Difficulties of Recognizing Our Own Incompetence

[Laura]

I think you may be working yourself up by over-analyzing a fairly basic concept.

Noted. But if that is so, I am asking someone who will claim to understand the author's statement, to explain it to me so that my simple mind can grasp how I may be 'over-analyzing'. I just look at what is in front of me. It is not I that is claiming that I can know something and that this 'something' can be represented as something that I don't know that I don't know. It is the author and anyone who asserts the same claim who has the onus of providing the evidence of his assertion.

After all, I may be contributing a real-life example that might be helpful to this topic.

Well, I don't know if my experience is anything to go by, but when the whole Cs thing started, I would really get frustrated when they would keep insisting that I back up and think about my questions. Or when they would answer that any answer would be completely incomprehensible to me. It really was a process of coming to the realization that there were unknown unknowns. I mean, I didn't even think of some things ... didn't even know that there were questions about some things that could be asked.

For example, I had to get into a situation with a psychopath to even begin to ask questions about "what the heck is going on here?" I dug into anything I could find on the topic frantically trying to get a picture of what this energy was that was so darned inexplicable. I didn't even know what questions to ask. I actually started out with looking up a casual word that someone had dropped: narcissism. And one thing led to another.

Then, much later, along came Mouravieff and his statements about "pre-Adamic man." Woah! So, I asked about that and the Cs made the connection for me to what I had been learning for so many months at that time.

There are other things where they would mention something and I knew absolutely nothing about it and I would say "Oh, that's ridiculous..." only to go through a process of becoming aware of things. Because it seems that once the idea was made available to my consciousness, I was able to notice things that connected to that idea.

Probably the most startling of the unknown unknowns was at the very beginning: the idea of hyperdimensional realities. Geeze, that was a tough one to grok. And when I was asking questions about aliens and so forth, that was NOT in the range of possibles in my mind. It was literally an unknown unknown.

Just think about people who are living in an isolated, ignorant state hundreds of years ago. The fact that the American continents existed was an unknown unknown. The very idea that there was anything beyond the oceans would never have occurred to them. They would never have asked the question "what is on the other side of the ocean" because, as far as they were concerned, the ocean blended with the sky at the horizon and if you went that far, you fell off into the void.

 

[MichaelM]

What process of investigation or thought could result in 'knowing' that "there are things that you don’t know you don’t know"?

IOW, if "there are things that you don’t know you don’t know", how in the world could you arrive at the idea that you "know" that?

How is this supposed to "may be a possible sign of more intelligence"? The author doesn't seem to say.

Any ideas?

It simply has to do with the ability to deeply question your own thinking.

What I got from anart's statement was that "knowing you don't know you don't know" is something like being open to new information. As with Laura's information, getting some "alien idea" like psychopaths from the C's communication, she could have just dismissed the idea as bunk or tried to get all information that she could about the topic. Acknowledging the C's hint word, "psychopath" as something not in her scope of knowledge is probably akin to "knowing you don't know you don't know".

On a side note, I encountered the "unknown unknowns" idea back in college (more than a decade ago) when I joined up with a peer counselors group. One of our senior members who was taking their masters at the time introduced the concept of the Johari Window:

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johari_window

A Johari window is a cognitive psychological tool created by Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham in 1955[1] in the United States, used to help people better understand their interpersonal communication and relationships. It is used primarily in self-help groups and corporate settings as a heuristic exercise.

When performing the exercise, subjects are given a list of 56 adjectives and picks five or six that they feel describe their own personality. Peers of the subject are then given the same list, and each picks five or six adjectives that describe the subject. These adjectives are then mapped onto a grid.[2]

Charles Handy calls this concept the Johari House with four rooms. Room 1 is the part of ourselves that we see and others see. Room 2 is the aspects that others see but we are not aware of. Room 3 is the most mysterious room in that the unconscious or subconscious part of us is seen by neither ourselves nor others. Room 4 is our private space, which we know but keep from others.

