What is "knowledge"?

[Gaze]

So, I was wondering how do we define knowledge. What is considered knowledge today maybe considered irrelevant information tomorrow. For example, each generation throughout history valued particular types of knowledge more than other types of knowledge whether that was religious or spiritual (pre-middle ages, scientific (enlightenment and post enlightenment), or artistic knowledge (renaissance & romantic period). Today, we highly value technical and scientific knowledge, especially anything associated with technology.

They say knowledge is power. But how much of our knowledge is truly "knowledge" in the sense that it is valuable, useful, or beneficial? Even our definition of smarts is directly related what is considered important and valuable "knowledge". Knowledge gives someoone advantage because they know useful or valuable information and/or may know how to use that information to their or others advantage.

What do you think? What is knowledge? Is knowledge power? Do you think we have a clear and rational or sensible understanding of "knowledge" today? What makes knowledge valuable? Should our understanding of what "knowledge" is be constant or change with the times? Can knowledge be good and evil and how do you tell the difference?

 

[muir]

In qabalah knowledge is a false sphere on the tree of life

Above it are wisdom and understanding

http://www.witchswell.com/daath.html

DAATH: KNOWLEDGE
Image: Head with two faces, looking both ways
God Name: YHVH Elohim
Archangels: 4 Cardinals (Raphael, Michael, Gabriel, Uriel)
Planet/Star: Sirius
Virtues: Detachment. Perfection of Justice and the application of the Virtues untainted by personality or ego. Confidence in the Future
Vices: Doubt of the Future. Apathy, Inertia. Cowardice. Pride leading to isolation and disintegration.
Titles: The Invisible Sephira; The Hidden; The Unrevealed
Spiritual Experience: Vision across the Abyss
Symbols: Prism; Cell; Empty Room; Sacred Mountaintop, Grain
Magical Image: The Janus, Heads looking both ways, back toward the Supernals and downward toward personality-earth below.
Order of Angels: Serpents like the Seraphim, but not flaming

Considered the conjunction or union of Masculine & Feminine, Daath as actively worked on the Tree is fairly recent. Crowley suggests that it might be considered as a doorway to another dimension, and it can be used in this capacity to investigate the other side of the Tree, the Qliphothic. In placement it sits on top of the Abyss - that which separates the 3 Supernals (Kether, Chokmah and Binah) from the rest of the Tree, separating the World of Archetypes from the World of Form. Daath is where pure Force unites with pure Form - it is the child of Binah and Chokmah. Daath is the highest point of awareness of the human soul. Gareth Knight puts it well -"Before Daath the experience of a soul is devoted to bringing about a fusion of itself with the Spirit - to 'becoming'. After the powers of Daath are fully operative in a soul there is no further process of becoming for that soul 'is'." Will Parfitt says: "Chesed could be related to being and Geburah related to doing. Daath as the higher resolving factor which includes both being & doing can be termed becoming." Indeed, above the Abyss all that exists is in a state of Being, below the Abyss all is in a state of Doing according to which Sphere is being invoked. Daath is the synthesizing point. As Daath brings its energies to bridging the Abyss that separates the Supernal Triangle into the Lower Emanations it begins the process of manifestation into Malkuth. Above the Abyss this is definitely the Transcendent and Transpersonal - beyond who we know ourselves to be.

Daath is also known as The Invisible Sephira, the Sphere without a number. Some Qabalists say Daath is not one of the Ten Holy Emanations as the other Sephira are called, but a passageway, a gateway if you will. Others regard it as the 11th Sephira but in a special way - the Invisible Sephira. Crowley said that Daath was of a different dimension than the rest of the Spheres.

Daath is also regarded as Malkuth before its full manifestation in physicality. Its place is the original position occupied by Malkuth and it is the Spheres below the Abyss which give the various expressions of energy necessary to its manifestation.

The Image of the Head with two faces, or Janus-head, is appropriate for in Daath we look both forward and backward. We synthesize past, present and future, inner self and outer self, stripping away false knowledge and pride. Sirius as the planet/star associated with Daath is very interesting in light of the veneration accorded it by the Egyptians, Dahomeys and Apaches as a place where ultimate Wisdom resides. The virtue of Detachment indicates what is required in spiritual self-assessment as we seek to unify our mundane selves with our magickal or spiritual selves. Doubt as the vice of Daath shows how we subvert the process - by doubting the absolute divinity within us and the reality of Divinity itself.

