Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.atheism,alt.pagan,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!pipex!uunet!newsflash.concordia.ca!CC.UMontreal.CA!IRO.UMontreal.CA!clouso.crim.ca!news.mcgill.ca!cidsv01.cid.aes.doe.ca!cid.aes.doe.ca
From: wrightd@rpm2.aes.mb.doe.ca (Dave Wright)
Subject: re: wisdom
Message-ID: <CzBx64.3MM@cid.aes.doe.ca>
Sender: @cid.aes.doe.ca (Network News)
Organization: Informatics
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.6+
References: <3a2uua$6p9@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 22:01:15 GMT
Lines: 87

In article <3a2uua$6p9@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>, roose@ix.netcom.com (Richard Roose) says:
>
>comp.ai.philosophy,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.atheism
>,alt.pagan,alt.consciousness
>Subject: Wisdom...
>
>39le9c$e68@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM asks...
>
>   Would anyone like to take a stab at defineing what the word "wisdom" 
>means?  I don't mean the dictionary definition, I mean, what it means to 
>you individually.
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>The following is part of an essay which deals with, among other things, 
>the explosion in human knowledge which has occurred over the past 50 
>years.
>
>        What is this ability we call "wisdom"?  Again, our dictionaries 
>do not provide a concise, accurate definition of the concept.  The 
>reason for this is that the word "wisdom", as well as the words 
>"knowledge" and "reality", along with many other human concepts, were 
>defined without the benefit of the current state of human knowledge.  
>These words and concepts, and their definitions, date to a time when the 
>book of human knowledge contained only a pitiful few pages, when 
>compared to the volumes it would take to describe and record human 
>knowledge today.  My dictionary defines wisdom as 
>
>"the power of  true and right discernment; also, conferment to the 
>course dictated by such discernment.".  
>
>For me that definition is totally inadequate.  Who's "truth"?  "Right" 
>for "what"?  "Right" for "whom"?  You need not bother to look up the 
>meanings of the words "truth" and "right" for you will not find any 
>"absolutes" in any human dictionary by which you can judge either 
>"truth" or "right".  What is "truth" and "right" in one society or in 
>one time is not always the same as they are in a different society or in 
>a different time.  This lack of "absolutes" which do not change from 
>society to society, or from generation to generation, has hindered and 
>befuddled not only uncounted generations of lexicographers, but 
>philosophers and theologians and rulers through out human history.  
>Perhaps the most promising and beneficial consequence of the explosion 
>of knowledge over the recent decades is that contained within that new 
>knowledge are the "absolutes" by which the present generations, and all 
>future generations of humans can judge between "right" and "wrong", 
>"truth" and "untruth", "good" and "evil".  With this new knowledge we 
>can also now define the real meaning of "wisdom"... 
>
>"the ability to apply knowledge in the pursuit and fulfillment of the 
>Purpose of Life".  
>
>Yes!  Also contained within the new human knowledge are clues to the 
>Purpose of Life,.  It is not a purpose derived from ancient texts or 
>myths, nor one that requires priestly interpretation and the exercise of 
>faith.    The Purpose of Life is a "fact", supported by irrefutable 
>scientific evidence, and understandable and verifiable by any human with 
>the ability to comprehend human language. 
>
>If you are interested in pursuing such a definition of the purpose of 
>life please contact me:
> roose@ix.netcom.com 
>by e-mail and give me a few of your thoughts on the subject.

Now with the dictionary version out of the way, how about this:

Wisdom is the ability to perceive scope, and judge context within that
scope rather than according to arbitrary markers.  So for the above
discussion of good and evil, a wise person can perceive that, within
the greater scope of things, the two opposites do not exist.  Then,
within that scope, the wise person can judge what he or she deems
necessary or desirable, and act within that context rather than some
arbitrary standard of 'good' and 'evil' set by an individual or a
society.

I know it sounds both cryptic and simplistic.  The idea doesn't really 
seem to translate well into language.  That's why it cannot be taught.

Note that, in my definition, intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom are
all different qualities.  It is possible to be stupid and ill-educated,
and yet wise.  Sometimes I think that increased knowledge retards
increased wisdom, and at other times, the reverse.  Waddaya think?

............................................................................
Dave Wright                        |  wrightd@rpm2.aes.mb.doe.ca
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc   - The Addams Family Motto
  "We gladly feast on those who would subdue us."
............................................................................