The concept is clearly related to the ideas propounded in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator program, which in turn derive from theories about the personality first explored by psychologist Carl Jung.

Quadrants

Open: Adjectives that are selected by both the participant and his or her peers are placed into the Open quadrant. This quadrant represents traits of the subjects that both they and their peers are aware of.

Hidden: Adjectives selected only by subjects, but not by any of their peers, are placed into the Hidden quadrant, representing information about them their peers are unaware of. It is then up to the subject to disclose this information or not.

Blind Spot: Adjectives that are not selected by subjects but only by their peers are placed into the Blind Spot quadrant. These represent information that the subject is not aware of, but others are, and they can decide whether and how to inform the individual about these "blind spots".

Unknown: Adjectives that were not selected by either subjects or their peers remain in the Unknown quadrant, representing the participant's behaviors or motives that were not recognized by anyone participating. This may be because they do not apply or because there is collective ignorance of the existence of these traits.

In the model of the Johari Window and on the subject of peer counseling, there are behaviors of the subject that the subject and the observer are both unaware of but which definitely influence the dynamic between the observer and subject.


It could be something like the "counseling" that is performed in the forum (specifically in the Swamp). A poster provides the details and the others on the board chime in with what they see that the original poster did not initially see.

The original poster could "know that he doesn't know" and ask for help. The other posters chime in with their help. The original poster can respond with "no, that can't be it" and have a closed mind. Or he can "know that he doesn't know he doesn't know" and be open to the ideas/hints that were provided.


In the context of the work and "escaping", I think "knowing you don't know you don't know" also hints at the idea that "one cannot escape on their own". I can't find the right quote/excerpt using the search. I don't know the correct search terms to use. I'll try to post again when I find the appropriate excerpt.


Or I may just be confusing the matter further. Apologies in advance if I did.

 

[luke wilson]

Omg, I am getting lost in all this known unknowns, unknown unknowns, unknown unknowables and whatever other ones may exist... Reminds me of an advert I saw where they say, "why see shades of grey? why be a loner? Try another soma, Life's good...... shut up." An option that indeed alot have taken.

Uhmm, I think known unknowns can easily be found out through networking, doing research, etc. Unknown unknowns on the other hand require you to experience them inorder to develop a sense of awareness to them, ontop of that it requires you to not be an anosognosia where you dont deny what you are experiencing to yourself.

So in the case of your rocks on jupiter bud, first it requires you to be aware of what a rock is, what colour is. So you may not know there is a purple rock on jupiter and you may not know that you dont know this. But as long as you know what a rock is and what colour is, then I believe you are good to go. You are in the green zone. How do you come to know this that you dont know about not knowing there is a purple rock on jupiter. Well, maybe it involves being emotionally open and not rigid. That is the closest that I see one can come to the state of knowing there things they dont know they dont know.

In a way this does apply to the whole world scenario today with the questions of pyschopaths, 4D reality and all this sort of stuff. It could be that the majority of the population is suffering from anosognosia of somekind with the constant denials about the deteriation of the world around us. Are they aware but they choose to ignore? What exactly is the deal going on here?

Anart says it is all about questioning our own thinking. This is true but does it take us into the unknown unknowns or unknowables. The reason they are that is because they are beyond our distance of illumination of thought(which is different for different people, OSIT) or total possible cognitize radius for the unknowables. In my opinion, questioning ones thinking enables them to enlighten and possibly illimunate that which is within our scope but we hadnt realised before. However, that which is not within our scope requires an entirely different strategy... This kind of reminds me of Don Juan with the whole sorcery stories about venturing into the unknown and his warning about the unknowable...

If this doesnt make sense, it might just be a complex case of me being lost in the rather dizzying maze of the knowns, unknowns and unknowables plus a hint of anosognosia thrown in there just to make matters worse, . Kind of reminds me of the labyrinth of king Minos of crete and all that got lost in it and got devoured by the Minotaur. That is until Theseus with the help of Ariadne with her thread overcame it. Maybe the Cs in this case are Ariadne and there knowledge is like a thread helping us find our way out of the maze(?)

