"Real" knowledge and "artificial" knowledge - I have a dilemma here

[yesemina]

Alright, now I have a small problem here which will resolve itself over time but I want to see what you guys think anyhow.

After depending so much on my intellect to give me all the answers, to manipulate my own reality, creating my own idea of myself (very egocentric) and acting upon it, it finally got torn down by realizing that I wasn't what my idea of myself was - I really was just me acting upon my own idea of myself. I saw it at a more "objective" point of view so to speak, and a lot of my problems were solved in seeing that most of it lies in the ideas formed about reality in my mind.

Now, Buddhism says that we must not cling to these ideas that come into our minds, because if we do, we are living in just another perception - it's just an idea, and if we cling to it we can be said to be delusional, because we are acting upon our own minds - an interpretation of reality. This makes sense to me, not just because I read it out of a book and thought about it, but because life experiences have lead me to this conclusion as well (as goes with what most of Buddhism teaches). However.. I am also in school, and I have slightly lost interest (just slightly) in what they are teaching since it is knowledge, but not knowledge that I actually need to mold my perception - because I don't want to mold my perception but instead keep my mind empty of delusion. Well I'm not sure exactly where to place what I'm learning in school. Because isn't everything in school they are teaching just concepts that themselves could be faulty? It seems like what I would be learning in school would be giving me extra tools in order to define reality, but I don't feel that I really need that. Maybe the trick is just taking it for what it is and not creating an idea about it in my head, not clinging to what I am learning and molding my perception by it, but then what's the point of learning it? I don't know, I don't really see the good anymore in trying to figure something out or grasp reality by constant reasoning because no matter what I come up with, it could possibly be wrong - there is no real knowing what is right and wrong since whatever ideas I form is just another perception, although it can become exciting to discover new ideas. I do see that it would be good to be aware of certain theories and etc... but I don't want to get stuck in the rut of clinging to some idea and figuring out later I was a complete fool and that my former idea of something was really just an idea, not reality. I just don't know how to put it all into place I guess.

Blah, maybe I'm really not even exactly sure what I'm confused about, haha. But I know there is something missing (I'm ignorant of something) that needs to be cleared up in order to make the proper connection here. Any comments would be great. :D

Liz

[stray dog]

education is important; take it all in and learn from what it has to offer


you will form your own opinions as you progress;
build on the knowledge that is presented to you,
later you will discard that which you do not need or that
which you have found to be incorrect;

as it has been said; never loose your couriosity to learn.
you will retain that which you find relevant

[yesemina]

Yes, I was thinking about this at the gym a few minutes ago in fact, and I remember reading about in a book that you may feel as though getting rid of concepts in your mind makes you feel as though you're plunging in somewhere where there is nothing to hold onto, but said that that was "the very realm of Dharma". I think that an additional possibility is that I am so used to trying to grasp at reality and define things by concepts that the shock of realizing how much I really do not know makes me feel as though I have nothing to cling onto. I don't think I would actually let go of the certain "truths" that I have so far discovered for myself, but I sure was full of delusional concepts I did not need.

I will find a balance eventually. :D

[spookz]

yese
i might be off the mark but do not accord buddhism any special status. it is a system of knowledge just like any other. adopt a practical attitude towards life and a lot of confusion and fear will vanishes. other than that, stray dog summed it up nicely.

now repeat after me.... "i know nothing".
do that before meals. wash it down with water
cheers

[yesemina]

Spookz, don't worry, I'm not going to let myself look at it as a special status. I think I'm pushing hard enough on the humility aspect of it...hehe. I am following this system of knowledge, with the realization that almost every thought in my head has been...well, delusional I'll call it, just because they are thoughts that emphasize ego, which I no longer want. Most of all of my fear had vanished once I saw that I...well.. wasn't what I thought I was. :P It's the very fact of realizing how much I don't know that has left me...bewildered I guess. :D I'm not posting this because I feel like I'm important now that I am following Buddhism and that it should be regarded as a special status... I would be far away from reality yet again if I were... :P And my very practice is to stay away from that... but anyhow, yesterday I just felt.. I don't know. Confused for a second. Probably just because the way I am thinking now is much different than I was say a couple weeks ago.

