PDA

View Full Version : (Learned) Ignorance Is Bliss (?)



Albion
12-30-2011, 02:38 PM
.
Nicholas of Cusa’s (1401 - 1464) presentation on the subject:


On learned Ignorance (De Docta Ignorantia)

Translator’s introduction:

http://jasper-hopkins.info/DI-Intro12-2000.pdf

Book 1

http://jasper-hopkins.info/DI-I-12-2000.pdf

Book 2

http://jasper-hopkins.info/DI-II-12-2000.pdf

Book 3

http://jasper-hopkins.info/DI-III-12-2000.pdf

Influence [from Wikipedia]

Philosophy

Nicholas of Cusa was noted for his deeply mystical writings about Christianity, particularly on the possibility of knowing God with the divine human mind — not possible through mere human means — via "learned ignorance". Cusanus wrote of the enfolding of creation in God and their unfolding in creation. He was suspected by some of holding pantheistic beliefs, but his writings were never accused of being heretical.

Nicholas also wrote in De coniecturis about using conjectures or surmises to rise to better understanding of the truth. The individual might rise above mere reason to the vision of the intellect, but the same person might fall back from such vision.

Most of his mathematical ideas can be found in his essays, De Docta Ignorantia (Of Learned Ignorance), De Visione Dei (On the Vision of God) and On Conjectures. He also wrote on squaring the circle in his mathematical treatises.

Nicholas was widely read, and his works were published in the sixteenth century in both Paris and Basel. Sixteenth century French scholars, including Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples and Charles de Bovelles cited him. Lefèvre even edited the Paris 1514 Opera.

Nonetheless, there was no Cusan school. In later centuries, Giordano Bruno quoted him; and some thinkers, like Gottfried Leibniz, were thought to have been influenced by him.[8] Neo-Kantian scholars began studying Nicholas in the nineteenth century, and new editions were begun by the Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften in the 1930s and published by Felix Meiner Verlag. Societies and centers dedicated to Cusanus can be found in Argentina, Japan, Germany, Italy and the United States.

Science

Nicholas is also considered by many to be a genius ahead of his time in the field of science. Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno were all aware of the writings of Cusanus as was Johannes Kepler (who called Cusanus 'divinely inspired' in the first paragraph of his first published work). Predating Kepler, Cusanus said that no perfect circle can exist in the universe (opposing the Aristotelean model, and also Copernicus' later assumption of circular orbits), thus opening the possibility for Kepler's model featuring elliptical orbits of the planets around the Sun. He also influenced Giordano Bruno by denying the finiteness of the universe and the Earth's exceptional position in it (being not the center of the universe, and in that regard equal in rank with the other stars). He was not, however, describing a scientifically verifiable theory of the universe: his beliefs (which proved uncannily accurate) were based almost entirely on his own personal numerological calculations and metaphysics.

Cusanus made important contributions to the field of mathematics by developing the concepts of the infinitesimal and of relative motion. He was the first to use concave lenses to correct myopia. His writings were essential for Leibniz's discovery of calculus (see Law of Continuity) as well as Cantor's later work on infinity.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913 edition):

The astronomical views of the cardinal are scattered through his philosophical treatises. They evince complete independence of traditional doctrines, though they are based on symbolism of numbers, on combinations of letters, and on abstract speculations rather than observation. The earth is a star like other stars, is not the centre of the universe, is not at rest, nor are its poles fixed. The celestial bodies are not strictly spherical, nor are their orbits circular. The difference between theory and appearance is explained by relative motion. Had Copernicus been aware of these assertions he would probably have been encouraged by them to publish his own monumental work.

Excerpt from Chapter One:

“Therefore, every inquiry is comparative and uses the means of comparative
relation. Now, when, the things investigated are able to be compared by means
of a close proportional tracing back to what is taken to be [certain], our judgment
apprehends easily; but when we need many intermediate steps, difficulty arises
and hard work is required.

These points are recognized in mathematics, where the earlier propositions are
quite easily traced back to the first and most evident principles but where later
propositions [are traced back] with more difficulty because [they are traced back]
only through the mediation of the earlier ones. Therefore, every inquiry proceeds
by means of a comparative relation, whether an easy or a difficult one. Hence,
the infinite, qua infinite, is unknown; for it escapes all comparative relation.