 

[luke wilson]

I have had a 'AHA' moment.

You know those patients with the phantom limbs who refuse to accept there paralysed or the sort that the articles was describing. Well, the people trying to treat them are approaching the problem from an intellectual point of view by asking them all this questions which try and make it possible for there minds to see that they are paralysed, like it should be obvious. Atleast that is what I got from reading those articles... It could be that I didnt really take in what I read.

Anyways, maybe they should try approaching it from an emotional point of view. Making the patients emotionally open to the idea that they might indeed be suffering from this disease where they deny what is happening to them. Like make them emotionally open to the possibility if not certainty that they are indeed suffering. With the combination of both emotions and intellect because they showed they were not stupid people, am sure it is possible for them to realise and come to terms with there present condition...

No? Yes? Maybe?

 

[Buddy]

Thank you for mentioning that, luke. I've had an AHA! moment too - a way to explain this using the idea of a person who can self-observe and a person who cannot.

First, I wanted to say that I don't have a problem with the "unknown unknowns". To me, anything a person says while using this phrase, can still be understood as talking about "unknowns".

Second, I wanted to say that the idea described as "he doesn't know that he doesn't know" is not a real problem either. We all have probably known someone or some people who can talk about a subject, yet not know what they're talking about and not realize that the listener can see the fact.

This would or could be a person who has no self-monitor. He cannot observe himself. He is in a conversation and in a state that can be described as: he doesn't know what he's talking about. Since he cannot self-observe, he is incapable of taking advantage of feedback in order to become aware that he doesn't know what he's talking about. So, we can refer to him as someone who is in a state where he doesn't know that he doesn't know what he's talking about, yet he's acting like he does know what he's talking about.

Plus, the rules of logic require two "do not know" to cancel themselves out, leaving "know". And in this situation, we are, indeed, left with someone who is acting like he "knows" when he doesn't know and isn't aware of it. So, from my perspective, my take on the matter so far seems to be doubly-confirmed.

The person who can self-observe, or has a self-monitor, would not likely get himself in that situation, but if he did begin to converse on a subject when he really doesn't know what he's talking about, then because he has a self-monitor, his inductive faculty will quickly infer from the observed clues that something is wrong and will get the impression or insight that he doesn't really know what he's talking about.

A person with a self-monitor, then, is now in a state where he knows he doesn't know what he's talking about, because he is capable of exploiting feedback in order to learn on-the-fly. But I don't know that this is a situation that would even happen very often for such a person.

So, this brings me to the real problem I had. Anyone who cares to re-read my boring posts, will probably notice that my main question concerned the author's assertion of a possibility of being 'more intelligent' by "knowing" there are things he doesn't know that he doesn't know.

If a person who is not capable of monitoring himself is in a state where he doesn't know that he doesn't know...how is it possible for him to "know" this without the additional awareness? If he were to become aware of his knowledge limitations, then the situation changes to one where he knows that he doesn't know.

So far, what I've been saying is that one cannot, in the present moment, come to know that one does not know that he does not know. The input of additional, new data that causes learning to happen always changes a person's state of awareness.

I can see how it might be possible for a person to become retrospectively aware that there was a time when he did not know that he did not know something (because he was assuming he did know or that there was nothing to know), but this is a past state and not what the author said at all.

The author seems to be suggesting a particular awareness at a time when the person in question is not capable of that state. At least, this is how it looks to me.