Thanks

Liz

[spookz]

just because they are thoughts that emphasize ego, which I no longer want.

delusional only if you want to look at the bigger picture. ego driven thoughts are necessary if you plan on participating in our wonderful little paradise/rat race. the problem is when one imagines that it is all there is. in your case, you question why and how thoughts occur. as far as i am concerned, that recognition alone is good enough even if you do not renounce the thoughts altogether (half the battle won). if this emptiness persist in the later stages of life, perhaps then you would wanna address this on a full time basis via mediatation and whatnot.

* how wonderfully conservative i have become when dealing with kids! perhaps i should revert back to my natural state and advice you to head to the ashram immediately leaving behind all your worldly possessions. i mean, why bullshit around? why not fight the real battle? right now! right here! anything less is bogus!

*wonder whats up with "fight"...."battle"... (interesting choice of words)

[yesemina]

Hahaha.. :D Really I just don't know. I have knowledge of one thing, and that is:
if this emptiness persist in the later stages of life, perhaps then you would wanna address this on a full time basis via mediatation and whatnot.
Yes, I do, I meditate with the Buddhist center here and at home. And yes - I want to look at the big picture.


Who knows, maybe me stating here things I have experienced implies to you just the opposite from the fact that I am stating it in the first place, and therefore I must still be egocentric; okay fair enough. It's going to take me a long time to fully get rid of my ego and not make people say, "damn these kids! thinking they know everything" the more that I open my mouth. It's just that I don't know what I know and don't know anymore... that's all I was trying to say, and that is what has brought about confusion. It was the feeling of being lost from not having anything to cling to...so that is why I was debating in my head what kinds of things to cling to and what not (i.e. my own mind's
"delusions" vs. things I learn in school) and thought I would see what people who are most likely more intelligent than I thought. I just need to get better at making my own distinctions.

I WANT to be completely empty, but still know things. I want to learn, but I don't want to live my life through the ideas that come into my head, or the things that I learn. I want to know, but be empty at the same time. Is it possible ?!?!?!?!?!! ;D That is all I want. No, I don't want you to tell me that I have reached a special state of being and that I should immediately go off and live a monastic life, although I would have no problem with living that way. Please, don't get me wrong, I'm only looking for advice here from people who have gone the same direction. Humility is fine, too; sure, maybe i can't get enough of that.. but the very fact of not clinging onto anything is where the confusion came from. ;P

Liz

[spookz]

stop! you have been editing your post way too long! anymore edits and i will bend you over my lap and give you taste of nirvana through the palm of my hand!

:D

[yesemina]

Haaha NO it has to be perfect

I do this with all my emails too incidentally =/

liz

[ben nevis]

Wife at her in laws for a week + bottle of whisky = nirvana.

[yesemina]

*Sigh* Nevermind, spookz, you're right. I'm STILL looking in the direction of self-image.

[moonman]

I have a similar dillemma(or rather had) as yours yesemina, I have somewhat lost my interest in education, ok, so I never had an interest but if I cared I would find that my current interest is alarmingly low.

I'm lazy? maybe, I know even the Buddhists frown upon lazyness.
I realize that in someone elses perception I am condemning my future by denying myself an education.
I don't see it that way, as I don't desire success or other such epheral pleasures. And on the idea of contributing back to society, the best I or anyone else can do for society is to teach people to be free especialy from social norms and ideals such as money, success and indeed any ambitions.
If there is something that I feel I want to learn, I can discipline myself and bend my mind to learning the task or knowledge.

So I wouldn't go to say that ''education is good, duh!'' Rather it's important if you give it importance, if you need it along your path and your path is truely the path that you feel is righ for you, ofcourse you will drive yourself to learn what is requiered of you. But I won't say that it is good in any other sense than 'sex is good', excercise is good, or meditaion is good.

[yesemina]

Hehe, precisely :D Yeah, I just had a problem discriminating between my own potentially wrong perceptions and just plain knowledge... was confused for a while in the beginning... all is good now...:D

thanks,
Liz

[A4Ever]

I'd say posting on a message board about your loss of ego will only make the ego stronger. Cause you are trying to form it into something that 'has nog ego'. That's a pig that's not a pig for you...

