Thursday, July 24, 2008

Being Knowledgeable

"Wisdom is good with an inheritance, and profitable to those who see the sun. For wisdom is a defense as money is a defense, but the excellence of knowledge is that wisdom gives life to those who have it." (Ecclesiastes 7:12)

Is knowledge attained over time or expeditiously?

If the former is so, we have tremendous potential for success even when success appears to be quite elusive.

If the latter is so, the advantage is on our side, for existence, the ticking of time speedily and efficiently, is itself affirming.

If they are both so being that knowledge increases over time, and movement is always occurring now, we gain a certain knowledge simply for our efforts alone.

Being knowledgeable requires effort bit by bit that appears now through many trials and errors, having been developed all the time, along the way, though appearing today.

Being knowledgeable requires wisdom in time.

12 comments:

- A - C - said...

Very interesting post, Judith. I would add only another view, using the all-too-used metaphor of waves. I apologize for the lack of details here, as we would require a face to face conversation to properly address this topic.

Imagine knowledge existed by itself, as if it were a sound, or a series of vibrations pervading the Whole, regardless of space, time, etc. You could then "attain" knowledge by tuning yourself to that particular sound. In this simple scheme, there is no definite time arrow that guarantees you to improve your current status, unless you willingly "act" for it. Even so, there is a problem of overall capacity, as one could argue knowledge is unbounded whereas beings (at least in the form we know them) aren't.
Among the strategies to cope with this infinity the most common are: to shift the portion of knowledge attained versus time (the unused is disregarded to make room for the new), and specialization. Both solutions have been used in time, whereas specialization seems to be the most fashionable in these days.

All in all, we are in constant need of intention, will and perhaps sacrifice to broaden our horizon.

I wish you a very good day.
A.

judith ellis said...

Thank you for your astute comment, -a-c-. I am particularly interested in the need to specialize, but to also forever "tune" onself to the ebb and flow of circumstance and various means of seeing the same thing.

What is that ancient saying,"there is nothing new under the sun." So, it is often our reflection through an array of non-specifications that make the difference, that assists in attaining knowledge for finding "new" solutions.

I can't seem to image knowledge existing by itself, for it is forever contingent upon time-the past, present, and future. Knowledge, though existing perhaps in time, is limitless in our particular existence, Being in Time. Heidegger is a favorite.

The statement "knowledge is unbounded whereas beings (at least in the form we know them)are," is well understood. But there still remains the collective to consider, as opposed to the individual.

Together knowledge, though infinite, is realized in collective being. (Does knowledge exist outside of the realm of human intellect? How would it even be measured? Some believe that God and the earth are infinite and beings are time-bound.) We seem to need each other for our very existence and quality of life.

Grazie mille per il tuo commento. Vorrei incontrare faccia a faccia. Ho abito in Italia ed amo il tuo paese.

judith ellis said...

I love this statement:

"All in all, we are in constant need of intention, will and perhaps sacrifice to broaden our horizon."

Thank you, -a-c-.

judith ellis said...

Continued thought: Because knowledge is infinite it is not totally attainable individually; it takes beings of all kinds to determine and communicate its forever expansive borders in time. Being in time. Knowledge is not apart from being. This is the necessity of us needing one another.

- A - C - said...

I see you have a very keen mind and you are quick on your feet.
While reading your answers, I happened to have an image in my mind: I think I am now making a distinction in the term knowledge. to explain this, I'll use another metaphor. Similarly to a stone thrown into a pond, I distinguish between the "prime-knowledge" (the stone), which is attained by inspiration only (or, using the previous example, by tuning your mind to it, allowing yourself to become inspired), and the "lesser knowledge" exemplified by the waves on the water, which is the product of deduction, logic and human reasoning. This latter process can still be called knowledge, and it is nowadays the biggest resource for us. still, true advances are possible only by reaching for the former.

As one of my professor used to say: "all the rest is algebra"...

have a nice day
A.

judith ellis said...

Beautiful, -a-c-. Thank you much. Checked out your Linkedin info. Wow! One who is both artistic and scientific. I have always believed that greatest scientists are, in fact, artistic (creative) geniuses. A genius is defined as one who has who has "great intellectual OR creative power." But there need not be an OR but perhaps an AND. I appreciate your scientific and artistic pursuits, your subtlety of thought.

judith ellis said...

What or who is "prime knowledge?"

What or who is "lesser knowledge?"

How are they attained?

"For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three: but the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor 13:12-13)

For me, this face to face is the knowledge that there is nothing greater than love. This love is shown in our knowledge of God through forever becoming like the personification of God through Christ. I speak not of religion here, but rather of the message of love that Christ spoke of.

God is the "prime knowledge." We are the "lesser knowledge" forever being formed in the image of God through the personage of Christ.

"God is love." (1 John 4:18)

- A - C - said...

with your last comment you are entering a very delicate realm.
Let's just say I do agree.
I am not adding more simply because this topic would lead us astray and it is one which can keep me awake for a whole night. I'll leave it to the day our paths cross, if ever.

as for my scientific background, I am rather passionate about science. I left a well paid job to come back to research and I love what I do. Science and art aren't that different in essence. Only their language make them be perceived differently. The truth is they both require you to search into yourself, and be a good (tuned) resonator, in which God's thought and laws can reverberate and be made manifest.

A.

judith ellis said...

When one strongly believes in holding variables singularly one does not mince words or denegrate the views of another even when one is in strong opposition. This allows one to also be fearless in many regards. Love is central.

Perception often is not reality.

- A - C - said...

I am sorry Judith... have I offended you in any way? If so, please believe me it wasn't meant to be at all.

otherwise, i agree perception is not reality (I'd say without "often") and love IS central.

have a very nice evening.
A.

judith ellis said...

-a-c-, You have not offended me in the very least. I love your words.

judith ellis said...

-a-c-, Love was meant to be the operative word when not mincing words and denegrating another's ideas. Love was meant to be the modus operandi. Now, the appearance of love may be different, but its ability to make better and to heal will become apparent, even if not at any given moment in our personal and professional lives.

Does this make sense?