Understanding "Wisdom"

I used to think that wisdom was this thing that we accumulate, like knowledge. But now I'm starting to wonder if wisdom is of a different nature. I don't find myself seeing it so much this way anymore, but instead more like I see the idea of love - something which happens or does not happen on a rather separate accord other than one in which we have any clear control of. There are children for example who I have known to exhibit a great deal more wisdom at times than a man in his 60's who's been through a great deal more than the child. But other times it has occurred the other way around as well. We tend to talk about wisdom as something we "have" or we "are". "You are so wise!" "You have a lot of wisdom!"... But then, I wonder if it makes more sense that wisdom is not something we can claim, but something that, at times, claims us. If I had wisdom, then it would be a consistent thing, since I have it. But there are times I just don't exibit it. So it can't be said that I have it. How could I have it, but then not have it unless I had no control over it and instead, it simply happened at that time?

What do you believe about the nature of "Wisdom"?

Wisdom to me is having knowledge and knowing when to use it or not use it. You can obtain knowledge through study and learning when to use it through experiencie and trial and error.

What do you believe about the nature of "Wisdom"?

Lessons learned from life. Hard lessons teach the most. Mistakes are tough teachers. Some people learn faster than others. Some are born with it. People recognize it in others. If you think yourself wise your wrong. Wisdom happens but can't be made. It's humble. It's cool. It's more and less. I'm a moron. :woohoo: :laugh:

Probably a capacity to recognize patterns which intimate some relevant accuracy in the absence of apparent indicators. So using that approach we'd have wisdom as distinctly different from knowledge (which aligns with the 3 Tenets), but importantly benefits from knowledge/experience as the subconscious can reference that to generate wisdom more easily. That relationship could allow the 3 Tenets to have a functional relationship. That's where I'd sit with understanding the experience of wisdom. So what (am I talking about lol) constitutes a pattern; probably some number of established internal sets of knowledge (any number of reference axis) and a causal chain of the event in question ie prediction with supporting frames of reference. Accurate prediction then can be explained from those frames of reference in a partial way, describing a capacity of something which could be called wisdom, or accurate guesswork!? Maybe, maybe not.. just thinking out loud
:silly:

Frankly the problem you are describing isn't that different from those of knowledge. Few are knowledgeable across the board, just as you say how few are wise all of the time...

I say that, yet I couldn't tell a wise person if I saw one. For every idea I may or may not take on about wisdom, there will be somebody out there who in full sincerity would stand up and say that what I am talking about has little to do with wisdom and I'd have little means to object. How can I believe something of the nature of wisdom when I am so much better off not even defining what I mean by that term but instead use it in conversation only when and after it has been defined for the confines of said conversation? Until further clarification, when somebody speaks of "wisdom" I do not know what they mean and in most cases neither do they.

Alexandre Orion wrote:

Exercise 5:1
The Three Tenets

Focus – Knowledge – Wisdom

Focus – paying attention in a particular way, on purpose and non judgementally – focus and receptivity ; attention does not require muscle strain

Knowledge – ontology (thing in and of itself) / epistemology (how we make meaning-knowledge) – domains of objects/fields of sense

Wisdom – knowing that one does not know – experience, intuition, beyond the limits of logic ; letting things be 'ontologic' (just what they are)


In considering the three tenets, often one tends to think of them separately, like three 'parts' of a mechanical system that function together : the pieces of the clock (again). One tends to want to define each one according to a dictionary (neither very poetic, nor comprehensive) and then, in some rudimentary way, wedge them together into a prosaic nightmare of make-shi(f)t one-upsmanship wanabe-ness. This sort of consideration also makes them appear like items on a menu, that one can choose the combination that best suits one's tastes in any given moment. Like having a bowl of strawberries and whipped cream, but leaving out the strawberries … and even the bowl. Let's not do that now.