But I think the sollution that buddhism offers is not a good one. It promises salvation. And there is no salvation :) As Mallory said it: NO! There is no escape in here!!

You have this ego, you have this body, and you have the mental power to see how relative it all is? That's pretty good. Now go bake pancakes and enjoy. Feed some starving children. You'll do fine.

You'll never hit rock bottom final reality. So just create and live. Like creating pancakes. Or a cure for cancer.

Have fun.

[yesemina]

I'd say posting on a message board about your loss of ego will only make the ego stronger.

True, and I did that before, however I wasn't posting on a message board this time for the purpose of telling everyone i lost my ego, i was just saying that to acknowledge that spookz was right when he told me so. ;D I do know I have some ego layers left, of course. That's a fact. :D


But I think the sollution that buddhism offers is not a good one.

That's fine that you believe so, but I disagree. Recently, I found my escape. I found my "home". However, it all depends on the person I suppose... whatever it is I found was probably not reality itself but it was a reality different from what I've been living in, and quite comforting. :) So, I'll just reside in this realm and...well... make pancakes! haha

[moonman]

A4Ever incase you were refering to me.
Yes, I am far from losing my ego, :D I didn't say that I had lost it either and I definately realize that I most likely never will.
When I say that I don't desire things such as success I would like to think that I am being honest, perhaps I am or maybe I am not. But the act of creating a certain immage of myself wich is somehow recognized as Idealistic in our idiosyncratic rational mindframes with deliberation I am succumbing to the lures of my ego.

I would disagree that Buddhism's ways are a 'promise of salvation' from anything at all in our terrestrial lives, it's just a way of life, a way towards a certain spiritual wisdom, a choice or a path if you will. As don Juan said in Carlos Castanedas reports of his teachings 'there are many paths, and they all lead nowhere'.
You are right that there is no salvation in this world, we all die, the Buddha died, Jesus died, the salvation you are refering to in the teachings is a spiritual one, you may not agree with the existence of spirituality but that is a choice you have made, to not believe (or to not know;)). I suppose In some sense there is a solution though, the solution of accheiving non-differentiation from innitial differentiation, the means of realizing Oneness, but again this is the spiritual path be it correlative (in the beleif of the religion) with the reality that we experience it is just a choice. Such as anything is a choice and no choice is better or worse than the next, we will fall to our mortality no matter what choices we make.

[yesemina]

:)

[PeacefulWarrior]

It seems that you're still clinging to "not clinging" (ie you are desiring not to desire). Anyway, what kind of pancackes are you making. ;)

[wesmorris]

All knowledge is tentative. (regardless of what anyone tells you)

Make it your montra.

[yesemina]

It seems that you're still clinging to "not clinging" (ie you are desiring not to desire). Anyway, what kind of pancackes are you making.

Hehe, I know :) Have you ever read "The way of the peaceful warrior" by dan millman? Your name reminded me of that book, I've read it four times over.

Anyway, what kind of pancakes am I making... I have no answer for that. :D


and..

All knowledge is tentative.

I'll remember that. :D

[Alpha]

Originally posted by wesmorris
All knowledge is tentative.What about logical proofs?
One = one because that's how it's defined. One cannot equal anything else. Is that a 'tentative' truth? If you find even logical proofs 'tentative' then you have a tentative grasp on reality. I wouldn't be surprised if you're mind slipped away from it. ;) :P

[yesemina]

Logical proofs aren't tentative, and I can keep them in my knowledge, but I am not going to let concepts such as that fully define my reality. I see a reality beyond concepts. And Im not saying that's the right way or the wrong way. It's just the way I choose to go. :D

[Alpha]

Originally posted by yesemina
Logical proofs aren't tentative, and I can keep them in my knowledge, but I am not going to let concepts such as that fully define my reality.Of course not. It's a good idea to build your foundation with them though, and go from there.
I see a reality beyond concepts.:bugeye:
Your mind transcends the mind??
Perhaps you mean, beyond your ability to put into words? There's a difference.
I suspect you believe some things are beyond the possibility of understanding. Is this so?

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Alpha
What about logical proofs?
One = one because that's how it's defined.

One is a construct. One isn't knowledge. Further, one has no bearing on "objective reality".

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Alpha
One cannot equal anything else.