Note: I am aware of the potential for irony in my postings. If it turns out that I'm the incompetent one, that will be fine. I don't expect that state to last long, though, because with my realization, I would have learned at least one difficulty of recognizing it. :D

 

[obyvatel]

For me, "unknown unknowns" evokes a sense of humility and awe which comes from an awareness of my present limitations of understanding. A logical question is how is that different from "known unknowns". I can only distinguish the difference by a "taste" of how it feels and may not be able to express it adequately in words. I would say the "awe" component is absent or less for "known unknowns".
When Bud writes
[quote author=Bud]
So far, what I've been saying is that one cannot, in the present moment, come to know that one does not know that he does not know.
[/quote]
it seems to me that he is right as far as the intellectual center goes and this is what logic dictates. But what about an intuitive ( a much maligned and misused term) state related to the qualities I mentioned above? To me it seems that such a state of being is somewhat intrinsic and operates "below the radar" of conscious awareness. As soon as
[quote author=Bud]
The input of additional, new data that causes learning to happen always changes a person's state of awareness.
[/quote]
this change of awareness comes about, one is in a position to possibly frame a question with the logical mind and proceed from there. So the previous intuitive state could possibly be described as the state which exists before the question can be formed in the mind. I think it is this state which enables a person to form a logical question and proceed with the conscious learning process but it may not render itself to easy description in words.
I think Mme Salzmann talks about this in "Reality Of Being". I do not have the book at present - so cannot provide any quotes.
fwiw

 

[Laura]

Thank you for mentioning that, luke. I've had an AHA! moment too - a way to explain this using the idea of a person who can self-observe and a person who cannot.

First, I wanted to say that I don't have a problem with the "unknown unknowns". To me, anything a person says while using this phrase, can still be understood as talking about "unknowns".

Exactly. It's kind of a stupid way of talking about commonsensical things that some academics get lost in. Lord, last night I read a real academic doozie...

To suggest that Rumsfeld was clever with his remark is just over the top ignorance of pathology. Rumsfeld was just saying something totally stupid out of his pathology, and this guy latched onto it and ran with it.

Indeed, there are lots of things that are unknown unknowns - questions we don't even know to ask - but that generally has more to do with knowledge in a rather abstract sense than in something that applies to whether or not there is some unknown, never-been-heard-of-before terrorist group who may be out there planning mayhem.

 

[MichaelM]

In the context of the work and "escaping", I think "knowing you don't know you don't know" also hints at the idea that "one cannot escape on their own". I can't find the right quote/excerpt using the search. I don't know the correct search terms to use. I'll try to post again when I find the appropriate excerpt.

Just wanted to add the quote that I was looking for on the forum.
(found it in this thread: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=7479.msg53180#msg53180)

"… the point is that a 'group' is the beginning of everything. One man can do nothing, can attain nothing. A group with a real leader can do more, A group of people can do what one man can never do. "You do not realize your own situation. You are in prison. All you can wish for, if you are a sensible man, is to escape. But how escape? It is necessary to tunnel under a wall. One man can do nothing. But let us suppose there are ten or twenty men—if they work in turn and if one covers another they can complete the tunnel and escape. "Furthermore, no one can escape from prison without the help of those who have escaped before... "

[quote author=obyvatel]
[quote author=Bud]
The input of additional, new data that causes learning to happen always changes a person's state of awareness.[/quote]
this change of awareness comes about, one is in a position to possibly frame a question with the logical mind and proceed from there. So the previous intuitive state could possibly be described as the state which exists before the question can be formed in the mind. I think it is this state which enables a person to form a logical question and proceed with the conscious learning process but it may not render itself to easy description in words. [/quote]

Much like the C's giving hints to Laura on topics/ideas to pursue (or abandon) research on.

 

[go2]

For me, "unknown unknowns" evokes a sense of humility and awe which comes from an awareness of my present limitations of understanding. A logical question is how is that different from "known unknowns". I can only distinguish the difference by a "taste" of how it feels and may not be able to express it adequately in words. I would say the "awe" component is absent or less for "known unknowns".
When Bud writes
[quote author=Bud]
So far, what I've been saying is that one cannot, in the present moment, come to know that one does not know that he does not know.

