How Old are You? - Revisiting an Old PFs Thread

[Integral]

Originally posted by Mentat
With all due respect, prove it.

Besides, if one is going to postulate that wisdom must be earned, then one should also include how it is earned.

If it could be learned then there would be universtiy, or High school or perhaps even kindergarden classes in wisdom. That does not happen because you simply cannot teach wisdom. That is why I say it must be earned, and just as not everyone earns the same amount of money not every earns wisdom.

In education everyone can pick up a book and read read it, many learn something, fewer truly understand the material, fewer are able to apply the material, fewer still are able to process the material and then extend the knowledge to new horizons. Such is the case with life experiances, we all have them, some learn from them, fewer assimilate the knowledge are are able to incorporate it into their lifes. Wisdom is the pinnale of this process.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Integral
I will reiterate... Wisdom can not be learned, it is only earned.

I don't claim to be wise, but I think I am wiser now than 20 years ago. I have wondered if the acquisition of wisdom can be traced to a permanent chemical change in the brain. Perhaps wisdom is a unique form of memory. When I have experienced extreme difficulties - the kind that often leave one wiser - and once I dealt with the problem or situation at hand, I often feel changed; much like I felt in college after first grasping some new and challenging math or physics concept. Just like in physics, if you suffer in life, you grow. Consider an old bit of wisdom: What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Sounds like chemistry to me.

 

[TENYEARS]

There have been some good points here. I have one disagreement. Is it that the young as well as some of the old do not have the ability to understand or is it the desire to understand? What is preventing the desire? Wisdom is paid in full and becomes the fabric of being.

Throw out the word desire.

If I threw a ball to you and you dropped it why? There is only one reason and one reason alone. If I say it was your ability, that would be egoism on my part and also a lie. There is only one truthful reason and anyone who honestly questions the question will have the answer to infinite questions.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
What if you listen to a fifty-year-old and learn from his/her experiences? (Thus taking the softdrink from the mouth of he/she who has partaken (nasty thought, but the only way to apply this reasoning to the analogy)).

But you cannot taste the softdrink until you are 30 (or fifty) and there is nothing anyone can tell you that will be quite like tasting it for yourself.

 

[maximus]

hmm. an interesting analogy, but i don't think it's entirly accurate. in our scientific revolutionary information-age one can (providing they are able to pay attetion well enough) get a pretty good sense of what it feels like to be thirty. i'll admit that we don't know exactly what it's like, but we have the capacity to understand.
go ahead,give us a test of our wisdom using something that one can only acquire past the age of, say, thirty. (this should be fun!)
(or is it possible to test wisdom?,and if not than how can we ever say someone is wise?)

 

[TENYEARS]

When I was 23 I became enlightented and saw god. They say it is omni some kind of bull?. There have been gigs of dead wood on this written about it and you have probably read some about it are you now wise about it now?

To some degree I would agree with integral about people and their realization of life even though I know they can. When I was young I took nothing for granted and believed nothing. I did not say it was wrong, but I did not acknowlege it until it became an understanding and sometimes it was wrong. This and only this is being true to yourself. If you need to prove an adult wrong, it is an ego trip and it is not about knowlege. Everyone has something to give in life no matter the age. The question is are you ready to play catch? It all comes down to that and nothing else. If you treat life like a young child you will always be receptive to reality, you will learn and you will become a true human being. Until then you are playing nothing but king of the hill.

Note: Some of you have lied about your ages.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Simple (not really a) test...

In the Bible God states that "All of this universe is a part of me, but all of this universe, is not me".

Answer please. (explain the 'apparent' paradox)

(As to avoid giving it away "to all", give them a chance to figure it out too, you could PM me, your choice, choose wisely!)

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by maximus
hmm. an interesting analogy, but i don't think it's entirly accurate. in our scientific revolutionary information-age one can (providing they are able to pay attetion well enough) get a pretty good sense of what it feels like to be thirty. i'll admit that we don't know exactly what it's like, but we have the capacity to understand. Go ahead, give us a test of our wisdom using something that one can only acquire past the age of, say, thirty. (this should be fun!) (or is it possible to test wisdom?,and if not than how can we ever say someone is wise?)

I don’t believe this is a good test. A better test would be to put you in a situation that a thirty year old is handling, like say maintaining a relationship with a wife, raising two kids, holding down a job, and maybe going to graduate school at night three times a week and see how you handle that. Yet that just addresses one part of the formula for wisdom, i.e., the need for life experience, because being experienced alone doesn’t necessarily translate into wisdom.

Everyone is searching for happiness, fulfillment, contentment – and all the stuff you see people doing is either to get it or numb or hide from the misery they feel from not having it. Now we are getting close to the wisdom thing because as one acquires life experience, and attempts various avenues in hopes of achieving fulfillment, one either learns from the attempts, makes adjustments and keeps searching, or one settles along the way for something less, or one keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over, which can lead to one giving up entirely and being miserable.

