08-05-2018, 12:00 AM
There's two sides to everything what's in-between is a blank canvas, potential, and the place from where we should be making our decisions. As we all may know the same word also can be used in various ways with different meanings and one may perceive, see or understand a thing much differently than another.
Now whether it us forming the world with our knowledge or the world is already formed and we're learning about it is yet another blade with two edges. It is once again a choice to be made and a position to be aligned. As Kao said people believe they're right from their own points of view no matter what they do so if you choose to align one of the positions and say that's the ultimate truth then so will be it in your perception and experience that's part of the freedom the knowledge from the books if learned directly provides us with (ability to choose and stay put or discard the choice and make a new one or re-make an old one but consciously). The teachings show that there is time for one position and time for another position. They show us that there is a time to be fluid and a time to retain cohesion in particular positions. Kao clearly explained that in the thread with warfcat where he asks about circumstances (being adaptable).
It would be ignorant to say that you know something for sure but it would also be ignorant not to take into account the variables in play and assess the situation and the most probable outcome. It's not that easy to take into account every variable that may present itself (predict the future) and know exactly what the outcome of an action would be, however, I can most definitely say that I know that if I do a certain thing a certain thing will happen unless some outside influence exerts force on the outcome.
A simple example is a forest fire if nothing prevents the fire it will spread. That is just how fire works in this reality and if you don't agree with me that's fine. You're certainly entitled to your opinion and so am I.
This is what people say common knowledge is. We posses a lot of common knowledge or information or inventory or whatever way you decide to call it or define it. It is what it is. Common knowledge is generally agreed upon and we have all experienced it at one point or another not just the fact that we know it but the effects of it as well. It is also common knowledge for people interested in Castaneda's legacy to know what the descriptions and definitions of the tonal and the nagual are for example. This however does not mean that we know the nagual directly. And after all the nagual is not to be known and described or put in words it's to be experienced. That is why Don Juan spurred Castaneda into action so he can stop rambling and see/know directly. That does not mean that common knowledge is not subject to change or is constant. Nothing is constant.
There are other forms of knowledge such as abstract knowledge (I just made up that term by the way so if it interferes with one of yours I am sure we can find a better word that suits all of us). That's quite different than other types of knowledge and its to be known directly not through the intervention of language. That is what I was talking about when I was trying to explain that I don't blindly believe in knowledge and that in order to really know the abstract (which is Dok's main desired topic for this thread) I must (empirically) experience it for myself otherwise I'd just be ventilating my mouth if I were to try to understand it through words...
And another thing is that if I already believe something to be true (like the possibility of surviving a cliff jump) I wouldn't have the same drive to find out for myself as I would have if I were skeptical towards the idea and decided to put it to the test. Note that I'd be skeptical but still put it to the test not discard it or disbelieve it. For that as an example (extending my second paragraph) assuming (blindly) that CC survived a cliff jump how many years of warriorship did he have to go through and how many experiences with the abstract did he have directly before he was even deemed ready for a jump like that? Taking that into account along with the common knowledge associated with people falling off of huge heights as just two of the variables and comparing them to my current state of being and level of experience I can say that I know what will happen to me if I jump off a rock face (unless...).
Don Juan
The crux of our difficulty in going back to the abstract is our refusal to accept that we can know without words or even without thoughts. Knowledge and language are separate.
And in our misunderstanding the crux is that I don't define knowledge as only abstract I simply have yet another category for it instead of using the word inventory.
Now whether it us forming the world with our knowledge or the world is already formed and we're learning about it is yet another blade with two edges. It is once again a choice to be made and a position to be aligned. As Kao said people believe they're right from their own points of view no matter what they do so if you choose to align one of the positions and say that's the ultimate truth then so will be it in your perception and experience that's part of the freedom the knowledge from the books if learned directly provides us with (ability to choose and stay put or discard the choice and make a new one or re-make an old one but consciously). The teachings show that there is time for one position and time for another position. They show us that there is a time to be fluid and a time to retain cohesion in particular positions. Kao clearly explained that in the thread with warfcat where he asks about circumstances (being adaptable).
It would be ignorant to say that you know something for sure but it would also be ignorant not to take into account the variables in play and assess the situation and the most probable outcome. It's not that easy to take into account every variable that may present itself (predict the future) and know exactly what the outcome of an action would be, however, I can most definitely say that I know that if I do a certain thing a certain thing will happen unless some outside influence exerts force on the outcome.
A simple example is a forest fire if nothing prevents the fire it will spread. That is just how fire works in this reality and if you don't agree with me that's fine. You're certainly entitled to your opinion and so am I.
This is what people say common knowledge is. We posses a lot of common knowledge or information or inventory or whatever way you decide to call it or define it. It is what it is. Common knowledge is generally agreed upon and we have all experienced it at one point or another not just the fact that we know it but the effects of it as well. It is also common knowledge for people interested in Castaneda's legacy to know what the descriptions and definitions of the tonal and the nagual are for example. This however does not mean that we know the nagual directly. And after all the nagual is not to be known and described or put in words it's to be experienced. That is why Don Juan spurred Castaneda into action so he can stop rambling and see/know directly. That does not mean that common knowledge is not subject to change or is constant. Nothing is constant.
There are other forms of knowledge such as abstract knowledge (I just made up that term by the way so if it interferes with one of yours I am sure we can find a better word that suits all of us). That's quite different than other types of knowledge and its to be known directly not through the intervention of language. That is what I was talking about when I was trying to explain that I don't blindly believe in knowledge and that in order to really know the abstract (which is Dok's main desired topic for this thread) I must (empirically) experience it for myself otherwise I'd just be ventilating my mouth if I were to try to understand it through words...
And another thing is that if I already believe something to be true (like the possibility of surviving a cliff jump) I wouldn't have the same drive to find out for myself as I would have if I were skeptical towards the idea and decided to put it to the test. Note that I'd be skeptical but still put it to the test not discard it or disbelieve it. For that as an example (extending my second paragraph) assuming (blindly) that CC survived a cliff jump how many years of warriorship did he have to go through and how many experiences with the abstract did he have directly before he was even deemed ready for a jump like that? Taking that into account along with the common knowledge associated with people falling off of huge heights as just two of the variables and comparing them to my current state of being and level of experience I can say that I know what will happen to me if I jump off a rock face (unless...).
Don Juan
The crux of our difficulty in going back to the abstract is our refusal to accept that we can know without words or even without thoughts. Knowledge and language are separate.
And in our misunderstanding the crux is that I don't define knowledge as only abstract I simply have yet another category for it instead of using the word inventory.