What's new
By:
Filters

Thinking...vs...Knowing...

Alan

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
I unthunked - thus the "am" I thunk I was is no more!

*"Thunk" = past tense for "think."
 
M

Mojo

Silver Meritorious Patron
Escalus said:
I think I don't know where any of you are going with this.
Click to expand...

It's an exercise in self-revelation where the subject is understanding or mis-understanding the distinction between thinking and knowing. Also referred to as an excercise in futility, in some spiritual circles. So to speak.

Nonetheless, the now near infamous word itself, 'Scientology', as you are likely aware Escalus, was defined by it's author as meaning: 'knowing how to know'. Knowing how to know. A crockamania of non-sensical jibberish if ever there was one. In terms of a definition.

Crockamania: (noun): a deception disguised as a plausable truth (mojopedia).

Taking the Latin word 'scio' and the Greek word 'logos' Mr. Hubbard ostensibly concluded the word Scientology was a fitting expression of 'knowing how to know'. Ostensibly I say as such a conclusion was an obvious stretch of the imagination. Specifically a stretch of Mr. Hubbard's imagination. And with less than noble intentions beneath it (from my point of view).

Thus this thread is about uncovering the distinction between thinking and knowing as an exercise in self-revelation. Lol. And is (or may be) of value, to wit: to the degree one is lacking in having an understanding between the conceptual (and practical) distinction between thinking and knowing, one is a potential mark for a prospective con (more often than not of the spiritual variety). For the simple reason one is caught being unaware, as it were. And for those that were already caught, and freed, their understanding may serve as a tool one can provide to others, to possibly spare them much pain.

Mojo
 
Escalus

Escalus

Patron Meritorious
Well OK, yeah. I can agree on what you're saying leaves a person open to a con. And i would even go so far as to say that that would almost perfectly describe my state of mind when i went in. I didn't know what I thought, and I thought I knew what I knew but it ended up what I thought I knew wasn't anything close to what I actually knew - which could be more easily characterized by saying that I didn't know what I knew and didn't even know what I didn't know. I think.
 
RolandRB

RolandRB

Rest in Peace
Mojo said:
It seem's to me the distinction between thinking and knowing is both a remarkable one and a profound one. On numerous levels of our being.

First and foremost the position of our being, engaged in either activity.

For example, to think implies an inherent separation whereas to know implies no such thing as separation. It's almost as if knowing and being are one whilst thinking is on the outside looking in. So to speak.

And I think both are true and false (propositions). So to speak again.

Setting aside (for the moment) Descarte's (spiritually in-famous) confusion stated as fact on the matter, thinking does not produce Being, it reveals the Presence of Being. So to think, that is, so to speak.

Knowing trumps thinking everytime. At least as a practical matter in practical terms in any practical world one lives in. Such as ours. Which is precisely where the devil lives (so to speak) as the devil lives in the details.

So then, may I provide you with a few details?

Lol. Thank-you.

Firstly however allow me to introduce you to a few of my friends here on the ESMB. By way of their commentary (or silence) you will understand where they stand on this matter. Which is to say, are they thinking or knowing? or thinking they are knowing? or knowing they are thinking? (ad infinitum). Lol....

For the record Silence trumps both, by the way.

...after which I will come back (to uplift the fallen and bring down the crest) in regard to clarifying this remarkable paradoxical matter. So to speak. Lol.

Mojo

P.S. Men that think tend to despise men that know. And tend to love them (sometimes) too.

I know.
Click to expand...


"Knowing how to know" -- what a load of bollocks that fat slimebag talked. "To Be is to KNOW". Here's that fat freak's view on knowing an engineering formula and after that knowing how to drive a car.

http://www.xenu.net/archive/multimedia.html#know
http://www.xenu.net/archive/multimedia.html#knowledge
 
SchwimmelPuckel

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
Mojo said:
<snip>Knowing how to know. A crockamania of non-sensical jibberish if ever there was one. In terms of a definition.

Crockamania: (noun): a deception disguised as a plausable truth (mojopedia).<snip>
Click to expand...
I like that! :bleh:

"Knowing how to know".. But it ain't as good as my favorite crockamania:

'If you can't learn by your mistakes, there's no good reason to make another!"

Just remember that if some scilon tells you that you don't know how to know..

:wiggle:
 
Z

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Somewhat unrelated to Scientology's 'knowing how to know', which I'd classify as the usual Hubbardian codswallop, I do think there is such a thing as 'inspiration' (whether divine or otherwise) or 'direct knowledge' or, as Castaneda called it, 'seeing'. Possibly intuition, in the sense of subconsciously accumulated info that builds (possibly through an 'apperceptive mass') to a crystal certainty, or, possibly a case of being so in touch with reality/the universe that a revelation occurs.

I don't specify 'how', but, I do know that such states and insights occur.

Still, even at their best, and, even only in my own experience, such revelation/inspiration is fatally prone to *misinterpretation*.

So, even if an angel is whispering truth in my ear, I keep the critical machinery working on the mechanism, because, it's damn hard to translate 'universal and divine truth' into mundane existence, and 'certainty' is often as fallible as make believe.

Still, inspiration and revelation often offer a valuable pointer to *where* to apply critical tools.

Zinj
 
M

Mojo

Silver Meritorious Patron
Zinjifar said:
Somewhat unrelated to Scientology's 'knowing how to know', which I'd classify as the usual Hubbardian codswallop, I do think there is such a thing as 'inspiration' (whether divine or otherwise) or 'direct knowledge' or, as Castaneda called it, 'seeing'. Possibly intuition, in the sense of subconsciously accumulated info that builds (possibly through an 'apperceptive mass') to a crystal certainty, or, possibly a case of being so in touch with reality/the universe that a revelation occurs.

I don't specify 'how', but, I do know that such states and insights occur.

Still, even at their best, and, even only in my own experience, such revelation/inspiration is fatally prone to *misinterpretation*.

So, even if an angel is whispering truth in my ear, I keep the critical machinery working on the mechanism, because, it's damn hard to translate 'universal and divine truth' into mundane existence, and 'certainty' is often as fallible as make believe.

Still, inspiration and revelation often offer a valuable pointer to *where* to apply critical tools.

Zinj
Click to expand...

Beautifully written Zinj.

I 'think' I will respond but (as of yet) do not 'know' what I shall say. Lol.

Inspiration is fickle.

Must be female.

Above.

Mojo
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top