In my opinion, the person who becomes wise is the one who never gives up and realizes that fulfillment in an inner thing, and then walks the path of life with an open heart and mind, determined to learn. One has to be willing to face one’s demons (and we all have them) and get to the true self that lies buried beneath all that conditioning.

Young persons haven’t lived much, so they are all talk when it comes to the meaning of life. They haven’t shown they can make it to fulfillment, and since I know very few people who have achieved it (at least deeply), there is no reason for me to believe kids when they claim to have “wisdom.” And it is bravado speaking when they say they will do it better than the adults, total naiveté. They have no idea what’s in store for them experientially and how their psyche is going to stand up. They also don’t know how their “demons” are going to interfere with all their perfect plans as life proceeds.

Of course, all that means is kids cannot have wisdom, but it doesn’t mean kids don’t have something to offer. I personally love kids, and interact with them every chance I get because their naturalness helps me to feel my own natural self. This is definitely something most adults can learn from children.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Perhaps an aspect of 'true' wisdom, is learning to become/act-as an adult, while remembering how to feel like a child.

(child-like, NOT child-ish)

That way the adult can learn faster, as a child, so naturally, does.

 

[stuffy]

21 and loving it. :)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well, I think Integral is saying what several of us have been trying to explain to you, but you don't have enough life experience yet to recognize what's being said. I say that not sarcastically, but sincerely.

I believe that you are sincere. However, have you considered the fact that you are basically saying one has to be wise, in order to even understand wisdom? This means that you are declaring yourself wise, which is something you, and Integral, have both said a wise man never does.

True, just getting experience with marriage, for example, doesn't automatically mean you will become wise about marriage; but no experience with marriage definitely means no wisdom. You might have good theories about it, and you might be the sort of human being who naturally will excel at it, but that still isn't wisdom. Wisdom specifically comes from what you learn from doing something.

I see. So wisdom must come from personal experience? Do you believe that this is wise counsel? Because, if so, you can't possibly relate it to me (as wisdom shouldn't be relateable, by your reasoning).

Remember, I don't mean to be irritating, or to argue. I'm debating the point simply because I disagree, and am positive that we can reach the right conclusion, through discussion (though I will not assume that either of us already has the right answer, coming into the debate).

So, you should be able to see why you can't possibly have much wisdom -- because you haven't had time to do much. Will you be one of the rare life adventurers with the courage to fully participate in living for the sake of pursuing widom? Or will you become another of those who fall victim to life's struggles and so gives up? Or worse still, will you be among the ranks of the most foolish of all -- those who think they are wise without having done anything?

These are only the consequences of your reasoning on wisdom. You still have yet to prove it. You see, it is one thing to explain the consequences of "if your reasoning right", but it is quite another to prove the actual premise of your reasoning.

[EDIT]

I thought I should add that, speaking for myself, I can't yet claim to be wise.

Then can you truly claim to understand wisdom (in light of what you've already said on this thread)?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Integral
If it could be learned then there would be universtiy, or High school or perhaps even kindergarden classes in wisdom.

Well, if Wisdom = Applied Knowledge/Applied Understanding, then that's exactly what Universities/Schools/etc are for.

That does not happen because you simply cannot teach wisdom. That is why I say it must be earned, and just as not everyone earns the same amount of money not every earns wisdom.

Surely you realize that you are teaching me an important point about wisdom, while at the same time saying that one cannot teach wisdom (you are in fact doing this in the same sentence, thus...paradox).

In education everyone can pick up a book and read read it, many learn something, fewer truly understand the material, fewer are able to apply the material, fewer still are able to process the material and then extend the knowledge to new horizons. Such is the case with life experiances, we all have them, some learn from them, fewer assimilate the knowledge are are able to incorporate it into their lifes. Wisdom is the pinnale of this process.

Thought you couldn't teach wisdom (just kiddin').

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
But you cannot taste the softdrink until you are 30 (or fifty) and there is nothing anyone can tell you that will be quite like tasting it for yourself.

Then the analogy doesn't apply to wisdom (until proven otherwise).

Let me use the example of "chess wisdom", as it seems pertinent. There are some things that are not taught in chess books, but are rather learned through experience in chess. This is considered "chess wisdom". One of the old masters (such as Kasparov or Reschevskey (my personal favorites)) would know full well that (for example), in a direct attack on the king, the material value of the pieces is not as important as the amount of pieces.

You see? This is a bit of chess wisdom, that one can still learn, even though it took someone else many years of experience to find it.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
I believe that you are sincere. However, have you considered the fact that you are basically saying one has to be wise, in order to even understand wisdom?

Yes, so?