But since comparative relation indicates an agreement in some one respect
and, at the same time, indicates an otherness, it cannot be understood independently
of number. Accordingly, number encompasses all things related comparatively.
Therefore, number, which is a necessary condition of comparative relation, is present
not only in quantity but also in all things which in any manner whatsoever can agree
or differ either substantially or accidentally. Perhaps for this reason Pythagoras
deemed all things to be constituted and understood through the power of numbers.

Both the precise combinations in corporeal things and the congruent relating of
known to unknown surpass human reason-to such an extent that Socrates seemed
to himself to know nothing except that he did not know. And the very wise Solomon
maintained that all things are difficult and unexplainable in words. And a certain
other man of divine spirit says that wisdom and the seat of understanding are hidden
from the eyes of all the living. Even the very profound Aristotle, in his First Philosophy,
asserts that in things most obvious by nature such difficulty occurs for us as for a night
owl which is trying to look at the sun.

Therefore, if the foregoing points are true, then since the desire in us is not in vain,
assuredly we desire to know that we do not know. If we can fully attain unto this
[knowledge of our ignorance], we will attain unto learned ignorance. For a man-even
one very well versed in learning-will attain unto nothing more perfect than to be found
to be most learned in the ignorance which is distinctively his.

The more he knows that he is unknowing, the more learned he will be.

Unto this end I have undertaken the task of writing a few things about learned ignorance.”

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 04:26 PM
This is beautiful!

I was having some thoughts along these lines last night.
The stages of knowing and unknowing are quirky.
In a sense, ignorance IS bliss. Because once we know something, we are fragmented
into comparisons with that knowledge. One can generally observe this fragmentation
as a psychosis, a voice talking to you in your head, the internal dialogue, the judge,
the corrector. So once we know we don't have peace/unity. Knowledge necessarily
seems to conflict with being.
And then the stage comes when we are aquainted with nonduality and we realise that all
the efforts to stop being two (or more if you follow Gurdjieff's many 'I's model) is only
sustaining the duality. Many so-called nondualist get caught right back into the mire by
making silence a new identity, or the observer, or letting go, or whatever. One has to realise
that these are still corrections and often in frustration we wish that we were ignorant again. :)
Learned ignorance is liken to zen beginner's mind. To know that we are unknowing, IMO,
is related to putting the ego/knowledge in its proper place as an object with the One mind or
consciousness as the true subject. Ego assumes itself to be the subject and calls itself "I", but it
is merely a fragment/object of the whole.

Thanks for posting this Albion. I look forward to reading him.

Bennu Lugh
12-30-2011, 06:20 PM
So then if ignorance is bliss - if we did not know that we were "sinning" is it still a sin?

Or better yet, if we deconstruct our human "superiority" to an animalistic equality and suggest that as animals, if all we are doing is trying to survive then, is anything we do to that end considered a sin? We wouldn't know any better.

Its a bit of a religious question I suppose, but more to the point it's the curse of knowledge, the fruit of that tree that was so tempting to the archetypical mother of all nature. There is an inherent curiousity in all animals - curiousity killed who? So the eagerness to "know" fully claims our lives.

Were we to be compeletely ignorant, we would live forever. This is purely a psychological and personal ideological statement obviously because we know better. To a baby, life is just life and he will always be this way. To the parent, that baby is constant danger of death.

The ability to know even the small amount that we know provides us with two windows to the world. Through one window we see the possibilities and advantages that knowing provides. Through the other we see the destruction that both "knowing" and ignorance can cause. Comparing the two and recognizing ourselves in both leads the primal being within us to want to prevent our own destruction. This leads to morals and social virtues.

Also a great reason to try to burn off the ego and conjoin with the One as in Zen Buddhism. Life is suffering. A more apt statement is probably "Knowing is Suffering".

Nibiru
12-30-2011, 07:03 PM
So then if ignorance is bliss - if we did not know that we were "sinning" is it still a sin?

The million dollar question that must be asked, but tread carefully!! Contemplating "right" and "wrong"/ "good" and "evil" almost pushed me over the threshold of "insanity". I'm still trying to integrate this shattering experience. This form of contemplation has the ability to chew you up internally, eventually forcing a state balance or chaos. I feel I'm beginning to find the balance, thankfully! Picture the Ouroboros or yin-yang, two polarities at war but seeking a balance. Once you stir them, they will battle until they are sick of fighting or dead.