Although Focussed concentration may yield a lot of Knowledge, if only momentarily, about the thing/event Focussed on, it does not necessarily bring about Wisdom. Focus must be of the right sort and so must be the Knowledge. Watts described this sharply Focussed attention as like a spotlight as opposed to a floodlight : the spotlight concentrates on what is being examined, but leaves the rest of the environment in obscurity – a 'rest' which is much of what is going on. If one uses only concentrated Focus, one has to rely on the memory of what it has illuminated in passing over the Lifescape. And we know how fallible the human memory is.

The first time I wrote on the Three tenets, I liked them to the Eightfold Path of Buddhism. That still holds true, though my uptake on it has changed : I see it as much less of an assortment of 'right' things and more of a homogeneous mist of reminders to virtue (NOT “for being virtuous", mind you !) that are pretty indistinguishable in the dynamism of a human Life. That is, one may consider an aspect of the Eightfold Path by itself, but better not 'separately' from the other aspects – more as a constant influence in their continuum. For example, considering what the bassoon is doing during the orchestral interval does not single it out of the harmony of the orchestra. Or the harmony from the melody …

Focus and Knowledge are mutually arising : we can Know something about what we bring our Focus to – either concentrated Focus or broader Awareness, for both are necessary. In order to escape the reliance on memory, Focus would remain neither concentrated on details and 'separate events' or 'parts of things' (left-brain function), nor constantly in broad panoramic mode, taking in a broader range of perception yet indistinctly, the expression of its attention to that wholeness silenced by manquement of langage to express it. One needs both : Focus on more localised regions in the spectrum of experience AND the comprehensive, inclusive, non-localised perspective (right-brain).

From this alternation of Focus comes a net of Knowledge of a finer mesh than the course knots that one or the other extreme of Focus would otherwise yield. A more panoptic point-of-view (granted a multidimensional geometry to the point, bien entendu, it's not a fixed 'point') provides access to a broader scope of Knowledge than the “specialised” reductionist regard. With this coincidence of perspectives brought about by Focus and Knowledge interdependently, better conditions arise within which Wisdom may manifest.

Of these, our Focus is the only aspect over which one truly has a direct influence. It is not separate from the other Tenets, but it is the part we can cultivate a talent in ; Knowledge being the assimilation of the way the environment is in a moment in the spread out field of experience. A singularly concentrated Focus would miss too much, an exclusively bird's-eye view would also leave out essential information. Thus, the first approach to bringing about the potential for Wisdom is the “wise” decision to cultivate a receptive, aware Focus by which the tissue of Knowledge can be weft. Both Focus and Knowledge being ongoing, dynamic processes of an organic World, they are never acquired ; these are variant states in the systemic relationships ever in flux.

Wisdom cannot be acquired either. It is not a state of development that comes about through discipline to be retained and revered for-evermore, but a momentary spark of astuteness that comes about through the Knowledge of what the concentrated-to-broad Focus has brought into Awareness. This would include emotional-intuitive factors as well as other empirical, experiential ones. Wisdom is retrospective ; one knows that one has acted or chosen wisely only after the fruits of said act/choice has been tasted. This is not a utilitarian position, for that would consider the predicted, hypothetical consequences of acts/choices the basis of Wisdom rather than the “way things are”. Rather, Wisdom is a fruit that sprouts more or less reliably where the conditions for it to grow – for it to manifest – are well cultivated (Focus and Knowledge).

Thus, as Voltaire suggested in the end of Candide : The Eternal Optimist :

- "Il faut cultiver son jardin"~ chapitre XXX

Wisdom if the flower and fruit of the living force.

Rickie wrote: ..and fruit of the living force.

... and it is smooth, splendid, and fresh :silly:

Sorry, been reading too much Dzogchen.

sweet and aromatic too! nothing to be sorry for :laugh:

As I learn more I feel that I learn less. Common feeling. My views change as time and involment come along. For me wisdom is some times situational and avalibility. My thought and wonder has changed and so have a few of my understandings of my situations so in review of my own life I find some changes in my wisdom category.

I find that I have learned not all wisdom is for me.