what you may be lacking, per se.
    My post on knowledge relates to understanding the intent verses understanding the content.
    For lack of a better analogy at this stage of the morning, 'forest for the trees' jumps to mind.


    But how does one develop a concept of intent without reading? It sounds to
    me you are starting with a preconception and then molding the verses around
    that.

    You should have no intent when you read something for understanding.
    It should inform of its intent upon reaching understanding.

    Nemesio
  14. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    13 Dec '05 08:23
    Originally posted by Nemesio

    You should have no intent when you read something for understanding.
    It should inform of its intent upon reaching understanding.

    Nemesio[/b]
    But that "no intent" will eventually come to a fork in the road, which requires a decision. Once one understands the question before them, one has no choice but to make a choice.

    One side of the road allows for greater understanding, the other does not.
  15. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    13 Dec '05 08:25
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    But that "no intent" will eventually come to a fork in the road, which requires a decision. Once one understands the question before them, one has no choice but to make a choice.

    One side of the road allows for greater understanding, the other does not.
    Ok. We come back to the question.

    What is this magical understanding? Apply it to the Civil War example.

    Nemesio
Back to Top