On Jul 20, 6:24 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I think you've lost it Vam.
I 've only raised questions on what you wrote in your post, Neil ! I 'm therefore still on, and far from deserving your verdict. > I'm an unlikely Pope of any kind. I 'll believe it when you stop dishing out generalised certainties and start sharing the knowledge you are certain of, from your experience ... that are stated clearly and serve to clarify. The > whole point really is not to become that kind of figure and to allow > people into some form of genuine learning. What kind of figure you have in your mind, Neil ? What I had in my view were people who know and who have achieved, that is, who have the experience of having applied their knowledge. How can these people " allow " or disallow others from acquiring " some form of genuine learning ?" > This is not a forum for long explanation or exegesis. That 's the lamest excuse I 've heard from anyone who has been merely asked to clarify his statements ! > I don't think you grasp much of the problem that focus on the existential > hero brings or what we can > demonstrate in fair historical review. Indeed, I do not ; therefore, my request for clarification ! I rather liked Gandhi's view > of direct democracy, but disliked much of his writing as racist and in > his urgings to people to have no fear of death through belief in god - > though one can see something rather decent in the idea of lying down > in front of Nazis itself, rather than urging others to do it. I am > much less interested in him than the conditions of possibility around > him, as with other issues in the history of ideas. I 'd rather excuse myself from discussing Gandhi with you, Neil ! I hope you 'll understand and permit. The individual is rarely important other than as some stiff who stands up and does the > right thing as far as I'm concerned. I do not see anything more important than " some stiff who stands up and does the right thing," Neil ! Therefore, to me, the individual is the most important " thing " we have. > > On 20 July, 01:33, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'm suggesting that wisdom is the ability to impart information > > ordinarily unknown to an individual or a group. The information is > > based on knowledge and experience gained through living, meditation > > and clairvoyance or an innate sixth sense. Wisdom and logic are > > intertwined as the acquired knowledge must be sorted, rationalized and > > compartmentalized in order to be presented as being valid. Wisdom is > > only useful within correlating situations. Wisdom then, is, > > ultimately, the ability to provide answers to dilemma, provide insight > > beyond the obvious and present a clear perspective of a conundrum. > > I'm thinking that being wise is only the opposite of being ignorant. > > As I said before, the moron is a genius around a group of idiots, so > > even a moron can exhibit traits of wisdom. Just some thoughts.- Hide > > quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
