so, would that mean that a knowledge that cannot be shared, not out of secrecy but because of the nature of the knowledge made it unsharable, uncomunicable, then such knowledge would have no value? ps, i'm not trying to be an asshole, its just coming out like that. i'm just the kinda guy who likes to question everything. even things i really like such as your sig.
nope not exactely. whatever knowledge one may have (I know how to grow plant real fast, for ex) would have no value if it serve only the beholder of that knowledge. but should one choose not to share his knowledge would not diminish the quantity of knowledge he has, just the value of that knowledge. a dancer that never dances on stage is still a good dancer...
i can and have many times, thus why i realised the "flaw" (sorry, there is no flaw really, i just cant think of a better word for it) in your little philosophical ditty. unfortunately, i cannot explain them... they are uncomunicatable. .... guess there's not much point to having said knowledge then if it cannot be shared. asuming your sig is very true.
I wouldn't dare to insinuate that I behold any truth. this is just a motto by which I have chosen to live. and nothing but /good/ has come out of it so far.
i asume you do not believe the opposite either tho, that you do not hold any truth. nothing is conclusive. only uncertainty is the only certainty. i thought as much. same goes for my "Educate yourself so you may educate others."