Originally posted by Mentat
This means that you are declaring yourself wise, which is something you, and Integral, have both said a wise man never does.

Say there is a path that leads to a hidden city. You have read extensively about this path, and believe yourself to be an expert on it. Others are actually on the path, and have things to say about the way the path is walked. Because they can speak with authority about what they have learned about how the path is walked doesn't mean they claim to have reached the hidden city. But they can say that you, having only read about it, don't know anything about the path yet except theories.

Originally posted by Mentat
I see. So wisdom must come from personal experience? Do you believe that this is wise counsel? Because, if so, you can't possibly relate it to me (as wisdom shouldn't be relateable, by your reasoning).

Give it up Mentat, you are being argumentative rather than honestly trying to understand. That point makes no sense at all! You can have a concept about wisdom, which some of us have been trying to share with you, and that can serve as a guide to you when it becomes time for you to set off on your own. But if you already think you know it all, then let's not waste any more time here.

Originally posted by Mentat
Remember, I don't mean to be irritating, or to argue. I'm debating the point simply because I disagree, and am positive that we can reach the right conclusion, through discussion (though I will not assume that either of us already has the right answer, coming into the debate).

I don't think you are trying to be irritating, but I do think you want to hold on to your dream of being wise without having earned it. Going into the world with that attitude, IMO, is going to greatly increase the chances of you getting your ass kicked by realty. It is a wall that you cannot negotiate with.

Originally posted by Mentat
These are only the consequences of your reasoning on wisdom. You still have yet to prove it. You see, it is one thing to explain the consequences of "if your reasoning right", but it is quite another to prove the actual premise of your reasoning.

One doesn't "prove" wisdom! If you weren't so attached to being a precocious Socrates, you already would have accepted the obviousness of what everyone has shared with you. I have no stake in your future, so if you want to go ahead and claim wisdom . . . be my guest.

Originally posted by Mentat
Then can you truly claim to understand wisdom (in light of what you've already said on this thread)?

I understand it the best I can with the information I have, which is lot more information than you have. It is your choice to listen or not.

In defense of your position, I would agree that you should be careful who you take advice from. But I don't think you can decide merely from a debate. You have to observe someone over time, and notice how consistent he/she is. What I have done many times is to fully listen to someone's advice but decide later how much (if any) of it I will follow. The most important thing is to listen, absorb, understand . . . don't be a hardhead. There is a BIG difference between listening and understanding other perspectives and then actually going along with them. Older people can be a great resource if you treat them with respect. Say "yes" with the attitude you show them, and then learn how to filter out what doesn't fit into your goals or life.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Perhaps I can help, mentat, just because wisdom is relatable doesn't mean that the person it is related to, becomes wise, it simply means they have one more small little piece of a sort of huge puzzle.

Originally posted by Mentat

Surely you realize that you are teaching me an important point about wisdom, while at the same time saying that one cannot teach wisdom.

Teaching you a point about wisdom, is not teaching you to be wise, but assisting you in looking 'within yourself' for it.

Maybe I should stay outa this one for the rest of it...as most of what I have said, I suspect, is being ignored.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Maybe I should stay outa this one for the rest of it...as most of what I have said, I suspect, is being ignored.

I like this that you said, "Teaching you a point about wisdom, is not teaching you to be wise, but assisting you in looking 'within yourself' for it."

I think some kids have a problem accepting the role of experience in knowing because they are already determined to be wise without experience. And that problem may stem from being oppressed by adults who set themselves up as all-knowing and then treat kids as know-nothings. That sort of disrespectful behavior toward kids is very regretable, especially when it turns kids into the very know-it-alls they despise.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Say there is a path that leads to a hidden city. You have read extensively about this path, and believe yourself to be an expert on it. Others are actually on the path, and have things to say about the way the path is walked. Because they can speak with authority about what they have learned about how the path is walked doesn't mean they claim to have reached the hidden city. But they can say that you, having only read about it, don't know anything about the path yet except theories.

What exactly separates me from you? Remember, I'm not saying that I'm wise (I was, but that's just because I thought it could be had in degrees, and thus an infant is wise to some degree). However, I don't see what the huge wall between you and I is, I don't see why it has to exist, and I don't see why reading about something (and actually understanding it) is different from having messed up (because of not having been prepared, which is what reading would have done for you) and learning from it.

Give it up Mentat, you are being argumentative rather than honestly trying to understand.

No I'm not, I'm just showing you the flaw in your reasoning. If it turns out that it's not really flawed I will apologize and withdraw my objection (as anyone who has spent any significant time on these forums knows is true).

That point makes no sense at all! You can have a concept about wisdom, which some of us have been trying to share with you, and that can serve as a guide to you when it becomes time for you to set off on your own. But if you already think you know it all, then let's not waste any more time here.

