Enlightenment

Enlightenment [+ favourites]

from an earlier post...why does light appear in religious texts? Because it was a way the spiritual preachers conveyed their message to people. Today we can go further.

lets assume the speed of light is the fastest we can go. To get to the speed of light from now we have to accelerate. Set-in-stone religion assumes the speed of light is already known so in effect there is infinte acceleration. However, it is impossible to know something without understanding it first; because then its is only specific knowledge; not universal knowledge. However, we cannot know everything by reviweing what has happened; we have to be able to create or find new things too-depending on how you look at it. So enlightenment is something pulling us and we push towards it; or choose against by assuming we already know.

""No words""

^^you know before you understand!....light moves so fast that you you keep trying to put a speed limit on it when there is none...the speed of light is the speed of existence, because you couldn't percieve existence in any form without light...without light an understanding wouldn't come to fruit because all there would be is darkness.....you're confusing yourself....

"Being is not knowing!"

In a way you are right 730. Let me clarify what I meant.

Without light there would be darkness. However, what we 'know' is that the speed of light is a finite speed, though I think some experiments have cast a shadow on this; but I'm not in a position to know if this is plausible. However, the speed of light is about 3x10^8 m/s. Its a part of the elctromagnetic spectrum. We may percieve different wavelengths of light and view them as darker or lighter, but the speed still remains the same; its only their frequencies that vary. Light doesnt have to exist oin its own because there would still be stuff; i.e. infra red; just how the remote communicates to the tv. We would still exist: otherwise blind people wouldnt perceive anything.

This was just an analogy to show what I think enlightenment is. Of course we 'know' what light is. However, this knowldege isn't real knowldege in that we understand the light; its just that we know it exists for we peceive it.

I can think of three types of knowledge.

1. Intuitive knowledge; i.e. we see light and we operate with it therefore we know it exists.

2. Information knowledge. This is where we know principles from a book or from them being communicated to us. An example would be gravity. Someone could define the concept of gravity and give the equation but not understand it. They might, for instance, tell you that the reason an apple falls from the tree is because of gravity. But they may fail to understand it and therefore also see that it is gravity that attracts the sun and the earth.

3. Knowledge that comes from understanding. This is what I'm trying to get at. Einstein conceived, presumably out of thin air, that spacetime was curved an that it was precisely this that caused gravity. This can come from 1) or 2) in that it may be intuitively 'felt'; Albert was constantly bnging on about how important creativity and imagination were, or in the second instance, that one may immediately understand information by association, but never entirely understand this since communication is never 100% accurate.

You may claim that knowledge comes first then understanding, but I will show that, because there are so many religions for one, that this is in reality knowledge that comes from understanding that comes from information. If the information is understood wrongly, we know, in truth, nothing. This is why there are experts who cant see past their narrow vision.

This is more about science admittedly. I'm trying to convey the point that its easy to be lazy and say 'I know already' , but it is precisely in the history of science or any other mode of thinking, that has shown this attitude is alway proved wrong to some extent. Thus, I feel, that enlightenment is something attained, through understanding, rather than just known, then understood. It wasn't known the earth was curved intil someone saw that a ship dissapeared over the horizon before its sails; and, think on this, this may not have happened unless someone risked, i.e. 'effort' to go and sail in the first place. For example, small particles that are accelerated when they approach the speed of light gain in mass and shorten their length; in the same way as we understand more our knowledge gets more weighty and encompasses more of the whole by ironically getting closer to the essence of what, when, how, where. who and through and above this; why.

Concluding, imagine a circular racetrack; and lets say that the beginning is the truth; the ultimate why. And life is the circuit. Some just stand on this track and say 'hey look' I can see the start post. I can;t be bothered to go around the track I can see it. However, until the course is run to it, until the end reaches back to the beginning, I'm not going to shout I can see things simply because it might ne an illusion; a hill rather than a mountain.

