Sorry if I'm repeating concepts here, but I believe Experience with information is useful.
Sure you could always go to reliable sources to be cognizant of certain aspects, and it is generally better to receive information based on what other people experienced. (Like dancing for instance, normally someone a bit older can teach someone younger how to move to the beat better than someone who is just as young as they are, of course, that's assuming that the older person already has experience with dancing in general). That's just based on remembering what the person taught you based on what they experienced. But when you apply that information for your benefit to be just as good as them (and possibly better if you're a quick learner) I consider that as knowledge.
I think knowledge is how you use it for your own way of thinking. The information we process (like learning techniques for dreaming for instance) can easily be remembered, but actually attempting them and learning from them is what makes the difference than just seeing the technique.
No matter how much information teaches you about anything, it can't teach you how to think. If you want to learn something from the information given to you, you have to apply it to how you think, sort of like leeching bits of it so that it conforms to your perspective.
For experimental viewpoints, what I believe is that it's better to try things out for yourself if you're really skeptical about a source that is claimed to be almost irrefutable. Not everything is going to be absolute, and the theories that are generally accepted now are just there in the mean time until someone provides more evidence that it is wrong. (or just needs a little push to the presumed status quo)
And when something like that occurs, it turns into a huge ego trip because imagine if you found something (like new bacteria's behavior in interacting with another organism for example), and NO one else has ever found this. You start to become saturated with the potential of making break-through! And when you publish it and someone comes in and criticizes it, it's going to hurt you, even if you may be the one that is subjective and opened to new things.
As for belief, I think of it as a way to keep yourself stable with reality. If you become too open with various schemata, you'll find yourself invariably back-tracking to your original plan that allowed for such subjective learning. And that will just make reality more complicated on your part. If you want to learn something, sometimes it's best to temporarily eradicate your beliefs of something and let it process into your mind. When you're done doing that, you can go back to your primal belief and see if it conforms to what you just learned.
Of course that's flawed to a point because it's always compelling to force the information to make it ideal for our original belief, ergo, reality becomes distorted to you because your schemata doesn't like the information given to you. That's when the corruption begins in my perspective because one starts to make excuses as to why the information isn't valid in their minds.
There so many things to learn from, and it's kind of hard to confine an origin that defines knowledge. Even though textbooks, etc. try to give a universal meaning to prevent criticism and debates, I think it's for your own personal discovery.
Sometimes there is information that cannot be avoided ( Cruel example here, but hopefully it helps what I'm trying to declare: like the fact that there are people in the world that enjoy seeing others die and having their guts turned inside out, if someone who generally has a "pure" and almost naive mentality sees an event where humans are considered nothing but body bags being ripped apart, it will obviously cause trauma and mess up how they try to justify the reasons to why these people would do something like that).
Because it can't be defined or ignored, it forces one to experiment to see why others think that way, but rather than trying to learn what the other person feels, the one experimenting learns it through their perspective.
A professor once told us at my University that it doesn't matter if something is right or wrong if you can justify your way of thinking in an acceptable and "intelligent" manner.
I quote "intelligent" because that itself is subjective.
That's my opinion.
People can only teach you techniques, but they can't teach you how to think. They can motivate you and possible push you towards a path, but they still cannot teach you how to think. You are responsible to letting the information come to you, and if you think it's nonsense, you have the option to eliminate it out of your mind.
Sometimes it's better to know certain things than everything. (Because usually divergent thinking can be more useful because you know how you can branch off information for your own discovery and realization). We can't possibly be omniscient.
|
|
Bookmarks