By the way you sure post a lot to discussion topics
I am a retired engineer with a good bit of formal education and twenty five years of self-learning. I began the self-learning experience while in my mid-forties. I had no goal in mind; I was just following my intellectual curiosity in whatever direction it led me. This hobby, self-learning, has become very important to me. I have bounced around from one hobby to another but have always been enticed back by the excitement I have discovered in this learning process. Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.”
I label myself as a September Scholar because I began the process at mid-life and because my quest is disinterested knowledge.
Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.
I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to ‘see’ and then to ‘grasp’ through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the September Scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.
We often use the metaphors of ‘seeing’ for knowing and ‘grasping’ for understanding. I think these metaphors significantly illuminate the difference between these two forms of intellection. We see much but grasp little. It takes great force to impel us to go beyond seeing to the point of grasping. The force driving us is the strong personal involvement we have to the question that guides our quest. I think it is this inclusion of self-fulfillment, as associated with the question, that makes self-learning so important.
The self-learner of disinterested knowledge is engaged in a single-minded search for understanding. The goal, grasping the ‘truth’, is generally of insignificant consequence in comparison to the single-minded search. Others must judge the value of the ‘truth’ discovered by the autodidactic. I suggest that truth, should it be of any universal value, will evolve in a biological fashion when a significant number of pursuers of disinterested knowledge engage in dialogue.
In the United States our culture compels us to have a purpose. Our culture defines that purpose to be ‘maximize production and consumption’. As a result all good children feel compelled to become a successful producer and consumer. All good children both consciously and unconsciously organize their life for this journey.
At mid-life many citizens begin to analyze their life and often discover a need to reconstitute their purpose. Some of the advantageous of this self-learning experience is that it is virtually free, undeterred by age, not a zero sum game, surprising, exciting and makes each discovery a new eureka moment. The self-learning experience I am suggesting is similar to any other hobby one might undertake; interest will ebb and flow. In my case this was a hobby that I continually came back to after other hobbies lost appeal.
I suggest for your consideration that if we “Get a life—Get an intellectual life” we very well might gain substantially in self-worth and, perhaps, community-worth.
As a popular saying goes ‘there is a season for all things’. We might consider that spring and summer are times for gathering knowledge, maximizing production and consumption, and increasing net-worth; while fall and winter are seasons for gathering understanding, creating wisdom and increasing self-worth.
I have been trying to encourage adults, who in general consider education as a matter only for young people, to give this idea of self-learning a try. It seems to be human nature to do a turtle (close the mind) when encountering a new and unorthodox idea. Generally we seem to need for an idea to face us many times before we can consider it seriously. A common method for brushing aside this idea is to think ‘I’ve been there and done that’, i.e. ‘I have read and been a self-learner all my life’.
I am not suggesting a stroll in the park on a Sunday afternoon. I am suggesting a ‘Lewis and Clark Expedition’. I am suggesting the intellectual equivalent of crossing the Mississippi and heading West across unexplored intellectual territory with the intellectual equivalent of the Pacific Ocean as a destination.
AmberCam
23rd July 2009 - 01:04 AM
QUOTE (coberst+Jul 22 2009, 08:19 PM)
The September Scholar seeks to ‘see’ and then to ‘grasp’ through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world.
Does the Disinterested Learner seek to understand the "wisdom/knowledge" determined by others or do they formulate their own conclusions through extrapolation? On what basis does the Disinterested Learner 'apprehend" what is "truth"?
coberst
23rd July 2009 - 10:47 AM
Two generations ago CP Snow authored the book “The Two Cultures”, which identified the two cultures to be ‘literary intellectuals’ (humanities) and natural scientists. He constructed the problem in this way:
"I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?"
This is considered to be the equivalent of asking: “can you read?” My point is that the gap between the two cultures today is as wide as it was when Snow drew attention to it two generations ago. At one time in the past this divide might have been considered to be bridgeable by the two cultures; I suspect that is not a possibility. I think it is not a possibility because both cultures have been co-opted by industry.
Our intellectual cities are filled with skyscrapers of narrowly specialized knowledge; all owned by corporations. We have only highly specialized intellectuals focusing ever more narrowly on a specialty that will gain high pay with bonus or life-long tenure with high paying grants.
Corporations will never allow this specialization to cease and so we must find another way if we hope to retake our lives from the grasp of corporations.
A Ritual To Read To Each Other
If you don't know the kind of person I am
and I don't know the kind of person you are
a pattern that others made may prevail in the world
and following the wrong god home we may miss our star.
For there is many a small betrayal in the mind,
a shrug that lets the fragile sequence break
sending with shouts the horrible errors of childhood
storming out to play through the broken dyke.
And as elephants parade holding each elephant's tail,
but if one wanders the circus won't find the park,
I call it cruel and maybe the root of all cruelty
to know what occurs but not recognize the fact.
And so I appeal to a voice, to something shadowy,
a remote important region in all who talk:
though we could fool each other, we should consider?
lest the parade of our mutual life get lost in the dark.
For it is important that awake people be awake,
or a breaking line may discourage them back to sleep;
the signals we give, yes or no, or maybe
should be clear: the darkness around us is deep.
-William Stafford
I have for some time been interested in trying to understand what ‘understand’ means. I have reached the conclusion that ‘curiosity then caring’ is the first steps toward understanding. Without curiosity we care for nothing. Once curiosity is in place then caring becomes necessary for understanding.
w6nrw
23rd July 2009 - 11:03 PM
Re:
"I have for some time been interested in trying to understand what ‘understand’ means. I have reached the conclusion that ‘curiosity then caring’ is the first steps toward understanding. Without curiosity we care for nothing. Once curiosity is in place then caring becomes necessary for understanding."
I have a background quite similar to your own. A few years after my
initial retirement, as I tried to revisit some of my former knowledge base,
I found that a lot of it was no longer readily available. As I thought about
it I came to the conclusion that a lot of the stuff that I thought I 'understood'
I didn't understand at all. I was just very familiar with what works, how
to apply the math and physics of what I had learned over many years of
practice. But in my own mind my real 'understanding' of WHY it works
eludes me.
To explain a bit:
My education in electronics was, in a sense, inverted. As a licensed radio
amateur (ham) starting in around 1935 I learned all about how to build and
operate radio receivers and transmitters. I became quite knowledgeable.
Following WW2 the GI bill allowed me to start my 'formal' education.
My BsE.E. degree got me into industry, which then bank rolled advanced
degrees. But the main thing I got was simply the ability to apply more
math to what I already knew. I knew more, but I did not really understand
more.
For example, I know that 'like signs repel and un-like signs attract, which
is very fundamental in the science of matter . . . . but I do not know why.
Therefore I still do not understand this very basic element of electronics.
At this point I believe that I know a lot, but I really understand nothing.
AmberCam
24th July 2009 - 01:38 PM
QUOTE (w6nrw+Jul 23 2009, 11:03 PM)
For example, I know that 'like signs repel and un-like signs attract, which
is very fundamental in the science of matter . . . . but I do not know why.
Therefore I still do not understand this very basic element of electronics.
At this point I believe that I know a lot, but I really understand nothing.
This is not just a basic principle of science - it is the basic principle underlying everything i.e. the dynamics between positive, negative and neutral potentials. Once we can understand these dynamics then we (IMO) will have the Theory of Everything.
Philco
27th July 2009 - 08:29 PM
QUOTE (AmberCam+Jul 22 2009, 03:01 PM)
However I'm not too sure its worthwhile discussing Freudian ideas in this day and age.
Why?
Have people changed so much during the past 100 years, indeed during the past 1000 years?
I very much doubt it.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.