But we're too distracted, too whisked away by this world of corporeal existances, to care. It would be a huge sacrifice to care, or make oneself able to care - thats what seperates the followers of God and the followers of Man. Man chases the schedule, the calendar, the economy, the politics, the desires. The followers of Man operate by those parameters...

And those of God cease to.

Damn KI. I mean, I guess it can be considered a more interesting subject relative to the other norms. But 'Knowledge' is seriously a pretty idiotic topic to go through. I'm sceptical about actually considering this stuff 'philosophy'. Oh wells. I get to experience being 'officialy philosophical' I guess. If philosophers are already considered to be the silly batch, I doubt rebels under its wing can do any better.

Anyway, much has been discussed over in KI class about how we can know things and whether we can really know things etc. I think I wanna rant abit about the part of us not being able to know. Since I'm lazy to dig up KI notes, lets just simplify the defination of knowledge to be:

Knowledge = Justifications X Experience

and ignore the worthless definative overkills. For this system, I borrow the secondary 4 physics chapter on heat. (hey, I miss science...)

Knowledge Capacity
This refers to knowledge in the generalistical perspective. Digits can't apply in describing this of course, but for illustration sake. If one's knowledge capacity is 800, (notice I have no means of creating a yardstick) he is unable to grasp a 900 and perhaps is able to vagely capture an 802. By a point of 803, he'll be grappling with ambiguities. However, I do not mean that knowledge capacity refers to how smart you are at grasping a concept, as the abstractness of it increases -let me get back to this later.

Specific Knowledge Capacity
As there lies an infinite number of fields of knowledge, trying to cite an example of a SKC will be pretty vague. I mean, its not just physics. It can be optics. Not just programming. It can be html. And as the field gets narrowed down further, one realises that digits can't measure anything in any 'specific' field, since 'specific' is but a term to show the intention beind this measurement. But to illustrate anyhow, yes, this refers to 'smartness'. Of course, it may not be an inate capability to grapple with it - it may be trained. And as one improves, the capacity will increase as well, allowing more knowledge to be easily poured into the specific pool. Of course, there will be integrations of knowledge and the rojak of fields - but then again, they may fall into SKC fields themselves. Just visualise a messed venn diagram.

Specific Latent Knowledge
The 'invisible' grappling required to attain a digit increase on the SKC field. There will be a certain 'number' to reach first before one can achieve the real 'knowing'. This effort is not considered official because it hides itself from the 'actual' knowledge that is invovled. The primary pre-requisites like language and math. The taken-for-granted abilities of logic and reasoning, all these will be passed upon first before one enters the arena to grapple with the 'real' knowledge.

Back to Knowledge capacity, the difference it has from actually knowledge is simply just the final capacity that humans are actually allowed to understand something. Beyond the level, the knowledge will simply overflow and we will not be able to know it. Perhaps we can try to continue pouring so as to wrestle with the ambugities and feel the twirling ripples stir ontop of our glass - but at the very end we will need to choose to either remain a skeptic, come to a compromise, or simply acknowledge our inability to understand. Afterall, someone had established that capacity within us, and He is the one who governs the rules of how this capacity will work and how much this capacity is capable of taking in. Note that this does not refers to the more intellectually inclined people - this refers to mankind in general. Even for SKC, it doesn't mean that more intelligent people have bigger capacities. Listen to the 'different kinds of smart' arguement. A someone whose in an environment A (school) can have a really great SKC, but he can die in environment B (community club) - just say if we have the factors of the people environment (notice is not just the academics or theoritical application here -- knowledge includes all fields and is without boundaries. If we deny the 'Social and communication skills' thingms and just see it in terms of relating to people, naturally. So, the knowledge capacity has lesser reason to create an elite class and a weaker people. They concept doesn't have a standard and condemns all man (perhaps those we think that they are able to know everything). Fact is, we can't. And its not about how smart you are. Its about you're knowledge capacity. If the knowledge can be filled in, it can't be filled in. The only one who is able to enlighten you on the unfathomables is the person who crafted the capacity, the person who made those questionables in the first place. God.

There's a quote that ran something along the lines of 'the more you learn, the less you know'. Now, I'm begining to appreciate the essence of what it means..

If we take a certain science, get interested in that science, then later on discover that it is recognised as a field whereby it can be officially practise -- one should actually feel happy about it. Points of similarity connect people, and the very field that equates to your interest works by the same concept.

But of course, that is when one assumes such an ideal situation.

The science, when recongised officially, could operate in a different style from how you originally work. It could function with methods that you do not approve. It will probaly expect a pool of pre-requsitic knowledge so you are 'able' to do battle in its arena. To futher academise itself, it tends to a structure, follows an approval board and builds up a standard for all its output to obey.

And so one abides by its conditions so as to gain entry to the 'official practise'. The orignial drive and passion have been made into spurring points when the instructions of what to perform are told. One is aided and groomed so as to master the perfect methodology, as recongised by the body of that certain science. One might even be told that the ability to churn out the needed for the science is not in him/her - and thus he/she fails the tests and is commented to have deffective thinking.

Perhaps the above scenario only looks realistic to me. Anyhow, I hope that Knowledge and Inquiry will not destory zoneseekers and the ability I trust myself to have. In my own world, I own.

---

_Past

June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009

---