The cycle of knowledge flows one way.
First one starts in complete ignorance that something exists.
Once they are exposed to that something existing
they gain awareness of it and can never go back to a state of ignorance again.
| Cycle of |
| Knowledge |
Five months after September 11, 2001, the United States Defence Dept. had unconfirmed reports that Iraq might be linked to a cache of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that perhaps there was a conspiracy to use those WMDs against us.
The U.S. Department of Defence held a press conference to announce the news, however when questioned about the reports lacking any hard evidence Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld replied,
“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know,
there are known knowns;
there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns;
that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know…”
‘where we are’…………………… O.o? in the cycle of knowledge determines our reaction to it.
But are there such things as “unknown knowns?” and what would our reaction to those be?
Prepared to be dazzled.
Unknown Knowns could fit in to the category of Unknown Unknowns,
if only we say that we are choosing to forget.
However, in the cycle of knowledge: to choose to forget an experience you have had, like it never happened, defies all human logic and reason. < . _ . > “y?”
At times, negative conditions present themselves in which it would be better for one to forget an experience, than to remember it.
Yet, we understand that when we do that, we are being illogical.
Yet, it is precisely the fact that because we are being illogical, that when we are asked if we are “aware” of something we should know, we go further from illogical to irrational deciding whether it is advantageous for us to lie and say that “we are not aware of it,” or take responsibility and tell the truth saying, “We are aware of it”, or we can say and do absolutely nothing.
After several thousand years in our divine wisdom of cycling through knowledge humans have actually just arrived at the beginning of knowledge, perplexed at
what to think,
what to say,
what to do,
and what to believe.
Ok then… While our illogical and irrational behaviour is understandable, it may not be ethical. Illogically, however, one argues that everything in this world is not necessarily contained in one predefined ethical box.
Every box, or “paradigm”,“worldview”, “perception”, “reality”, etc. we have deconstructed.
New boxes, taken from old box designs (which the authors wholeheartedly reject), exist in relative limbo.
… – – –
… – – – …
What is left is a community where the LOUDEST VOICE is allowed to present absurdities, and because they are LOUD and because they are accomplished in their YELLING, they are lauded as “good” by “the institution”.
And because “good” is really just subjective to the institution who employ the LOUD VOICE, and ask the LOUD VOICE for their opinion, the LOUD VOICE becomes protected by the institution against any and all who would try and critique the LOUD VOICE.
This of course is not “good”, not “Evil”, but definitely “bad.”
“all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Institution, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” (10 points to you if you know this from somewhere.)
This might be radical thinking, but it is freedom-minded thinking. John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, and other likeminded people all thought similarly.
We are supposed to right ourselves by abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed, but we do not because we think these evils aren’t evil (i mean what is evil anyway?), and even if they were evil they are at least sufferable.
But they are not.
not what? a knot? wait naughty? Er. What?
They are not sufferable, because why suffer when one can protest?
The point at which something becomes insufferable is when one person, one person challenges the institution to take action against the LOUD VOICE. If the institution defends the LOUD VOICE without any investigation, when it claims to be free and independent, then it is corrupt.
This is paramount to freedom because without this basic understanding,
a person’s voice,
a person’s opinion,
a person’s vote
is worthless and meaningless.
It is despotism and tyranny.
God’s greatest gift to humanity is our freedom to realise we are in fact free and from that freedom we can create an independent free society of free thinkers
if we want to.
This is something that I KNOW.
I have not forgot it,
this is a known-known and a line in the sand one may call “Truth.”
It has taken me years to get to this conclusion that this is something that I know to be fact, but it seems that others either do not know it, or they used to know it and chose to forget it.
In other words, “freedom-minded thinking” is one of those UNKNOWN KNOWNs.
There is one and only one course of action for unknown knowns such as this…
They must be re-learned into the known-(never-to-be-forgotten)-known category.
In re-learning basic concepts of freedom we can exercise that knowledge for our benefit, rather than continually choosing to forget it. Taking a stand on something is not the same as martyrdom, but it takes a similar type of courage to stand up to something you know to be wrong.
This courage is in all of us,
it is ordained by God,
and through it we gain strength and wisdom. Small problems no longer grow into big problems, ignorance ceases to become stupidity.
This is not complicated, but common-sense regardless of the complexity of one’s situation.