The gap between the two sentences seems strikingly huge. I see you contrast "innocent" ignorance with "willful" ignorance and thereby suggest that intentionality is the key factor in deciding whether ignorance is to be seen as positive or negative. Did I get that halfway right and if so, is there no "intermediate" state of ignorance observable? And what does that mean for our system here?
2015-03-12 15:28 GMT+01:00 'facilitator' via "Minds Eye" < [email protected]>: > Ignorance is bliss. > > Willful ignorance has the destructive power of a supernova. > >> >> -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/minds-eye/ZaPdJloGGKg/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- *"as well as" = "equals"* Take a stand against sexism, racism and other forms of structural violence! -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