The Spiritual Experience of the Vision across the Abyss highlights the nature of Daath. We are aware of and can see our way to unification thru its nature. And Daath's titles show that it is the Sphere which contains that spark of individual divinity which seeks to become One again with the whole, much like a seed of light nestled deeply within the darkness of the fertile Earth.

The Symbols of Daath are all metaphorical, for it is mainly a state of awareness devoid of symbols and the ultimate symbol of Daath has been considered by some Qabalists as The Complete Absence of any Symbol. However, in understanding its energies it can be useful to consider the symbols of the prism, the cell, the empty room, the caduceus and the sacred mountain top to all show aspects of Daath. The prism captures and refracts light and color - all energies are present here. The cell indicates the solitude of the initiate as does the empty room; the caduceus is a symbol of the balancing of opposing forces and the sacred mountain top is indicative of the crags hidden within the clouds where hermits dwell and wisdom is given.

Daath is also seen as the Birth Canal of Spirit, symbolized by the Star. Light as we know it shines from the Star but what lies behind it and before its birth was of a different nature before this birth of being into manifestation. This is the Birth of the Child of Force and Form.

Daath could be called the Highest Point of Awareness for the Human soul as a Soul of itself, for beyond Daath we enter the level of the Supernals. The Soul, having reached this state of consciousness, can remain to assist the planetary Hierarchy or ascend and move from this Dimension. Daath could be called the sphere of Realization and Illumination. This is the Creative Fire which Prometheus stole from heaven, and the Apple which was eaten by Adam and Eve.

The Knowledge we receive at Daath demands balanced and equilibriated use. It is said that to successfully cross the Abyss upon the Edge of the Sword we must keep our attention and consciousness perfectly focused on the White Sun of Kether. Upon contact Daath can lend to us balance, a sense of mission and a sense of destiny giving us sufficient detachment to cut through any obstructions to our aims and goals.

Daath also corresponds to the Throat and has to do with the expression of Spiritual Knowledge. The expression is either clear or distorted depending on how open the Daath center of expression is in the individual.

An interesting note in dealing with Daath as the bridge across the Abyss is the fact that many Qabalists have a certain fear in dealing with Daath. Perhaps this is because activating Daath is very demanding. The vision of Spiritual Truth can decimate the ego-personality's understanding of things. Daath is definitely a view from a different perspective.

Old Qabalists called the Abyss the "Masak Mavdil" meaning place for rejected failures, which was presided over by the Angel named Mesukiel, meaning the ?Veiler? of God. The teaching was that at least three previous Creations had been made prior to this one, and being unsatisfied with them, the Great One swept them away into the Abyss, which became a sort of cosmic waste bin. Very little is said, of course, in Orthodox religion at the possible fallibility of the Creator. This myth would be an admission that God makes mistakes. Also this tells us about a possible Dark Side of the Creator, a part of the Cosmic Unconscious which we might not wish to deal with ? the adage that you must be careful about that which you seek because you will most probably find it. The Cosmic Sewer doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me, so don't go fishing where you needn't .

This leads us to the concept of the Qliphoth,(Shells or Demons) the reverse side of the Tree, where dwell demons and disease. It is sometimes known as Universe B or the Tunnels of Set, as opposed to the Tunnels of Horus on the Front Side of the Tree. The Vices of the Sephiroth can be linked to the Qliphoth, but the Cosmic Sewer system also works as a view of vice ? becoming embroiled in the dark side of things for subverted ego reasons.

It is best in dealing with Daath to remember human pride, and remain humble in your seeking to a certain extent - to invoke Shakespeare's ?more things dreamt of in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in you? philosophy.

Gareth Knight suggests working with Isis mysteries as a positive and surely enhancing encounter with the Daath energy. Her mysteries also have to do with the star Sirius which is often given as the Mundane Chakra of Daath. Isis ties into the path of the High Priestess who is often depicted as Isis who bridges the Abyss.

Daath is a sphere in the Making, the original place of Malkuth on the Tree. The Fall spoken of in the Old Testament is not the Fall of Man but the Fall of God to gain Knowledge thru experience. All of our life experience builds the Light of Daath.

Suggestions on experiencing the energies of Daath:

1. Meditate on paths 13 (High Priestess) uniting Tiphareth & Kether and 14 (The Empress) uniting Chokmah & Binah.

2. Meditate on what seems to separate you from your true Self. What aspects of personality are prevalent in this separation?