it seems to me that he is right as far as the intellectual center goes and this is what logic dictates. But what about an intuitive ( a much maligned and misused term) state related to the qualities I mentioned above? To me it seems that such a state of being is somewhat intrinsic and operates "below the radar" of conscious awareness. As soon as
[quote author=Bud]
The input of additional, new data that causes learning to happen always changes a person's state of awareness.
[/quote]
this change of awareness comes about, one is in a position to possibly frame a question with the logical mind and proceed from there. So the previous intuitive state could possibly be described as the state which exists before the question can be formed in the mind. I think it is this state which enables a person to form a logical question and proceed with the conscious learning process but it may not render itself to easy description in words.
I think Mme Salzmann talks about this in "Reality Of Being". I do not have the book at present - so cannot provide any quotes.
fwiw
[/quote]

Here are a few paragraphs on 'not knowing' and 'the unknown' from The Reality of Being--Jeanne De Salzmann. The obstacle to approaching 'the unknown' is always what I already know, especially what I think I know about myself. Obyvatel, thanks for bringing up our feeling function and instinctive function. It is easy to forget the limits of the thinking function acting alone. We need an internal network, as well as an external network to be conscious awareness.


26. Not knowing

My relation with my thinking mind must change. I have to see its conditioning and lose all illusion of its capacity to perceive directly what is beyond its functioning. Truth simply cannot be thought. It cannot be looked for by the thinking alone, or by the wish to acquire or to become. Truth does not become—it is. I need to see that my thought is held back by the stubbornness of an idea or the attachment to a form. In the very moment I see this, the mind is freed from the idea or form, and a new perception can take place. To have a direct perception would mean to discover something entirely new, something unknown that my mind can never bring.

Why is it that my mind never discovers anything new? I am a prisoner of all the impressions deposited in me. I am conditioned by the reservoir of my memory, the result engraved in me of the influences that have touched me. It is all that I have to answer with in life. Little by little, I unconsciously accept this state of conditioning, and the energy of my mind deteriorates. My mind is sapped in its vitality and strength. It simply accumulates more and more information. I can discipline my mind, polish my knowledge?

I need to be free enough to discard everything and to question without expecting an answer. I understand that not knowing, discarding everything, is the highest form of thinking, and that if an answer comes, it is false. I have to stay without answering and learn to see, to see without judging, without a thought, without a word. To see is an extraordinary act which requires an attention that is unknown to me. This is the factor that liberates, that brings a new thought, a new mind. Attention is the essential energy in man. And this energy can only appear when one is constantly occupied in seeing, in listening, in questioning—never in knowing with my thinking mind. We must give our complete attention to the question in front of us. Total attention is the process of meditation.

By vigilance and meditation, the nature of thought may be revealed to me, the way it acts. If I recognize with all of myself that “I do not know,” I am no longer relying on my memory to find an answer. At this moment, and only at this moment, I become free of my conditioning, the prison of my memory, and can have what is beyond it. I see a direct perception of the role of the thought as a factor for remembering, only a factor for remembering.


75. I do not know

In my search to see reality in myself, I may come to the door of perception. But it will not open, truth will not be revealed, so long as I cling to what I know. I need to have empty hands to approach the unknown.

I do not know who I am, and all that I know cannot be the answer. The unknown, the mysterious, cannot be discerned by the known. On the contrary, what I know, what I have learned prevents me from discovering what is. The whole process of my thinking, the conditioning of the known, encloses me in the field of my thought and prevents me from going further. I find pleasure in this conditioning and security, and unconsciously cling to it.

I am unable to face the unknown. I feel it empty, like a void that must be filled. I have a constant tendency to fill it with answers, projecting a false image on the screen of my mind. I am afraid I will not find myself. And in order to resolve this uncertainty, to avoid dissatisfaction, I constantly allow something false to be affirmed. Yet I need this uncertainty, this dissatisfaction, as an indication from my feeling that shows the way back toward myself. It shows the necessity of being more sensitive to the one thing I turn away from, to accept emptiness, the void.