You are assuming that logic is truth. I assume the same thing, but that doesn't make it absolutely true.
Originally posted by Alpha

Is that a 'tentative' truth?

Yes.
Originally posted by Alpha

If you find even logical proofs 'tentative' then you have a tentative grasp on reality.

Ultimately, yes. In practice howver, I don't consider it tentative. It is important to bear in mind however when attempting to really probe "reality".
Originally posted by Alpha

I wouldn't be surprised if you're mind slipped away from it. ;) :P

From time to time, yes. I might ask though.. by what measuring stick do you assume something is "reality"?

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by yesemina
Logical proofs aren't tentative

I think they are, if you read my last post.. maybe you'll see?
Originally posted by yesemina

and I can keep them in my knowledge, but I am not going to let concepts such as that fully define my reality.

As well you shouldn't.
Originally posted by yesemina

I see a reality beyond concepts.

Hmm.. in what manner? I think the only reality we can really ever know is exactly "things that are abstract' since it is our brains through which we experience our bodies, thoughts and the world.

[Alpha]

One is a construct. One isn't knowledge. Further, one has no bearing on "objective reality".It does. 'One' isn't the knowledge. The definition of 'one equals one' is. It is a definition of a concept that applies to objective reality. Our experiences exist in subjective reality, but they are the direct result of influences from objective reality.
You are assuming that logic is truth. I assume the same thing, but that doesn't make it absolutely true.No, logic is not truth. Logic is a thought process by which we arrive at truth. Define 'absolutely true'.

It's only a tentative truth if you believe subjective truths can only be tentatively reflective of objective reality, for just about all truths can essentially be said to be subjective. I believe subjective truths can prove objective truths, though I can't remember my reasoning/proof for that, lol.
by what measuring stick do you assume something is "reality"?Um, good question, lol.
That which has the quality of truth of objective existance.
That which 'truly exists'.
I think they are, if you read my last post.. maybe you'll see?Only where they apply to objective reality. Proofs related to subjective reality are not tentative.

[PeacefulWarrior]

Originally posted by yesemina
[B]Hehe, I know :) Have you ever read "The way of the peaceful warrior" by dan millman? Your name reminded me of that book, I've read it four times over.

Not yet,...I'll have to check it out sometime. :D

[moonman]

'One is a construct. One isn't knowledge. Further, one has no bearing on "objective reality".'
-It does. 'One' isn't the knowledge. The definition of 'one equals one' is. It is a definition of a concept that applies to objective reality. Our experiences exist in subjective reality, but they are the direct result of influences from objective reality.


You are assuming that objective reality exists;) If it does not, if the world that we are refering to was say, An illusory construct of a combined field of human conciousness. Essentialy meaning that what we think of becomes the next step in reality. If lots of people think Logicaly the world will progress Logicaly, say you could submerge the personal construct (the island above the sea connected to the homogeanous landmass underneath) by meditation or intake of halucinogenic substances, what would you see? Would your experience correlate with your idiosyncratic view of Logical reiality?
Ofcourse the world doesn't need to be simply a human construct, the concept human might be an abstract fleeting 'phase' in an infinity of different world systems with an infinity of operative conciousnesses yet all corroborating to a single conciousness. There is no way you could prove this to be untrue, just as it can't be proved to be true either from one person to the next. Essentialy Logic is your own construct in this scenario.
Perhaps there is a reason that popularly accepted formulas and theorys are 'proved' with quite a high error marginal, the average of a large number of test results is taken. f=ma, E=mc^2, are all found with this method. Could it be that the researcher 'wills' the results of an experiment?

And for the record, I don't assume this scenario to be true, I am partialy daydreaming and trying to prove that you can't fully assume with perfect truthfullness that the world is Logical and Objective. And to support wessmoris with his statement.

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Alpha
Logic is a thought process by which we arrive at truth.

I suppose I mildly mis-spoke. I was attempting to say "you're assuming that logic is the method by which you arrive at truth". I agree with that statement but it is a statement of faith regardless of your assertion.
Originally posted by Alpha

Define 'absolutely true'.

That which cannot be false.
Originally posted by Alpha

It's only a tentative truth if you believe subjective truths can only be tentatively reflective of objective reality, for just about all truths can essentially be said to be subjective.