I don't know everything, in fact - if knowledge is infinite - I know nothing at all . However, I do happen to know the self-contradictory state of saying that one cannot understand wisdom. It both posulates having wisdom on the matter of wisdom, and that one cannot have wisdom on the matter of wisdom.

How is this confusing?

I don't think you are trying to be irritating, but I do think you want to hold on to your dream of being wise without having earned it.

Well you're wrong about that. I want to know the truth about wisdom, and (in my experience (which, I grant you, is extremely limited)) one can only find the truth by passing all ideas "through the fire", so to speak. If your idea survives my "fire" (insignificant as it may turn out to be), I will accept it as truth.

Going into the world with that attitude, IMO, is going to greatly increase the chances of you getting your ass kicked by realty. It is a wall that you cannot negotiate with.

Bring it on.

Just kidding. Know that my attitude is not as you perceived it, but is really a sincere "Mentat" request for wisdom (by which I mean that this is how Mentat learns something he doesn't originally want to accept. Michael spends his whole life being told to just wait for wisdom to come to him; that he's just too young to understand. It's as I said in "Mentat and I": I am freer on the PFs).

Please try to understand my situation.

One doesn't "prove" wisdom! If you weren't so attached to being a precocious Socrates, you already would have accepted the obviousness of what everyone has shared with you.

If you weren't so positive that your point was obvious, you would see that it is not the only truth (obviously ).

I have no stake in your future, so if you want to go ahead and claim wisdom . . . be my guest.

I've already done that. I now retract it, but ask to be enlightened.

I understand it the best I can with the information I have, which is lot more information than you have. It is your choice to listen or not.

Something that many of the members here (I'm not including you in this, just making a point) don't understand is the difference between not listening and not agreeing.

In defense of your position, I would agree that you should be careful who you take advice from. But I don't think you can decide merely from a debate. You have to observe someone over time, and notice how consistent he/she is. What I have done many times is to fully listen to someone's advice but decide later how much (if any) of it I will follow.

You seem to like everything to take a lot of time. I'm not directly opposed to this, but I don't see it's necessity.

For example, many people will examine a position in chess for a looooong time, just to notice what I saw immediately, and (more importantly) what I'm sure they also saw immediately; but they doubted.

The most important thing is to listen, absorb, understand . . . don't be a hardhead.

I'm not being a hardhead, however, if I were to listen to and absorb everything everyone tells me, without "passing it through the fire", I let in a huge mound of dirt with each one diamond.

There is a BIG difference between listening and understanding other perspectives and then actually going along with them. Older people can be a great resource if you treat them with respect. Say "yes" with the attitude you show them, and then learn how to filter out what doesn't fit into your goals or life.

But that leaves the amount of knowledge that I gain enitrely up to the other person.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I think some kids have a problem accepting the role of experience in knowing because they are already determined to be wise without experience.

And you are determined to be wise with experience. Why do you think this is better than my approach (to learn from the experiences of others)?

Imagine, for example, that I was going to die of AIDS very soon. You would, by your reasoning, be denying me even the possibility of ever attaining wisdom, while my concept of wisdom is much more "fair".

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
What exactly separates me from you?

Not a thing Mentat. I know this is what you fear, being excluded, looked down upon, etc. And I know many adults who do exactly that with kids. I am not one of them and I really disagree with adults who do it. But there is a difference between being equal in potential, and equal in realized potential. The ability to acknowledge the areas where one lacks wisdom is one of the wisest things one can learn.

Originally posted by Mentat
I want to know the truth about wisdom, and (in my experience (which, I grant you, is extremely limited)) one can only find the truth by passing all ideas "through the fire", so to speak. If your idea survives my "fire" (insignificant as it may turn out to be), I will accept it as truth.

Excellent.

Originally posted by Mentat
Know that my attitude is not as you perceived it, but is really a sincere "Mentat" request for wisdom (by which I mean that this is how Mentat learns something he doesn't originally want to accept.

Also excellent, I understand completely. Glad to hear you aren't a pushover about something so important.

Originally posted by Mentat
I now retract it, but ask to be enlightened.

LOL.

Originally posted by Mentat
You seem to like everything to take a lot of time. I'm not directly opposed to this, but I don't see it's necessity.

For example, many people will examine a position in chess for a looooong time, just to notice what I saw immediately, and (more importantly) what I'm sure they also saw immediately; but they doubted.

Chess is different, that can be done with a capable intellect alone. Computers can play chess, but they can't become wise.

Examine your motives very carefully Mentat. Your statement, "You seem to like everything to take a lot of time . . . but I don't see it's necessity" reveals something about why you are resisting. If you don't develop the patience it takes to master all the great things, you will be just another talker, and the world already has far too many of them.

Originally posted by Mentat
And you are determined to be wise with experience. Why do you think this is better than my approach (to learn from the experiences of others)?