""No words""

^^how can you understand first then know later?...that would mean that you're one creating knowledge...the Almighty!..... you have to know what you're getting into by first percieving (the beginning of knowledge)...then understanding.......if a computer is shown to you then you know what a computer is...that doesn't necessarily mean you understand what a computer is... Religion is based on informative understanding.... Alot of that information is true and alot of that information is false.... Science is based on informative understanding....Alot of their information is true...and alot of their information is false.... our comprehension of life is based on informative understanding, not intuitive knowledge......Intuitive knowledge is complete...It's pure perception, information, and understanding in the direct instant....

A track is a circle of competition....where are you running to? except to get to where you started?...The end is the beginning and the beginning is the end...... Laziness?...no....confusion?...yes
You can't see the end of what you're doing unless you stop doing it.....that's the end stopping, I won't say that I know everything, and I won't say that I understand everything....I can say that all I percieve I know....and All that I know I understand... Understanding is a result of knowledge.....
enlightenment...is!!
you strive to attain what you've lost when you come to a realization that you've been blinded from the truth.....and that only comes by forgetting the lies you've learned...cleaning up to become pure/enlightened....whatever they say it is... and that process is eternal...you can't clean up completely living in a world of imperfection.....because you will never see what clean is supposed to be....

"Being is not knowing!"

I think we're generally arguing the smae principle but with confusion over the semantics of words. I'll procede assuming you misunderstand me completely in hope that this makes sense.we can clear the fog.

Read my post again for the circular track. Competition occurs either against others or relative to oneself. Again, this is an analogy.

http://www.restorationfoundation.org/volume_3/32_18.htm

I believe there is a higher truth than that which you speak of. Most choose to be analysts of society; that is reflect on things rather than create things. Solomon, in the Bible, stated that wisom comes first, and is supreme, followed by understanding and then knowledge; in that order.

By association one could be called a God if one has understanding first. but where do you think all inventions come from? Westerners, advocated by the Greeks, believe the exact opposite; that knowledge come first, then understanding and then wisdom. 99% of people would agree with thuis and thats why, if this is a democracy you're right. But if 10 people say an apple is white and one person says its red when in fact it is red; it is still red. The greatest discoveries came from people with creativity and imagination. I've read in earlier posts from ypu that imagination causes war, etc. This is true. (Well true of the first was increasing less so of other wars). but its also the reason we are communicating on the internet.

The Bible, contrary to what you would have, clearly shows the wisdom is primary, understanding secondary and knowledge, last:

"By wisdom a house is built, and through understanding it is established; through knowledge its rooms are filled with rare and beautiful treasures." (Proverbs 24:3-4)

You can be a sheep rather than a wolf and shout the house down if you like. But it will do little if anything in reality. You dont speak of knowledge you speak of information. In the same way if I gave you a series of numbers 456370 say this would mean little too you. Thats 'information'. I communicate this is a telephone number; you 'understand' it. You now 'know' a telephone number and what its used for

Thus we have 'information' - 'understanding' - 'knowledge'. Or for the foolish ones we could reverse the latter two. This is for the sheep.

For the wolves; i.e. the house builders; teh inventors; teh creators; the creative people; the imaginists; the futurologists; we have:

'creativity' - 'undrestanding' - 'knowledge'.

However, as someone pointed out to me; Solomon made a mistake. Instead of chosing 'wisdom' he should have chosen 'creativity'. Its hard to discern the effect of creativity these days but it still glimmers everywhere. My use of Albert Einstein is good enough in itself; as would have been someone like Jimi Hendrix. Remember the guitar is the tool; the song the produce.

This all said; remember this is assuming you've misunderstood me completely or that you have the opposite view. I do think 730 that you've clearly thought things through yourself; and obviously show a higher understanding of things than most. I would say we could clear up this universe and everything in it to get to enlightenment or whatever it is that this is. Also. I believe everything done is divine in essence, but that imagination and creativity are of higher orders here than understanding and knowledge. You could call this muddying the waters if you like; but some of this is good. Give me a band of natural musicians over a vanity driven band anyday.