Maybe feeling rather than thinking is the key to this puzzle...

:(BALANCE:)

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 08:33 PM
Yes!
Carlos Castaneda calls this cognitive dissonance.
One description is pitted against another - sometimes they are both destroyed.
Sometimes the idea of the self is destroyed if you ask a big enough question.
Om nama Sivaya.

This also relates to the concept "dark night of the soul".

Andro
12-30-2011, 08:43 PM
Wouldn't the concept of 'Learned Ignorance' imply the assumption that we even remotely ever had a clue in the first place?

Like when we say: 'Nothing new under the sun' - it could mislead some to believe there was ANYTHING 'new' to start with :D
__________________________________________________ _____________________________

This being said, I feel this is the general direction we're heading towards - and I personally think it's great :)

III
12-30-2011, 09:12 PM
In being able to safely travel in the Macrocosm one must be "innocent". This is a learned attribute. Might the term "innocence" be what this "learned ignorance" is trying to get at?

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 09:41 PM
I would agree with innocence.

"How do I get to where I've come from?
How do i paint this garden I've destroyed green?"
- Seal, "People asking why"

Enigma - "return to innocence".

Music time!

Androgynus - I won't attempt an answer, but I like where you're going too. :)

I was reading a chapter from my favorite author, Steven Harrison, "The Love of Uncertainty".
He writes on nonduality.

"Anybody who claims to be a spiritual master is missing the point. You can't master life,
you can't master the energy. In the next moment, it's completely new."

If I may post another part of the book which is very pertainent to alchemy:
"You can see how the structure of the resistance to energy becomes a location... The world
that we inhabit is a very, very complex, intricate, woven psychic structure around the energetic
movement. The energy is pushing the structure into the unknown, and the structure is trying to
hold itself together... If you had no resistance you would have nothing - there be no thing there.
There's no distinction, no manifest universe; so the resistance and the energy together create
everything we see in the universe.
Now there's a very interesting question that I don't know whether we have the capacity to address,
which is about the nature of creation and resistance and what it produces. The big problem is that
what we can function in is causal - first this, and then that. But the manifestation seems to occur
without causation. How do you transform something that has nothing before it and nothing after it?"

Andro
12-30-2011, 09:45 PM
In being able to safely travel in the Macrocosm one must be "innocent". This is a learned attribute. Might the term "innocence" be what this "learned ignorance" is trying to get at?

I've just started reading the text linked by Albion, and at some point it compares 'Learned Ignorance' with 'Embracing the Incomprehensible Incomprehensibly'.

Kind of works for me...

'Normal' memory is also a hindering factor for Experience, IMO.

I would also equate it to infinite data compression of ALL memory, resulting in a sort of ever-present 'amnesia', except for Archetypal Memory, which, being the result of infinite compression, takes up NO STORAGE SPACE at all on our 'hard drives' :)

Andro
12-30-2011, 09:55 PM
Also in the context of 'Learned Ignorance':

I have finally found the adequate spot to post (with permission) a short 'sermon' skyped to me by a Friend (who reads these Forums sometimes), originally in response to the Separator story:


"This works quite well to introduce people to the concept that there is no judgment, except it gives them a reason for it being such, i.e., that there is a balancing out of things.
Actually this is not the case. The Complete Design, in real dimensions, doing 'evil' (or 'good') establishes its own real-balance once it Ends that Experience.

In the Ending of the Experience, all extraneous stimuli are forgotten. Forgetting excess stimulus {foreign stimulus, agitating stimulus outside of self}, one formally moves into a state of 'feeling-good', the place where there is real-balance, the place where there is "An Absence of Stimulus". Thus, there is no such thing as a 'balancing-out’ of "good" and "bad".

Recognizing what the true dynamic is, that of the Ending of Experience being the way that personal real-balance is established, would probably be something beyond the grasp of most.

This process of ‘Experience-amnesia’ is difficult. None but those that are Complete in their design can do it. Learning to do it is very hard.
If one’s design is a stimulus-design, one can not do this and is not supposed to be able to do this. Only those who were supposed to be supported by the stimulus-design here can do this.

