Subj : Knowledge... 1/2 To : KEVIN GIBSON From : LEE LOFASO Date : Mon Jul 23 2001 08:28 am Hello Kevin, >LL>From what point of reference do you understand? KG>My supreme, omniscient point of reference. ;-) Ah, yes. The One and Only. ;) >LL>First, one should have an understanding of what knowledge *is*. >LL>How can knowledge be defined, in an understandable way? KG>I generally look terms up in the dictionary when I need clarification. KG>When that doesn't work, I resort to more drastic measures. Dictionaries are fine and dandy as for ascertaining the basic meaning of words, but do not really give us a full understanding of the true meaning of such words. IOW, words are merely symbols intended to convey a thought(s), not all of those thoughts capable of being transmuted in the form of words. Definitions are by their very nature interpretations of possible meanings of words. And those interpretations change over time, as the words themselves change. >LL>We would therefore become victims of a nanny state, not having >LL>the need or desire to think for ourselves. >KG>I'd like to disagree with this. >LL>In what way? KG>The "not having a need or desire to think for ourselves" part KG>doesn't square. If you examine what has been said more closely KG>you may agree with me. In some ways, people are like sheep. They do not want to think for themselves. It is far easier to play follow the leader and do whatever course of action is chosen for them. >KG>If a state restricts your choices, you have the choice to >KG>disregard the restrictions. >LL>Sometimes, individuals do not have a choice. KG>When do we not have a choice? >LL>The state seeks to impose its will on the individual, >LL>in which the individual is forced to comply. KG>There's still the option of refusing. You may have to pay KG>the consequences of your decision, but you have choices. KG>There are other countries and you can always say "no." A resident on death row does not have the option of refusing to be executed. Parents who wish to send their child to a private school may not have the choice of doing so if those parents cannot afford to pay for the tuition. A college student who wishes to attend an Ivy League school may not have the choice to do so unless he/she meets the standards of such institution and can afford to pay the tuition. Individuals who do not have medical insurance do not have the option or choice of going to a private hospital for medical treatment. There are many other examples that can be given. >KG>That, in itself, can be a bad choice. >LL>It can also be a *good* choice. KG>Yes, I typed that and then deleted, more than once, KG>but my reasoning was somewhat different from yours. Viewpoints are not limited to yours and/or mine. KG> ( The ghost that haunts my machine mumbled something about KG> not making choices when one doesn't have to. Feel free KG> to explore that idea. ) Sometimes the best choice is to make no choice at all. ;) >KG>One often needs only one example of a bad choice as a reference >KG>in order to narrow the options. >LL>Does it? We all make choices, not all of them "good". KG>This doesn't make sense. My point is that we only need to witness KG>one senseless mass murder, for example, in order to know that it's KG>evil and to be avoided. Lee, I don't want to explore this further. We may not have to actually "witness" an atrocity to know that it is evil. But your basic point is understood. It is clear that man has free choice. And those choices can be good or bad. But that does not mean that an individual necessarily intends to make bad choices. Example: Parents choose to send their child to School X, believing School X to be the best school of choice for their child. Later, the parents find that the child is unhappy and does not wish to attend School X. Therefore, the parents withdraw the child from School X and place him/her in School Y, where the child finds happiness and a good education. Although the parents thought they were making a "good" choice by sending their child to School X, they found that such a choice was not so good later on. Does that make School X a poor school? Maybe, maybe not. It may only have been a poor school of choice for that particular student. The parents made a poor choice, but thought they were making a good choice. Learning from their mistake, they sought correction by placing the child in a different school. >LL>What is a "good" act, and what is an "evil" act? >LL>How is one able to know the difference? >KG>Can you make this a multiple choice test? >LL>I only wish that life was so simple. :) KG>Well, it is, in a way. Multiple choice, that is. Wha'? No True False? And whatever happened to Fill_in_the_Blank? ;) >KG>The forbidden fruit has something to do with knowledge. >LL>It is the tree of good and evil, not the tree of knowledge. >LL>Two different things. KG>One and the same thing. Genesis 2:9 Oops! I got the Tree of Knowledge confused with the Tree of Life... KG>But I'm not interested in getting into a discussion of Bible >verses. Guess I'm not much fun, eh? Well, for discussion about religious truths we can go to some religious conference. But too many folks would get mad at me for my blasphemous thoughts... >LL>The result of eating the fruit from the tree of good and evil >LL>was that one would have *knowledge* of good and evil. KG>Right. >KG>It *is* a temptation. >LL>Neither the fruit nor the tree was a temptation, at least >LL>not until the serpent tempted them. And even then, was it >LL>the fruit/tree that was the temptation, or was it the desire >LL>for *knowledge*? >>> Continued to next message * SLMR 2.1a * And yet I wish I could show you our cat Dinah. --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:18/140) .