Imagine, for example, that I was going to die of AIDS very soon. You would, by your reasoning, be denying me even the possibility of ever attaining wisdom, while my concept of wisdom is much more "fair".

I think you already know that personal experience is the ultimate teacher, and that others' experiences can only serve as a guide to help you figure out what experiences you are going after. But, your own negative experiences with older people acting superior just because they are older (but not so much wiser) makes you want to deny it.

As far as which concept of wisdom is more fair, fairness has nothing to do with it. We are just talking about how things work -- in this case, how wisdom works. It would be nice if you could get it quick, but I have never seen it work that way.

There is a very beautiful but highly misunderstood inner sort of concept known as surrender, which I believe refers to accepting the nature of profound things that cannot be changed and then harmonizing with them. Wisdom is a perfect example of this. It has its own rules and nothing you can do will change that. So if you want wisdom, you must surrender to its "way" and let it teach you.

So I say,and obviously it is up to you to give it your test of fire to decide if I speak accurately, that if you want true wisdom, you have submit to its slow, gradual, experience-bound ways; and if you want to only appear to be wise, then go ahead and get it from books and your intellect alone.

 

[Integral]

Once again LWSleeth has hit the nail on the head.

I do not see my participating in this conversation as a demonstration of wisdom. In fact, quite the opposite, every bit of wisdom I possesses says stay out of such conversations they can only lead to frustration and no fulfillment.

A lot of the disagreement here comes from a lack of definition of "Wisdom". Just what is it? Can we even come up with a working definition that we all agree to? Without that there is no possible resolution. Any definition I would purpose would include the words "life experience" which, quite naturally would support the views I have already posted.

Mentat, what do you mean when you use the word?

 

[Stephanie]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yeah, you turned on Christmas day didn't you?

I'll be 30 this Christmas Day.

I always enjoy meeting other Christmas babies!

 

[maximus]

after nine pages of this conversation, it appears to be quite circular. and i believe what we're missing is an equally shared definition of wisdom. now i will completely argee that some aspects of life can be taught by experience alone. (for example: no one can tell you what it is to be in love) but i believe that wisdom is something greater than this learning from experience. i believe that wisdom is something deeper, something about understanding something completely.

i will use a crude example to illustrate a point:
in tests, people can learn things from experience. an electric jolt in an item will tell them never to touch it again, but if you told them beforehand the pain that touching it would contain, they probably would not touch it. how is touching it and learning any different from learning a different way or by watching another touch it and feel pain? (see? very crude)
but still,do you understand my point? i have heard that drinking and driving isn't a wise thing to do, but if i did it and got injured, is it more wise?
it's all understanding. LW: i would ask you to look at mentat's question more carefully. think-what is it that you feel separates you from him or i? there must be something or we would be in this conversation. do your experiences teach you that much more than than the possibility that we might be able to understand your experiences,and feel feelings similar to what you felt?

 

[Integral]

in tests, people can learn things from experience. an electric jolt in an item will tell them never to touch it again, but if you told them beforehand the pain that touching it would contain, they probably would not touch it. how is touching it and learning any different from learning a different way or by watching another touch it and feel pain? (see? very crude)

Indeed, a significant portion of wisdom is the ability to learn from others mistakes, it is NOT necessary to make every mistake yourself. With that said I would have to ask if wisdom is the lesson learned or the ability to learn? These are very subtle issues, it all comes back to the point that wisdom can not be taught or learned.

I think that it is one of those things that is always just over the hill or around the corner. To attempt to come to grips with it is to lose it. It only comes when you are looking the other way and thinking of something else.

Do not see it as an achievable goal, as it is a life long path. You can appear to be wise one moment and a fool a second later. Life is always throwing us curves, our ability to deal with the twists and turns of life is wisdom.

Perhaps this is why us oldsters are reluctant to grant wisdom on youngsters, they have not yet dealt with the curve balls life is prone to throw. You can never know how you will react until something happens. It is easy to read a book, where the problems are contrived and the solutions obvious. It is different to actually live the problems and suffer the consequenes of failure or sucess. Only when you have proven your ability to deal with life can you earn wisdom.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by maximus
after nine pages of this conversation, it appears to be quite circular. and i believe what we're missing is an equally shared definition of wisdom. now i will completely argee that some aspects of life can be taught by experience alone. (for example: no one can tell you what it is to be in love) but i believe that wisdom is something greater than this learning from experience. i believe that wisdom is something deeper, something about understanding something completely.

