On knowledge

Many people will not be willing to say what they think, but I do, because I have to, and I am willing to start from the basics, such as the understanding of "knowledge", before I talk about the understanding of "knowledge", I will first talk about the feeling of the current knowledge dissemination institutions, except for a very small number of them, the vast majority of knowledge descriptors and transmitters are misleading to the public, why do you use these two words to describe it, it is very simple, such as asking what is a straight line, I replied: " A line with the same trajectory that extends infinitely at any point on the line along the front and back points is a straight line" or more simply: "The line formed at the intersection of two intersectable planes is a straight line"; For example, by the vast majority of knowledge transmitters, my answer must be zero; Therefore, most of them do not correctly transmit the concept of what is called knowledge, and what is even more sad is that they use it to divide the level of knowledge; I am not talking about a single part, but almost a whole, the difference is only that some of them may have thought about the relationship between people and knowledge, but thinking is not the same as doing, and realizing is not equal to understanding, so I don't look at it with 50 steps and 100 steps, I am helpless to unify it, forgive me;

How should people correctly view "knowledge", we must first explain what is the relationship between people and knowledge, between people and knowledge, people are the subject of knowledge as the object, because you are a person's existence, so you will obtain the knowledge that can be obtained as this person, because you decide the knowledge you can obtain, not the knowledge that determines you, how to obtain this knowledge or the method of acquiring knowledge, only determines the rate of acquisition, that is, if your life is unlimited, No matter what way you will eventually acquire all the knowledge you can acquire, you don't need a thing called a book, but the reality is that no one's life as a human being is infinite, so you need to use "books" to quickly obtain the knowledge you can obtain, so it is extremely ridiculous to regard knowledge and books as one, and to separate people from knowledge, which is like saying that only an apple smashing on Newton's head is as stupid as gravity, and as ridiculous as saying that the dictionary is the most learned; Don't think I'm making a fuss about nothing, that's what a lot of people think;

Between man and knowledge, man can acquire knowledge in three ways, the first way is nature, the second way is inspiration, and the third way is understanding;

People acquire knowledge in three ways, the first one we call nature, such as what people will do, in addition to human beings, most of the knowledge in the life of many creatures in nature comes from nature, and people are almost like this, people are born without learning to have all the basic abilities to understand the material world to survive, many people will not understand this, think that instinct may not be knowledge, and accordingly define the concept of knowledge, that the acquired through learning is knowledge, but what is acquired; When I am born, I understand light and darkness in the blink of an eye, I understand fullness and emptiness in sucking, and I understand the existence of things and things when I look around; Does this count as knowledge, is it innate or acquired? Is it defined as light and darkness, fullness and emptiness, and different forms are divided into different forms before it is considered knowledge? At a deeper level, human memory does not need to be learned, so if a person does not understand what he has learned, but memorizes everything, is this considered knowledge? Therefore, a more comprehensive understanding of knowledge should be knowledge that conforms to the laws of heaven and earth;

The second way of obtaining is inspiration, that is, the way of acquiring knowledge through the transmission of information outside of the person's own; One of the most understandable words for everyone is "epiphany", and suddenly they understand, and all of a sudden there must be countless information pouring in, but outsiders are unknowable, and they themselves are indescribable, and how many people understand the word "epiphany"; Newton did not carry a bookshelf when he went to the apple tree, and the enlightened people did not recite scriptures when they had an epiphany, and how many of the world's sages obtained from books, but there was nothing at all;

The third way of understanding is the way people themselves obtain information about the outside world, such as people's thinking about things in the world around them, and people's thinking about books is also one of them; The main difference between understanding and inspiration is that people can deduce the entire acquisition process of the knowledge obtained through understanding, for example, when you solve a problem and you think about it, you can clearly know your entire thinking process, and the knowledge obtained through inspiration, he must not be able to fully describe his thinking process, that is, the acquisition process; For example, a painter does not necessarily understand the specific idea of his composition, and a composer cannot use his musical knowledge to explain the melody he composes; Of course, there are those who can do it, those who use art knowledge to create are called painters, and those who use music knowledge to play are called performers, I don't mean to judge, I just want to say that these belong to two completely different fields, different sources of inspiration are of the same origin, expression through art is the most common and superficial, the deep expression of inspiration comes from the thought and the entire ideological system, and the ideas that are really expressed through inspiration in ancient and modern times are all at the same different levels, all eternal;