Indeed, hence my point. I'd say that technically, ALL "truths" can be PROVEN to be subjective because of the method by which humans "interface" with "objective reality".
Originally posted by Alpha

I believe subjective truths can prove objective truths, though I can't remember my reasoning/proof for that, lol.

I'm asserting that they can only tentatively do so, moonman's examples are appropriate I believe.
Originally posted by Alpha

Um, good question, lol.
That which has the quality of truth of objective existance.
That which 'truly exists'.

Unfortunately as I've stated above, this "objective existance" cannot be verified as absolute. It can only be as good as the perception that assigns such status. Therein lies the rub.
Originally posted by Alpha

Only where they apply to objective reality. Proofs related to subjective reality are not tentative.

I'm not trying to be a wise ass here, I'm very curious... what kind of thing are you imagining or, can you provide and example of a "proof related to subjective reality?". My cursory thoughts yield that they too would be tentative, even to the subject.. it might get complicated though.

[Alpha]

You are assuming that objective reality existsIt must exist, or our minds would be able to directly influence 'reallity'.
If lots of people think Logicaly the world will progress Logicaly...You're assuming that if reality is subjective that there even ARE other people. ;)
...by meditation or intake of halucinogenic substances...Now these substances would be a part of objective reality. If not, then it's only your mind... See my point?
There is no way you could prove this to be untrue, just as it can't be proved to be true either from one person to the next. Essentialy Logic is your own construct in this scenario.It can be proved untrue, by showing it's logically inconsistent. I disagree that logic is each person's own construct. Logic is completely self consistent. Must be. If anyone had 'different logic' it would be faulty logic.
might be an abstract fleeting 'phase' in an infinity of different world systems with an infinity of operative conciousnesses yet all corroborating to a single conciousness.Infinity is paradoxical, and therefor does not exist in reality. Incomprehensibly huge numbers exist, yes, but not infinity. Infinity is more of a process (it's not a number), and is therefore limited by time.
Could it be that the researcher 'wills' the results of an experiment?Only if reality was subjective as opposed to objective, but it has been shown that it is not.
And for the record, I don't assume this scenario to be true, I am partialy daydreaming and trying to prove that you can't fully assume with perfect truthfullness that the world is Logical and Objective.You cannot prove something without logic, and since you're attempting to disprove logic, there is no way you can prove your statement!
That which cannot be false.I don't think I agree with that. Can't think of an example offhand, but I'm sure something can be defined such that it cannot be false, yet is not true...
can you provide and example of a "proof related to subjective reality?".That's a hairy subject, lol
I was thinking any logical proof could be considered subjective if all knowledge is tentative, which I agree with only to a certain extent. But I believe logical proofs have bearing on objective reality (as do most people). When you think about it, nothing really matters if reality is only subjective.

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Alpha

I don't think I agree with that. Can't think of an example offhand, but I'm sure something can be defined such that it cannot be false, yet is not true...

I was winging it, I do believe that's not a proper definition because it's circular, but you get my drift I'm sure.
Originally posted by Alpha

That's a hairy subject, lol


I was thinking any logical proof could be considered subjective if all knowledge is tentative, which I agree with only to a certain extent.
Originally posted by Alpha

But I believe logical proofs have bearing on objective reality (as do most people).

I "believe" that too, at least that they are "the best expression of our understanding at the time" but maybe reality is layered eh? one definition works for a certain level, but the deeper you go, all concepts break down, including logic... for instance in a black hole (just as an example, don't know if that's a great example or not). I'm just saying all knowledge MUST be tentative (at least somewhat) or you may miss the bigger picture eh?
Originally posted by Alpha

When you think about it, nothing really matters if reality is only subjective.

Hehe, if you think about it MORE.. you realize that's completely backwards. If subjective reality is all there is (which is true in essence) then the person's perspective means exactly everything to that person. Hmm.. check out my thread "paradox" where I think I've talked about this.

[Alpha]

But that doesn't work! Many have tried, and failed miserably, lol.

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Alpha
But that doesn't work! Many have tried, and failed miserably, lol.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you mean.

[Alpha]

OK, step 1:
- Convince yourself you can fly.
Step 2:
- Locate a tall building.
Step 3:
- Jump off and prove you can fly.

