Thus the ‘Knowledge of Wisdom Paradox.’ The more explicit knowledge we accumulate, the more we can environmentally intervene. The more we environmentally intervene, the more we change the taken-for-granted backgrounds. The more we change taken-for-granted backgrounds, the less reliable our implicit knowledge becomes. […] In other words, the more robust/reliable our explicit knowledge tends to become, the less robust/reliable our implicit knowledge tends to become.

5 thoughts on “Unknowing

  1. [this is a ruefully unfinished comment that will be expanded upon when I wake in the morning, I just wanted to send it through in case the world ends tonight]

    Let’s try to solve this paradox using the littlest amount of information possible. To begin,
    we shall explicate upon the differential categories of implicit knowledge(s), of which I can see at least three:

    1. (vital) information conditioning or effectuating the evolutionary frame, without being included as a perceptual locus within that frame. This is a ‘percept’ as it abides in pre-conscious habitual exactitude.
    2. (marginal) information within the bound of the perceptual frame, which neither constitutes a necessary condition for it, nor a primary obstacle to its proper functioning, and is (can be?) ignored as a void nullity.
    3. (anti) information that is either a positive hindrance, or more urgently, poses an explicit threat to the implicated working knowledge of habituated discretion, which is then (unwisely) ignored as a defensive strategy.

    I immediately confess to a radical departure from Bakker, and can only promise as a remittance that I will try to be more faithful to him in what follows. Bakker is saying that the reliability and robustness of implicit knowledge is radically subverted by the interventions of explicating powers ….

    • [I’ll need to read Bakker more fully before I can begin to adequately think through his logic, as for now my mind is frequently wanting to go off in some other direction, but this is my latest attempt to wrestle with Bakker.]

      Blind Brain Logic hyphenated:

      – We have adapted to perceive the bare minimum of information vital to solving novel environments (i.e survival). This is the Bakkerian ‘evolutionary frame’, and it states that we see only what is necessary to our own thriving, and actively ignore, or are even totally blind, to the rest.
      – Implicit knowledge is that knowledge which has become ‘taken-for-granted’ as an anchorage for evolutionary frames.
      – (here’s where it gets interesting) Science grants access to information that otherwise is beyond human perception, and what’s more, it’s rapidly corroding our implicit knowledge by revealing (through experimental interventions) the frightful unreliability of such, and to make things worse, the evolutionarily resilient idea of the soul is probably radically misguided 🙁
      – Finally, as science gives us information which not only departs from what proved useful for our own ancestral survival, but is even actively harmful to it, we are faced with an incoming Lovecraftian paradox telling us that not far from our perceptual locus, and perhaps lurking right behind it, there is a deadly and unnatural horror which, being nothing so benign as to be comprehended, can only be experienced by us as an overwhelming and terrible epoché.

      Bakker will become a bedtime story for the children of Cyborgs. I want to read some of his fiction if my own demanding schedule will allow for it.

    • The spam filter holds everyone in limbo until I get a chance to prise the quality stuff out. Shouldn’t ever be more than 24 hours. (Don’t know why the system is so paranoid, but it’s a default setting.)

Leave a Reply