3. Where and how does ego tend to trip you up? What are your fears and doubts and what are their foundations?

 

[dogman6126]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnoJusTruBel

There is a good source for the philosophical perspective on knowledge. Always love Stanford encyclopedia
My philosophy club had a discussion about this topic last semester, so I can try to help if some of it is unclear. I don't understand parts of it though. It gets complicated

Is knowledge power? I don't know. I could agree with both a yes and a no because I think it's a matter of perspective. On one hand you could say that with knowledge comes capability to enact change, and that ability is power. As you gain knowledge (applicable knowledge) then you gain power through this ability to enact change. Or, you could also say that everything that is possible to be done is available to you already, and knowledge simply allows you to recognize the options you have available. Basically you already have the power by simply existing where you are in the way you exist, knowledge simply allows you recognize that power. Therefore you already had the power to enact change, knowledge simply allows you to recognize your potential.

These are based on different perspectives of time. The first is based upon a perspective of time where you are looking at time from within time meaning you have a point of reference in the "stream of time". This is like how we live in time, which is to say we progress linearly. The second is based on a perspective of time without a reference point. This is usually the kind of thought experiment used in quantum physics and the like. To say that all possibilities that can happen, are also possible of happening. This is to say that you have X possible paths you can take, but you are only aware of Y paths, and you will only take one path. The paths you are aware of are based on the knowledge you have, so as knowledge increases, so does Y. If you knew everything, then Y would equal X.

Is knowledge valuable? I would say yes, because it is something people would pay for. Therefore it must have value, at least to someone. As for what that value is or what kind of value it does or doesn't have, I don't know. I haven't put as much thought into the value of knowledge. I can only say yes I think it is valuable.

Our understanding of everything is always changing. I do not think we fully understand what knowledge is yet, so yes I think our understanding will change. However that which knowledge truly is I think is constant.

Can knowledge be good or evil? I would say no. It is what is done with that knowledge that is good or evil. Knowledge isn't anything of itself, it's just there. It can't do anything, it is only something to be owned (or rather known). Actions are what are deemed good or evil. Knowledge may give someone understanding of an option available to them, but that isn't to say that knowledge makes them take such an action. People have free will to refuse any action, so it is people that are good or evil.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Knowledge is the best current information for how something (is).

 

[sprinkles]

Knowledge is information through experience.

Meta knowledge is knowledge about knowledge.

e.g. what [MENTION=11455]dogman6126[/MENTION] posted is meta knowledge - an attempt to know what knowledge is about, using knowledge about knowledge. In this case an encyclopedia, which is defined as a collection of knowledge. Furthermore, to read the encyclopedia to study what knowledge is, one has to know the words, that the encyclopedia is there, how to find it and use it, etc. So you're using knowledge to study knowledge about studying knowledge, which in itself studies itself through appraisal of the different schools of knowledge e.g. finding problems with the justified true belief theory, which is a theory of knowledge analyzed in the collection of knowledge by a different theory of knowledge contained therein.

 

[dogman6126]

Knowledge is information through experience.

Meta knowledge is knowledge about knowledge.

e.g. what [MENTION=11455]dogman6126[/MENTION] posted is meta knowledge - an attempt to know what knowledge is about, using knowledge about knowledge. In this case an encyclopedia, which is defined as a collection of knowledge. Furthermore, to read the encyclopedia to study what knowledge is, one has to know the words, that the encyclopedia is there, how to find it and use it, etc. So you're using knowledge to study knowledge about studying knowledge, which in itself studies itself through appraisal of the different schools of knowledge e.g. finding problems with the justified true belief theory, which is a theory of knowledge analyzed in the collection of knowledge by a different theory of knowledge contained therein.

LOL you made my head hurt
I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this.....

Edit:
perhaps I could say that is not experience simply knowledge gained in a specific way meaning directly from your actions rather than reading or learning in other methods?

 

[sprinkles]

LOL you made my head hurt
I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this.....

Edit:
perhaps I could say that is not experience simply knowledge gained in a specific way meaning directly from your actions rather than reading or learning in other methods?

Well when it comes down to it, reading is not much different than the examples given in the encyclopedia entry you linked to. Reading is just as much subject to the dog in the field problem, or the fake barns problem. This is actually a real issue because for example people misread things and take them out of context all the time and think they base knowledge off it.

In the end, reading is still an action. It's direct sense. There may be more caution there because people can and do write anything they want, but when you come down to it, once you're convinced by what you read then that's it. At that point it's no different than the perfect robot dog that isn't actually a dog, or the county full of barn facades that look like real barns. So unless you actively keep a sense of skepticism or something, it's just about the same as seeing something directly and believing it.

It happens very often.