To approach the unknown would mean to come to the door of perception and be able to open it, and to see. But I can see nothing as long as I am taken by words, always putting a name on something and recognizing the object by its name. Words create a limit, a barrier. To enter the unknown, my mind must see this limit as a fact, without judging it good or bad, or submitting to its influence. Can I se myself without putting a word on what I see? I am at the door of perception with an attention that does not turn away.

I learn to listen to the unknown in myself. I do not know, and I listen, constantly refusing each known response. From moment to moment, I recognize that I do not know, and I listen. The very act of listening is liberation. It is an action that does not flee the present, and when I know the present as it is, there is transformation. I go toward the unknown until I come to a moment when no thought moves my mind, when there is nothing outside myself. I do not know who I am. I do not know whence I came. I do not know where I will go. I doubt all that I know, and have nothing to rely on. All I wish is to understand what I am. Without words, without form, the body and its density seem to disappear. I become as if transparent to myself. Now there is only room for purity, a quality as light as air. I feel that in the search for myself, and only in this search, lies my liberation.

 

[Buddy]

For me, "unknown unknowns" evokes a sense of humility and awe which comes from an awareness of my present limitations of understanding. A logical question is how is that different from "known unknowns". I can only distinguish the difference by a "taste" of how it feels and may not be able to express it adequately in words. I would say the "awe" component is absent or less for "known unknowns".
When Bud writes
[quote author=Bud]
So far, what I've been saying is that one cannot, in the present moment, come to know that one does not know that he does not know.

it seems to me that he is right as far as the intellectual center goes and this is what logic dictates. But what about an intuitive ( a much maligned and misused term) state related to the qualities I mentioned above? To me it seems that such a state of being is somewhat intrinsic and operates "below the radar" of conscious awareness. As soon as
[quote author=Bud]
The input of additional, new data that causes learning to happen always changes a person's state of awareness.
[/quote]
this change of awareness comes about, one is in a position to possibly frame a question with the logical mind and proceed from there. So the previous intuitive state could possibly be described as the state which exists before the question can be formed in the mind. I think it is this state which enables a person to form a logical question and proceed with the conscious learning process but it may not render itself to easy description in words.
I think Mme Salzmann talks about this in "Reality Of Being". I do not have the book at present - so cannot provide any quotes.
fwiw
[/quote]

It looks to me like you are talking about a certain boundary area. Assuming you are working on a puzzle of knowledge, then the intuitive awareness is when you don't know what the piece at the outer edge completely looks like, yet you have at least one visual or other clue as to what shape it is most likely to be in order to fit and to match the structure or image you have so far. But you proceed flexibly, open to anything because you're still absorbing data and 'feeling it', so-to-speak. At least at this point in the searching process.

In my experience, intuition seems to arise in my inner being as inference that is drawn from the elements I have been observing for patterns and relationships. When I get a 'feeling' or an insight or when I am able to discern what the intuition is, then I go to work with the deductive faculty, trying to work it out linguistically, or logically, depending on what I'm working on.

 

[obyvatel]

It looks to me like you are talking about a certain boundary area. Assuming you are working on a puzzle of knowledge, then the intuitive awareness is when you don't know what the piece at the outer edge completely looks like, yet you have at least one visual or other clue as to what shape it is most likely to be in order to fit and to match the structure or image you have so far. But you proceed flexibly, open to anything because you're still absorbing data and 'feeling it', so-to-speak. At least at this point in the searching process.

When you are working on the piece of puzzle about which you already have some idea or clue, I would tend to think that you are already moving into the domain of a "known unknown" about which the mind is able to formulate questions.
An "unknown unknown" by its very nature is not something that can be described in words or grasped by the logical mind. Since knowledge is unbounded and our present state of being is bounded, I think it is possible to make a statement like "there exists unknown unknowns and I acknowledge it". The logical mind could struggle with "how can you acknowledge something that does not exist for you" but that is a logical and linguistic limitation - osit.

go2, thanks for the quotes from Reality of Being.