i will use a crude example to illustrate a point:
in tests, people can learn things from experience. an electric jolt in an item will tell them never to touch it again, but if you told them beforehand the pain that touching it would contain, they probably would not touch it. how is touching it and learning any different from learning a different way or by watching another touch it and feel pain? (see? very crude)
but still,do you understand my point? i have heard that drinking and driving isn't a wise thing to do, but if i did it and got injured, is it more wise?
it's all understanding. LW: i would ask you to look at mentat's question more carefully. think-what is it that you feel separates you from him or i? there must be something or we would be in this conversation. do your experiences teach you that much more than than the possibility that we might be able to understand your experiences,and feel feelings similar to what you felt?

having said all this i will make the opposite arguement, because in a way i am two sided on this issue.

in my experience (which is relitively short) i have learned some things and i have gained some wisdom. and one of the things i have learned is that some things take time..
i will give an example of a personal experience to clarify:
at the age of 12-14, i thought i knew everything. i thought i had an understanding of the true nature of the universe more than anybody. i felt emotions so strongly that they would (in a sence) control me. by this i mean that my personal beliefs would change to fit the emotion instead of vice-verca. but, at about the age of fifteen, something awakened within me. (i can, in fact, remember the exact moment that this event happened.) (i believe i was running the mile in P.E. )anyways, this thing inside me (which i have lovingly named the Introspective Eye has the sole purpose of examining the one thing that i did not understand in my vast understanding of everything: myself. in an instant everything i held true was destroyed as it searched to the bottom of my 'soul'and found nothing. it was a very sobering feeling looking in myself, and i remember the specific thought that was echoing in my mind: "i am empty".
anyways, long story short this thing happened only when i was ready and for the life of me i couldn't have understood it or summonded it up beforehand. i feared this before it took over. which leads me to my next life lesson: what you fear to become, you usually will. examine your parents, do you see yourself becoming them, or does the thought of it sicken you? the truth is that it is enevitable that someday you will understand everything they did and love them all the more for it. (this hasn't happened to me yet, but I'm sure it will. )
so i do have respect for you LW Sleeth, and maybe am not the young whipersnapper you think i am!

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by maximus
LW: i would ask you to look at mentat's question more carefully. think-what is it that you feel separates you from him or i? there must be something or we would be in this conversation. do your experiences teach you that much more than than the possibility that we might be able to understand your experiences,and feel feelings similar to what you felt?

I think Integral's suggestion of defining wisdom a little before we continue is wise .

I would separate wisdom into two types: mundane and profound. By “mundane” wisdom I mean that understanding of how things function one acquires from working with them for many years. For instance, both sides of my very large family knew how to build houses, and it was always assumed when it was time for one of them to have a house, they would build their own. On weekends usually several family members would go to the latest build to help, and I would go too sometimes. I was always impressed that no matter what little project I'd take on, one of the uncles could show me little secrets of how to do it faster, better, safer, etc. That was "wisdom" they'd picked up from generations of house building.

Before going on to profound wisdom, let's see if anything can be said about wisdom in general yet. You might say that you could read books, and if you were smart enough, could pick up all those little tips my uncles knew without having done any of it. I would not disagree. However, the knowledge you now have in your head from reading is a different type of knowledge than that learned from actually doing. Let me characterize that difference with the terms richness, certainty, and wholeness.

What the intellect does when it understands is to create a model, a mental construct that approximates the aspect of reality it’s trying to represent. It is a mere shell, or a sort of image one maintains. So if, for instance, you had lived in the desert all your life, and people visiting you described their vacation on Samoa, you might have a wonderful vision of it complete with pictures of palm trees you’d seen in magazines, lovely island girls, coconuts, beaches, waves, sunsets on the ocean . . . But then one day you get to go, and even if your vision was perfect, now the quality of richness is added because the flat intellectual concept you had is replaced by a multi-dimensional experience. It becomes part of your memory, and even seeps into your being by shaping your outlook and desires. Also, because you have experienced it, you know for certain such a place exists; it isn’t just a dream or concept, it has been confirmed by your own personal experience and all your memories are now actual, not imagined. Finally, there is what the island is like as a whole which, when one goes there and is part of it, one sees how all the “parts” fit together.

So, a general distinction we might make between intellectual and experiential learning is that the former lacks substance while the latter is full. When its just mental, all the spaces between concepts are empty, there is no real certainty and no real confidence; whatever is there is paper thin. In contrast, that rich understanding, certainty and holistic view amounts to a kind of power that builds in one the more one experiences – you know, you just don’t “think” so. With such a full and powerful understanding as a foundation, one is much more capable of seeing new possibilities and successfully achieving them by knowing were to fit a “part” into the whole, or how to adjust the whole without messing up all the parts. But the mental expert hasn’t really tested all his theories, and so both misses creative opportunities and fails to recognize where something is going to fall short.