 

[dogman6126]

Well when it comes down to it, reading is not much different than the examples given in the encyclopedia entry you linked to. Reading is just as much subject to the dog in the field problem, or the fake barns problem. This is actually a real issue because for example people misread things and take them out of context all the time and think they base knowledge off it.

In the end, reading is still an action. It's direct sense. There may be more caution there because people can and do write anything they want, but when you come down to it, once you're convinced by what you read then that's it. At that point it's no different than the perfect robot dog that isn't actually a dog, or the county full of barn facades that look like real barns. So unless you actively keep a sense of skepticism or something, it's just about the same as seeing something directly and believing it.

It happens very often.

Do you think you can have knowledge of something and it not be true? Perhaps its better to say can you "know" something (to mean think you know) and it not be true? I would say yes. I kinda disagree with the True Justified Belief idea for knowledge. I think of knowledge more as that which someone knows or thinks they know. In my perspective people can be incorrect but still know something. Know in this sense means simply to have thought or think about something consciously. Whether it is correct or not, well that's another point.
It's difficult to talk about this in English, the term knowledge can be used in so many different senses.

 

[sprinkles]

Do you think you can have knowledge of something and it not be true? Perhaps its better to say can you "know" something (to mean think you know) and it not be true? I would say yes. I kinda disagree with the True Justified Belief idea for knowledge. I think of knowledge more as that which someone knows or thinks they know. In my perspective people can be incorrect but still know something. Know in this sense means simply to have thought or think about something consciously. Whether it is correct or not, well that's another point.
It's difficult to talk about this in English, the term knowledge can be used in so many different senses.

To a degree, yes. It'd have to be non-specific.

For example with the dog in the field problem, if you look and say "that's a dog!" when it is actually a perfect robot replica, I think this mistake could be forgiven, and that there's implied certainty about something that is there which quite indistinguishably resembles a dog. I think in that case you could know something, partially, though it isn't entirely true.

However, if you were to say specifically "I know this is a dog and not a robot" I'd say that the lack of truth in this case means that they don't actually have knowledge. A generalized 'dog' can be debatable about its meaning, e.g. a picture of a dog isn't actually dog, but one typically wouldn't be blamed for saying that it is a dog, but if they were to instead say that it is not a picture of a dog but is an actual dog then one might say that they're entirely mistaken.

 

[dogman6126]

To a degree, yes. It'd have to be non-specific.

For example with the dog in the field problem, if you look and say "that's a dog!" when it is actually a perfect robot replica, I think this mistake could be forgiven, and that there's implied certainty about something that is there which quite indistinguishably resembles a dog. I think in that case you could know something, partially, though it isn't entirely true.

However, if you were to say specifically "I know this is a dog and not a robot" I'd say that the lack of truth in this case means that they don't actually have knowledge. A generalized 'dog' can be debatable about its meaning, e.g. a picture of a dog isn't actually dog, but one typically wouldn't be blamed for saying that it is a dog, but if they were to instead say that it is not a picture of a dog but is an actual dog then one might say that they're entirely mistaken.

So perhaps I'm drifting between thinking and knowing. I just don't like the current definition of knowing or knowledge.

What about this for knowledge (starting from scratch). To know something is like when I say I know something, however we run into cases where I am often wrong and say I know something. So to say to have knowledge of something must be different? If you have knowledge of something I think it would be correct to say it must be true. Also, you must believe it and have some reason for believing it. If you believe something without reason and it be true, I wouldn't call that knowledge because I think knowledge must be with intent to know (if I can use such terrible grammar, please forgive me, lol). I also think that if you don't believe it but you have reason to believe it and it is true, that's more denial. And if you believe it and have reason to believe it, and its not true, then you are simply mistaken...

Hmmm....I kinda do like the True Justified belief concept for knowledge, but only knowledge by the definition set here. The term knowledge can be used in many different ways in the English language, however I would say this specific type of knowledge is well defined by this concept of a true justified belief.

 

[sprinkles]

So perhaps I'm drifting between thinking and knowing. I just don't like the current definition of knowing or knowledge.

What about this for knowledge (starting from scratch). To know something is like when I say I know something, however we run into cases where I am often wrong and say I know something. So to say to have knowledge of something must be different? If you have knowledge of something I think it would be correct to say it must be true. Also, you must believe it and have some reason for believing it. If you believe something without reason and it be true, I wouldn't call that knowledge because I think knowledge must be with intent to know (if I can use such terrible grammar, please forgive me, lol). I also think that if you don't believe it but you have reason to believe it and it is true, that's more denial. And if you believe it and have reason to believe it, and its not true, then you are simply mistaken...