""No words""
[  Edited by heyjme1 at   ]

I think Solomon is right under the condition that wisdom is information. Surely we must first see that the apple is red, then must understand that it is red, then know that it is red. Information through the senses obviously comes first.

This step-by-step process is not always true, though. I cannot say I agree with some of the methods of teaching in today's society but often times knowledge is given first, then understanding and then understanding might be called wisdom (by the way, what is your definition for wisdom? I personally define it as understanding of all things, so, in my definition, wisdom is seemingly always incomplete). If the process of understanding that you have given is accurate, then, wouldn't it hinder any student of any form of knowledge to learn anything any other way? Our school's intentions might be pure, but our methods could use an upgrade. Why not SHOW students information of the senses and then bring them to understanding?

Looking back, I've had a few teachers who have utilized this type of teaching and I have always remembered them and many of the things they taught.

"I try my best to be just like I am but everybody wants you to be just like them."

Wisdom I think is a means of being able to discern something; to be able to judge correctly between two or more things. Intuitive wisdom is higher than learned wisdom.

I don't disagree with you that we do have this method of thinking. I think that generally it works. Though 'I dont call this knowledge. Its only knowledge in a closed sense. By this I mean its learning what others learned (pioneers mostly) but not how they learned it. Most students are awash with concepts and words and just this. THey know the name of something, but dont necessarily know what that something IS.

Its ironic that in this mode of thinking in schools grows a developmental body of knowledge. But it isnt so much the jumps that cause these as more gradual steps. The real jumps are made by a different method. Newton was a loner and a man who didnt like to socialize; he wasn't a nice man by any means. Einstein and others like Feynmann all hated any form of hierarchy; the establishment. There have also been remarkable steps elsewhere, notably by people who havent had any eductaion in the real sense, but have in effect taught themselves. I think that on one hand its the tension between skepticism and creativity that causes leaps in science in particular; and the arts. On the other hand, where some teach themselves, I think its just pure creativity. This is why, at the higher levels, science is more of an art.

I'm not arguing knowledge-undertsanding-wisdom doesnt work-clearly it does, but its steps are gradual and its this way of seeing things that restrict lateral thinking. If we moved away all sense perception what we would see is the infinite. Unlike wisdom, which operates through the senses and rationally, imagination can be wrong and it can be right, but, for any new thought or great music, etc., its this lateral thinking which allows what may have been closed avenues to the senses to be explored. In exactly the same way Einstein formed the general theory of relativity in a way which even baffles scientists now as to how he could possibly even conceive it; its these thoughts that touch on this imagination that spark things. Its the same thought we get in sport when we just think ahhh lets try this-and pull of some wicked skill. The creativity is first, then perhaps some wisdom to see if its rational.

We cant get away from normal western thinking and its imperative because it pushes us up to edge of where we are. Once this is recognised, then, instead of learning what our teachers in schools, books, tv, etc teach us, we should instead seek what they sought.

As an update, wikipedia define wisdom as:

Wisdom is the ability, developed through experience, insight and reflection, to discern truth and exercise good judgment.

This is the problem; wisdom is looking over the sholder rather than facing forward.


So: quick update:

Method 1: knowledge; understanding; wisdom

Method 2: Creativity/imagination; (wisdom); understanding; knowledge.

We could play around all day with more methods for particular instances; I'm focusing on the extremes.

"There is no doubt that creativity is the most important human resource of all. Without creativity, there would be no progress, and we would be forever repeating the same patterns." Edward De Bono

"To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires a creative imagination and marks the real advances in science." Albert Einstein

wisdom is important though:

"We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future." George Bernard Shaw

I dont quite know how this relates to the first post though

""No words""
[  Edited by heyjme1 at   ]