So how about profound wisdom. This is a tough one because there doesn’t seem to be a lot of agreement about what’s profound. Some even believe nothing is profound, that everything is mundane. But if there is something(s) which is profound, the same rules apply as with the mundane: one needs experience of the profound to acquire true wisdom. Because it is so much more difficult to experience that, the debates about the profound typically are dominated by mental experts. My personal view is that profound wisdom is predicated on the experience of our true nature that lives at the core of our being. To have that experience, one has to turn one’s attention inward, and learn to feel this core. With enough experience, one might eventually get intimate enough with that inner fullness to say something meaningful about it. Sadly, most people are perfectly willing to preach, write books, and give advice based on studying what others have realized. It might be wisdom, but it isn’t one’s own, and so it lacks the power and specific applicability that comes from actually knowing for oneself.

To at last answer your question, this "separation" you and Mentat are talking about is only about the difference in experiential knowledge between older and younger persons. Most of what youth have to say about mundane or profound is theory. Even if it is insightful theory, it is still untested. Those of us who have lived awhile, and learned, know to be very cautious with theoretical experts. They think they know, but they don't know they know.

The other separation we've discussed is that artificially created by ignorant adults who just want to be on top of anyone they can. You will see as you get older that such people create separation any chance they get, not just with kids. As I have said, I do not believe in condescending, it is in fact one of the few things that gets my anger going every time. If you have something to say, if it makes sense and doesn't run contrary to my experience, then I will accept it as reasonalbe no matter how old you are, or educated, or what your IQ is, or any other of the qualities people use to condescend.

But if you start to act wise without sufficient personal experience to do so, then I am going to resist that too.

 

[maximus]

and has anyone thought that maybe the discussion should be moved to Philosopy? we've kind of wondered away from the original topic and we might get more hits there. besides, we could at least get our posts counted that way, which is what everyone wants, right?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by maximus
. . . maybe am not the young whipersnapper you think i am!

LOL! I think you guys are great, to be thinking about things so young. Yet, as you point out, you can see that already you have become wiser than you once were, and if you continue searching, you should continue to grow in wisdom.

However, I still think you are a young whippersnapper . . .

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
\
My personal view is that profound wisdom is predicated on the experience of our true nature that lives at the core of our being. To have that experience, one has to turn one’s attention inward, and learn to feel this core. With enough experience, one might eventually get intimate enough with that inner fullness to say something meaningful about it. Sadly, most people are perfectly willing to preach, write books, and give advice based on studying what others have realized. It might be wisdom, but it isn’t one’s own, and so it lacks the power and specific applicability that comes from actually knowing for oneself.

\

well, now it seems we are changing our definitions of wisdom. it now seems that wisdom (profound wisdom) is the ability to look within and see yourself as you truly are. i know i have this ability. as I've described in my other post "The Introspective Eye" within me has givin me this ability and we've think we've seen Mentat talk something about a similar awakening within himself. (that's what we thought you meant by "Mentat and I"). so apparently this does not only come through expeince.

and if you have doubt about the truth of my Eye, we (the Eye and the other I) laugh at you! we know our selves. (as hard of a lesson as it may have been to learn ourself, we still do)

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by maximus
well, now it seems we are changing our definitions of wisdom. it now seems that wisdom (profound wisdom) is the ability to look within and see yourself as you truly are. i know i have this ability. as I've described in my other post "The Introspective Eye" within me has givin me this ability and we've think we've seen Mentat talk something about a similar awakening within himself. (that's what we thought you meant by "Mentat and I"). so apparently this does not only come through expeince.

and if you have doubt about the truth of my Eye, we (the Eye and the other I) laugh at you! we know our selves. (as hard of a lesson as it may have been to learn ourself, we still do)

What if that look within you've done has just scratched the surface of how far you can go. Maybe you can learn to sit quietly and do it, and say you do that for an hour a day for the next 30 years. When you look back to the statement you said today, maybe you will think, "gee, I sure was naive about how deeply a person can dive into the profound." Of course, you will only be able to say that if you get sufficient experience to be able to contrast then with now.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

How's about, there is no proving what aging really does to you, intellectually, emotionally, physically, you just have to live it, the time, to know it.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by maximus
hmm. an interesting analogy, but i don't think it's entirly accurate. in our scientific revolutionary information-age one can (providing they are able to pay attetion well enough) get a pretty good sense of what it feels like to be thirty. i'll admit that we don't know exactly what it's like, but we have the capacity to understand.
go ahead,give us a test of our wisdom using something that one can only acquire past the age of, say, thirty. (this should be fun!)
(or is it possible to test wisdom?,and if not than how can we ever say someone is wise?)

I contend that the analogy is absolutely correct. You cannot truly know what a soft drink taste like until you taste it yourself. You are actually committing the falacy the analogy is pointing out by suggesting that it isn't accurate. You have only seen one side yet you are claiming that you can understand the other without having seen it.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Then the analogy doesn't apply to wisdom (until proven otherwise).