 

[Buddy]

It looks to me like you are talking about a certain boundary area. Assuming you are working on a puzzle of knowledge, then the intuitive awareness is when you don't know what the piece at the outer edge completely looks like, yet you have at least one visual or other clue as to what shape it is most likely to be in order to fit and to match the structure or image you have so far. But you proceed flexibly, open to anything because you're still absorbing data and 'feeling it', so-to-speak. At least at this point in the searching process.

When you are working on the piece of puzzle about which you already have some idea or clue, I would tend to think that you are already moving into the domain of a "known unknown" about which the mind is able to formulate questions.

Yep.

An "unknown unknown" by its very nature is not something that can be described in words or grasped by the logical mind.

Yet, you are doing it by using that phrase? :) It seems to me that there are two discernible possibilities: Stuffing an understanding into a concept to try and make it fit, or simply choosing the right word or concept to describe what the actual evidence shows.

But I may be misunderstanding you.

Since knowledge is unbounded and our present state of being is bounded...

I'm just wondering...who says "our present state of being is bounded"? The only evidence of boundary that I have seen so far is that which surrounds the false personality, keeping it "separate, isolated and lonely".

 

[anart]

Since knowledge is unbounded and our present state of being is bounded...

I'm just wondering...who says "our present state of being is bounded"? The only evidence of boundary that I have seen so far is that which surrounds the false personality, keeping it "separate, isolated and lonely".

I could be mistaken and I'm sure obyvatel will correct me if I am, but I think he is referring to our current 3D state. We see the entirety of reality through an infinitesimally small slit - as if we're peaking through a fence at all there is and this little slit is our only access. Most of us take that view as the entirety of reality. We are, likely by design, 'in the dark' - our physical vehicle is incapable of perceiving all there is around us and we're granted only fleeting impressions, from time to time, that what we do perceive is only a sliver of what there is. I would say, that in our current state, we are definitely 'bounded' - though there are things we can do to improve that situation, and removing the false personality is part of that. With that said, I could have misunderstood obyvatel and have gone completely off topic. fwiw.

 

[obyvatel]

Yes, when I write "our present state of being is bounded" I mean 3D existence on planet Earth. I am curious as to what else it could be interpreted as . Yes, we can try and improve the situation by the Work but it is my understanding that there still are limits - and this understanding is based on what I have read about densities from the C's, G's writings on the worlds etc. I am a very very small part in a very very vast universe and I strive to remind myself of the position I presently occupy in the overall system to the degree I am able to comprehend the overall system. Personally, I acknowledge limits as they exist at present for me - and this makes it possible for me to acknowledge "unknown unknowns".
[quote author=Bud]
I'm just wondering...who says "our present state of being is bounded"? The only evidence of boundary that I have seen so far is that which surrounds the false personality, keeping it "separate, isolated and lonely".
[/quote]
Per my understanding, a created being is separate yet connected with existence and stripping away the false personality could help in recognizing the connections. Till 7D, our knowledge and awareness is possibly still bounded in the sense that it cannot know All - but that is just speculation for me since I am far from that level. Since I can acknowledge that I cannot see All and do not have a problem "acknowledging that which I do not know" (a linguistic and logical conundrum) - boundaries are self-evident. As I grow, my being will expand encompassing more knowledge thus re-defining the boundaries and as per my understanding, that is the process of growth.

 

[obyvatel]

An "unknown unknown" by its very nature is not something that can be described in words or grasped by the logical mind.

Yet, you are doing it by using that phrase? :) It seems to me that there are two discernible possibilities: Stuffing an understanding into a concept to try and make it fit, or simply choosing the right word or concept to describe what the actual evidence shows.

I recognize the in-built inconsistency but still decided to make an attempt to communicate as I thought it was more important to state what I think instead of trying to write an airtight logically consistent post. Kind of like "the Tao that can be spoken about is not the real Tao" yet people make an effort knowing fully well that they would fall short and sound inconsistent (osit). Whether it was useful or not is a different question.