If you're stupid/crazy enough to believe you can fly in the first place, you probably oughtta jump off! :p

[Severus666]

There are many types of knowledge.

GWB knowledge is non-existent

Occult knowledge is too, or is it?

Conformist knowledge is based on "all the important things" like labels and gossip.

Non-conformist knowledge begs to differ.

Book knowledge is important if you want to become a lonley librarian.

Fashion knowlege is essential if you want to marry a slob husband who will later desert you.

[zwings]

What is real knowledge and artificial knowledge? In this world what is seems to be correct at all is also a question. Why we consider ¡®chair¡¯ as ¡®chair¡¯? In fact we can call it as table or anything else. We create knowledge and it is on our hand. Therefore from this topic, what is artificial and real is a very subjective matter. We could not classify the world in clear-cut. Knowledge is doubted and will be redefined anytime.

Anyway, we are living in a society where all members are inter-connected and related. We are glad that we are aware of our own knowledge and the way we want to go through. Yes, it is a great gift in life. Congratulations! But, Just imagine if we are just ignore others¡¯ knowledge and pursuit our own path, what will be the effect?

We do pursuit the knowledge purely and wouldn¡¯t be interrupted. Then we could just follow the path purely. On the other hand, we are being isolated by the society. We will have no interest to involve in the societal activities and lose track with them after all. We might just keep in touch with the one who share our soul, right? But how many of them we could find? Actually when we obtain the knowledge blindly, does that mean we are afraid to meet other¡¯s challenge?

What I am trying to emphasize here is not to encourage us to blindly follow the rules of society and conform to them. On the other hand, we could use this opportunity to analyze and evaluate their opinions. In that way, we could more confirm with our way and strengthen our confidence. Moreover we could go in more details with our knowledge on the process of evaluating. We are human and will meet mistake sometimes. Who knows we could find surprise within the discussion! We need reminders within life, as the reminder will appear anytime in any shapes. So, give a chance to yourself as well as the reminder.

In Chinese society, we have the yin and yang philosophies. Yin and yang needs each other to be perfect. We could imply it in our context here. We just consider yin as our knowledge whereas yang as the criticism as the yang. With yang, the yin will become perfect and sounded more convincing. And that¡¯s why we have a very subjective world, which comprises a variety of cultures and values.

Sharing and observing within the society is another way to pursuit our own knowledge and completing self-actualization. This is the main purpose that we live in this diversify society. Trust yourself that we wouldn¡¯t be internalized by the society¡¯s norms later as we already clear with our objective of life.

[firdroirich]

Seek out the sufi! He is hidden

Suggested reading "The way of the sufi - Idries Shah, or "The Sufis" same author there is much in there pertaining to this self-same discussion
Here are a few things I like from it "Look not at my exterior form , but take what is in my hand" - Rumi

Ibn El-Farid - " sufism lies behind & before systemization - our wine existed before what you call the grape & the vine (the school, & the system)

[VitalOne]

This is quite a dilemma. You could just keep the knowledge but not cling on to it. Don't completely accept ideas, but don't completely reject them. Or, if being wrong means nothing to you then you can cling on to any idea , and if you're wrong it wouldn't matter. But most people can't stand being wrong and can't even say that they are wrong. Well its all up to you, you'll figure it out soon...

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Alpha
OK, step 1:
- Convince yourself you can fly.
Step 2:
- Locate a tall building.
Step 3:
- Jump off and prove you can fly.

If you're stupid/crazy enough to believe you can fly in the first place, you probably oughtta jump off! :p

Hehe.. I only mean fundamentally tentative. I'm more than convinced that if I jump off that building it'd be a very bad thing for me - that still doesn't mean there isn't a chance I'd survive.

With regards to logical proofs - the proof "one = one" is fine sure, and it CAN be applied to 'objective reality', but that doesn't mean it's truly representative of it. It's merely representative of a mathematical perspective of it.

What I'm driving at is that "objective reality" is the mold and we are the molded. We can never have more than a negative approximation of the mold. "objective reality" cannot be described perfectly without the perfect language to describe it. It'd like any fundamental limit C or 0 degrees K. The closer you get to it the more difficult it becomes to attain it.