Let me use the example of "chess wisdom", as it seems pertinent. There are some things that are not taught in chess books, but are rather learned through experience in chess. This is considered "chess wisdom". One of the old masters (such as Kasparov or Reschevskey (my personal favorites)) would know full well that (for example), in a direct attack on the king, the material value of the pieces is not as important as the amount of pieces.

You see? This is a bit of chess wisdom, that one can still learn, even though it took someone else many years of experience to find it.

The analogy applies perfectly. I have not claimed I wasn't wise.

But I see LWS is doing such a great job of describing this one I'm not needed here.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Not a thing Mentat.

Thanks, that's nice to know. However, there must be something, otherwise there is no reason for wisdom to be more attainable for you than for me.

I know this is what you fear, being excluded, looked down upon, etc.

Not exactly. You see, this has to do with the opinion other's have of me. That is not my fear. I just don't want them to be right. If it turns out that they are, so be it. But I don't think anyone has made a good enough case for that idea, yet.

And I know many adults who do exactly that with kids. I am not one of them and I really disagree with adults who do it. But there is a difference between being equal in potential, and equal in realized potential. The ability to acknowledge the areas where one lacks wisdom is one of the wisest things one can learn.

With all due respect, you couldn't flatter yourself more. You are assuming the most lofty of positions, the ability to judge another's wisdom (which is the most lofty, according to your own reasoning).

Besides, how can you possibly know how much realized potential I have?

LOL.

I fail to see the humor.

Chess is different, that can be done with a capable intellect alone. Computers can play chess, but they can't become wise.

How do you know that? Again, I remind you, I will not accept assumptions without some sound basis. You cannot tell me, "object A cannot have wisdom, but object B can", without some kind of reasoning to validate it, and expect me to just agree with you.

Examine your motives very carefully Mentat. Your statement, "You seem to like everything to take a lot of time . . . but I don't see it's necessity" reveals something about why you are resisting. If you don't develop the patience it takes to master all the great things, you will be just another talker, and the world already has far too many of them.

And yet again, you say "the patience it takes to master all the great things...", why must it take patience (that's not to say that I'm not going to be patient in my learning, by you seem to think that every great achievement must be the result of patience).

I think you already know that personal experience is the ultimate teacher, and that others' experiences can only serve as a guide to help you figure out what experiences you are going after.

I think that personal experience is just as good as other's experiences, provided one is wise enough to learn from both.

As far as which concept of wisdom is more fair, fairness has nothing to do with it. We are just talking about how things work -- in this case, how wisdom works. It would be nice if you could get it quick, but I have never seen it work that way.

And here you strike at the crux of the matter. I think that your whole concept of wisdom is based (entirely) on inductive reasoning, and that's just not good enough (IMO). BTW, what I mean by "inductive reasoning" is that you are looking at the examples that you have seen in your life, and assuming that there is some underlying principle that applies to all situations.

There is a very beautiful but highly misunderstood inner sort of concept known as surrender, which I believe refers to accepting the nature of profound things that cannot be changed and then harmonizing with them. Wisdom is a perfect example of this. It has its own rules and nothing you can do will change that. So if you want wisdom, you must surrender to its "way" and let it teach you.

Sure, but who's to say that the "way" you believe in is wisdom's "way"?

So I say,and obviously it is up to you to give it your test of fire to decide if I speak accurately, that if you want true wisdom, you have submit to its slow, gradual, experience-bound ways;

I think this point - that aquiring wisdom is always a slow process -already been charred and reduced to steam. Unless you furnish at least some reasoning to substantiate it, it is burnt to a crisp.

and if you want to only appear to be wise, then go ahead and get it from books and your intellect alone.

This, I agree, is wise counsel.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Integral
I do not see my participating in this conversation as a demonstration of wisdom. In fact, quite the opposite, every bit of wisdom I possesses says stay out of such conversations they can only lead to frustration and no fulfillment.

If you can prove what you are saying, it will indeed be worth it, IMO.

Mentat, what do you mean when you use the word?

"Wisdom" is:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1 a : accumulated philosophic or scientific learning : KNOWLEDGE b : ability to discern inner qualities and relationships : INSIGHT c : good sense : JUDGMENT

"Wise" means:

Oxford Dictionary
1 having, showing, or dictated by wisdom. 2 prudent, sensible. 3 having knowledge. 4 suggestive of wisdom

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
What if that look within you've done has just scratched the surface of how far you can go. Maybe you can learn to sit quietly and do it, and say you do that for an hour a day for the next 30 years. When you look back to the statement you said today, maybe you will think, "gee, I sure was naive about how deeply a person can dive into the profound." Of course, you will only be able to say that if you get sufficient experience to be able to contrast then with now.

Of course, he also won't be able to say that if he's right to begin with. Had you ever even considered that possibility?