This last understanding is even more troublesome for those not introduced to the dynamics leading up to the arrival of the NEW STORY since the ‘boss’-gear showed up to discover that its ‘experiment’ of this false-dimension was a failure. The whole thing of judgment not existing is very troublesome. Here, because of how we have been trained to think and understand things, we always need a reason through which to understand things.

This would be so because everyone needs a thoughtform-reason to act as their 'false'-other, their god, to explain a reason for things.

To just have there be no-judgment is not an easily comprehended thing for folks trained to rules governing the behaviors and codes of conduct that generally propel forward the survival of the 'cave' of this false-dimensional ‘here’.

Worse yet, this all goes against the thwarting-dynamic that demands that there be a concept of judgment such that it can point fingers at things and make them wrong so as to better amplify containment and produce more density, as was the purpose of the thwarting contract in the first place."

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 10:32 PM
Genius!

Experience-amnesia is a tough one.

In the musical theme:
"Let's run away and don't ever look back, don't ever look back."
- Katy Perry

In the shaman tradition of Castaneda:
"What's needed to enter fully into the other self is to abandon the intent of our first attention."
"Normally we face time as it recedes from us. Only stalkers can change that and face time as it advances on them."

To face time is to stand in the onrushing stream of the ever-changing present.
The fullness (gnostic "pleroma") of the present leaves no room for the divisive/dual force of thought.
It integrates thought and thinker into "this" or "suchness", esse/is/being.
There's not even room to find a good word for it. :)
I like the word "equilibrium".

Albion
01-01-2012, 05:07 PM
Also in the context of 'Learned Ignorance':

I have finally found the adequate spot to post (with permission) a short 'sermon' skyped to me by a Friend (who reads these Forums sometimes), originally in response to the Separator story:


"This works quite well to introduce people to the concept that there is no judgment, except it gives them a reason for it being such, i.e., that there is a balancing out of things.
Actually this is not the case. The Complete Design, in real dimensions, doing 'evil' (or 'good') establishes its own real-balance once it Ends that Experience.

In the Ending of the Experience, all extraneous stimuli are forgotten. Forgetting excess stimulus {foreign stimulus, agitating stimulus outside of self}, one formally moves into a state of 'feeling-good', the place where there is real-balance, the place where there is "An Absence of Stimulus". Thus, there is no such thing as a 'balancing-out’ of "good" and "bad".

Recognizing what the true dynamic is, that of the Ending of Experience being the way that personal real-balance is established, would probably be something beyond the grasp of most.

This process of ‘Experience-amnesia’ is difficult. None but those that are Complete in their design can do it. Learning to do it is very hard.
If one’s design is a stimulus-design, one can not do this and is not supposed to be able to do this. Only those who were supposed to be supported by the stimulus-design here can do this.

This last understanding is even more troublesome for those not introduced to the dynamics leading up to the arrival of the NEW STORY since the ‘boss’-gear showed up to discover that its ‘experiment’ of this false-dimension was a failure. The whole thing of judgment not existing is very troublesome. Here, because of how we have been trained to think and understand things, we always need a reason through which to understand things.

This would be so because everyone needs a thoughtform-reason to act as their 'false'-other, their god, to explain a reason for things.

To just have there be no-judgment is not an easily comprehended thing for folks trained to rules governing the behaviors and codes of conduct that generally propel forward the survival of the 'cave' of this false-dimensional ‘here’.

Worse yet, this all goes against the thwarting-dynamic that demands that there be a concept of judgment such that it can point fingers at things and make them wrong so as to better amplify containment and produce more density, as was the purpose of the thwarting contract in the first place."
________________________________________________

EXPLANATION OF THE NEW STORY

[Finally An Explanation of the NEW STORY
Now the Thwarting Contract is Over]

http://eductivefuturegroup.com/explanation-of-the-new-story/

Design mechanics: of the ILLUSION & Real DIMENSIONS

http://eductivefuturegroup.com/design-mechanics-the-illusion-and-real-dimensions/

EXCEPT for the PAIN, I wouldn’t believe me either

http://eductivefuturegroup.com/except-for-the-pain-i-wouldnt-believe-me-either/

What is the Illusion about

http://eductivefuturegroup.com/what-is-the-illusion-about/

FEAR of | (↑↓ Balance)

http://eductivefuturegroup.com/2009/07/02/fear-of-balance/?utm_source=BlogGlue_network&utm_medium=BlogGlue_Plugin