[Stocco]

Liz,

"For the more my wisdom the more my grief. To increase knowledge only increases distress" Eccl. 1:18

I believe you said you were still a student. I can't speak for everyone else, but I had the same dilemma and it got worse once I graduated and started working. I too lost interest in my studies except those that I thought brought me closer to understanding the truth. I saw everything as relative and it was very difficult for me to accept things that professors said were right or wrong.
I was a friend to everyone on campus, but I only had 2 or 3 that I could talk to at the level I wanted to.

When I graduated and started working it was a very difficult adjustment. I was asked to dedicate huge amounts of time to projects I thought were meaningless. I realized then how different my perception was from the status quo. It was like being an adult and forced to 10 hours of Barney on television every day! After awhile you just want to run away and immerse yourself in something of substance. I AM SO THANKFUL THAT I FOUND THIS WEBSITE.

Maybe it will be different for you depending on the field you will be getting into. What are you studying?

[te jen]

yesemina:

Knowledge is a tool. Pick it up, keep it sharp and free of rust, make sure it fits your hand, enjoy putting it to its proper use and then put it away and go for a walk.

[Squashbuckler]

Originally posted by yesemina
It seems like what I would be learning in school would be giving me extra tools in order to define reality, but I don't feel that I really need that.
Liz

That is what you REALLY NEED. A conceptual reality! Reality is A.
Reality is not some unknown,undefined, special place in who knows where.

"For the more my wisdom the more my grief. To increase knowledge only increases distress"
-This depends on that knowledge that you are accepting into your engine! if you fill it with worthless contradictions and mysticism, how can you expect to live sanely?

[linus]

another good thing to remember is this. words are communication for the majority of the world. when great teachers, leaders spoke, they always spoke not to whoever was there, but to their audience. when jesus talked to the fisherman, he said "come with me and i will make you fishers of men", when he talked to the farmers he said "we reap what we sow", you get the idea.
when you learn things like facts that may or not be useless in terms of exact application in your life (i.e. you may have to study biology but not end up becoming a botonist), it is still another chance to learn something that you can apply for better communication wtih other people.
knowledge, more than facts, is about concepts. it's about being able to see the undercurrent of an idea and see it's practical uses. (for example, to learn phtosynthesis, is an example of the natural world, needing what it does not have [chlorfil] and using what theere is an abundance of [sunlight] to create it. it is an example of evolving and problme solving at it's height and much can be learned about the nature of existence from watching a survival instict even in a non-sentient organism).
at any rate, i hope maybe that gives you some other ideas about the value of knownledge besides just the value of the particular information itself.

[linus]

Originally posted by Alpha
It must exist, or our minds would be able to directly influence 'reallity'.
You're assuming that if reality is subjective that there even ARE other people. ;)
Now these substances would be a part of objective reality. If not, then it's only your mind... See my point?
Infinity is paradoxical, and therefor does not exist in reality. Incomprehensibly huge numbers exist, yes, but not infinity. Infinity is more of a process (it's not a number), and is therefore limited by time.
Only if reality was subjective as opposed to objective, but it has been shown that it is not.

the mere statement that infinity is paradoxical is a paradox in itself. logically, iuf something was, it came from something, and therefor there must have alwyas been something, if only space itself and the potential for something, that is still existence, being that there is no spontaneous generation.

and infinty by nature, whihc you state yourself is not a number, cannot be limited by time and therefor it transcends the umber system altogether.

and as for whether or not reality is subjective or objective, one can say for certain that it is not soley objective based on einstein's studies of light particles in which, tested as a photon, it proves to be what we expect, and tested as a ray, it proves to be what we expect. couple that with wheeler's studies of coomunication of distance by light with the reflective mirrors creating an arch effect or a direct effect to the planet and the star from which the light comes, the light reurns actually before the light can be reflected or after based on what you test for. reality is directly effected by us in fact observing it, whihc necessitates that reality is not wholly objhective, but that leaves open the question of whether or not it is completely subjective.

of course, even in quantum physics, all things are tentative which makes it the most real of sciences in whihc it predicts probablities rather than truths whihc, as such cannot be measured.

but on all other points in regaurds to the relity of faulty and unfaulty logic i am in complete agreement.