13 Dec 05
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
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioI am a little slow on the uptake. Specifically?
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]
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioThe first knowledge is the superficial acquiescence of a topic, not truly understood, either by value system or measurable standard.
You said 'there's knowledge...and there's knowledge.'
What precisely does this mean?
Nemesio
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.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCan you give me an example of this not involving the Bible?
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.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioEasy one, which may incite all types of flames.
Can you give me an example of this not involving the Bible?
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?
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOk.
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?
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
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioSlavery, 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.
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
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.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut you're claiming that you don't really know anything until you know everything. That is silly.
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.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesActually, I am not claiming that only all-knowledge is any knowledge.
But you're claiming that you don't really know anything until you know everything. That is silly.
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.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat I was saying was that most people say that the issue of Slavery (i.e.,
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.
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
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioIt really isn't my position to declare what you may be lacking, per se.
So what knowledge do you feel I am lacking?
Nemesio[/b]
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 Dec 05
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
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioBut 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.
You should have no intent when you read something for understanding.
It should inform of its intent upon reaching understanding.
Nemesio[/b]
One side of the road allows for greater understanding, the other does not.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOk. We come back to the question.
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.
What is this magical understanding? Apply it to the Civil War example.
Nemesio