[see also archives linked from right sidebar]

IRF entries on this thread:

Thuban Fallout from PA2 - Closed Thread of 44 Messages:
the_IRF - Irreverant, Reluctant perspectives on what the
future holds are welcomed!

http://www.thuban.spruz.com/forums/?page=post&id=6E6D35C8-381A-4E02-A9A3-280F3DCAE143&fid=7BA65F47-E1C3-4DBC-8654-30C619343BB0

IRF entries on this thread:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?2698-Ashayana-Deane-Freedom-of-Speech-thread-/page5

IRF entries on this thread:

http://lucianarchy.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=dansmithsom&action=display&thread=9884&page=13

Albion
01-02-2012, 10:38 PM
I forgot to add the disclaimer/caveat:

Posting of links does not constitute full endorsement
or agreement with the writings of the author.

I trust others to exercise discernment - to glean what
they may find useful and discard what strikes them
as "off" or incompatible with their inner lights.

Andro
01-02-2012, 10:56 PM
I trust others to exercise discernment - to glean what they may find useful and discard what strikes them as "off" or incompatible with their inner lights.

To which I will add a quote from Milton William Cooper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_William_Cooper):


"Listen to everyone, read everything, believe absolutely nothing unless you can prove it in your own right."

Of course, personal discernment applies to the above quote as well...

:cool:

solomon levi
01-14-2012, 07:23 AM
"The more he knows that he is unknowing, the more learned he will be.
Unto this end I have undertaken the task of writing a few things about learned ignorance.”

Another way of looking at this I have seen follows - there are four stages of knowledge/ignorance:
1. unconscious incompetence - one doesn't know that one doesn't know.
2. conscious incompetence - one knows one doesn't know
3. conscious competence - like first learning to drive a car, the conscious mind driving.
4. unconscious competence - able to drive "automatically", subconsciously.

Albion
01-14-2012, 06:16 PM
"The more he knows that he is unknowing, the more learned he will be.
Unto this end I have undertaken the task of writing a few things about learned ignorance.”

Another way of looking at this I have seen follows - there are four stages of knowledge/ignorance:
1. unconscious incompetence - one doesn't know that one doesn't know.
2. conscious incompetence - one knows one doesn't know
3. conscious competence - like first learning to drive a car, the conscious mind driving.
4. unconscious competence - able to drive "automatically", subconsciously.

This may sound difficult to believe, but I thought of posting the same four stage schema
except I couldn't recall them off-hand and so I let it go.

And this was the example of "unconscious competence" that came to mind:

Tennis player Jimmy Connors throws his racket in the air and wins the point

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvgVgnCqaKw&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL51F1E60C027F91E0

However, it was no coincidence that I began this thread soon after you
were "having some thoughts along these lines last night" as I was prompted
by a post of yours on another thread that had touched on the subject.

solomon levi
01-14-2012, 06:55 PM
Awesome! :)

Ghislain
01-15-2012, 01:34 PM
What about intuition where you know something you shouldn't normally know?

Ghislain

Andro
01-15-2012, 02:22 PM
What about intuition where you know something you shouldn't normally know?

There are many shades of 'normal'...

Besides (I don't remember exactly who I'm quoting/paraphrasing), "words like 'normal' or 'impossible' should only be found in the dictionaries of fools"...

(I think it was Napoleon, and he only referred to 'impossible'... 'normal' is my personal addition :))

Besides, if you know something you shouldn't 'normally' know, then in fact you actually know something which is completely normal (for you) to know :)

Andro
01-15-2012, 02:34 PM
Addendum:


What about intuition where you know something you shouldn't normally know?

Oops, it seems you (sort of) answered this yourself, more than two years ago :):


Who has the yard stick for normality?

Language (as we know it) can be very limiting, and in many cases actually detrimental to communication, as opposed to what it's allegedly supposed to do (facilitate communication).

And increasingly so... It's Babylon all over (again? or did it never stop to be?)

solomon levi
01-15-2012, 03:09 PM
What about intuition where you know something you shouldn't normally know?

Ghislain

I would say intuition is communication between the subconscious and the conscious.
The subconscious knows everything. The conscious is only what bubbles to the surface.
So some may unconsciously access intuition and some may learn to do it consciously.