Hmmm....I kinda do like the True Justified belief concept for knowledge, but only knowledge by the definition set here. The term knowledge can be used in many different ways in the English language, however I would say this specific type of knowledge is well defined by this concept of a true justified belief.

Well I think knowing what knowledge is and knowing what is knowledge are two very different things.

To use a similar example, fact is defined as something that is indisputably the case. This definition is fairly easy to intuit - it's easy to know what a fact is, as in the meaning of the idea. Identifying what is a fact though is an entirely different thing.

Edit:
Or put another way a trout is a fish, but a fish is not always a trout.

 

[dogman6126]

Well I think knowing what knowledge is and knowing what is knowledge are two very different things.

To use a similar example, fact is defined as something that is indisputably the case. This definition is fairly easy to intuit - it's easy to know what a fact is, as in the meaning of the idea. Identifying what is a fact though is an entirely different thing.

A new thought just came to me. What would you call the set of information a person has, be it factual or not. Would that be an example of what a person might know (or think they know) but not the set of knowledge they actually have? Perhaps the set of knowledge they have is a subset of the former, being that subgroup which is also true?

 

[sprinkles]

A new thought just came to me. What would you call the set of information a person has, be it factual or not. Would that be an example of what a person might know (or think they know) but not the set of knowledge they actually have? Perhaps the set of knowledge they have is a subset of the former, being that subgroup which is also true?

Something like that, in varying degrees. I think the technical term for that information is 'proposition'.

 

[dogman6126]

Something like that, in varying degrees. I think the technical term for that information is 'proposition'.

Yeah, sorry. I'm not good with technical terms

I found this. I remember going over this in philosophy club, so I thought I'd put it up in here:

Philosophers typically divide knowledge into three categories: personal, procedural, and propositional. It is the last of these, propositional knowledge, that primarily concerns philosophers. However, understanding the connections between the three types of knowledge can be helpful in clearly understanding what is and what is not being analysed by the various theories of knowledge.

Personal Knowledge

The first kind of knowledge is personal knowledge, or knowledge by acquaintance. This is the kind of knowledge that we are claiming to have when we say things like “I know Mozart’s music.”

Prodecural Knowledge

The second kind of knowledge is procedural knowledge, or knowledge how to do something. People who claim to know how to juggle, or how to drive, are not simply claiming that they understand the theory involved in those activities. Rather, they are claiming that actually possess the skills involved, that they are able to do these things.

Propositional Knowledge

The third kind of knowledge, the kind that philosophers care about most, is propositional knowledge, or knowledge of facts. When we say things like “I know that the internal angles of a triangle add up to 180 degress” or “I know that it was you that ate my sandwich”, we are claiming to have propositional knowledge.

http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/what-is-knowledge/types-of-knowledge/

 

[sprinkles]

Yeah, sorry. I'm not good with technical terms

I found this. I remember going over this in philosophy club, so I thought I'd put it up in here:

http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/what-is-knowledge/types-of-knowledge/

Makes sense to me.

 

[just me]

γνῶσις

gnosis

Knowledge signifies, in general intelligence, understanding

 

[Gaze]

[MENTION=11455]dogman6126[/MENTION]

As you gain knowledge (applicable knowledge) then you gain power through this ability to enact change.

So, are you saying that having knowledge means we naturally know what to do with it? Does someone always know they have information which is valuable? If they don't, is it really powerful if they don't know they have it and/or don't know how to use it?

 

[muir]

There is also INTENT

A person with good intent can use knowledge to benefit others

A person with bad intent can use knowledge to harm others

Anyone can possess knowledge. This means that we can even learn things from people we don't like

But if a person wants to be a better person then knowledge is not going to help them....they need wisdom and understanding for that (that is a spiritual knowing...a gnosis)

A person might not have much knowledge but they might have a good heart....and arguably that person is more spiritually advanced than a cold hearted person who knows much but understands little

Many people gain a lot of knowledge without gaining any benefits to their character

Knowledge is a double edged sword that can be used for good or ill

So what good is knowledge if not weilded by a kind or at least a benevolent heart?

What if the gnosis is that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, or as Alan Watts put it that the universe is experiencing itself through us

“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.” Bill Hicks

[video=youtube;mmjD9vaQDGo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmjD9vaQDGo[/video]

 

[muir]

[video=youtube;ilvX8YC1zqo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilvX8YC1zqo[/video]

 

[dogman6126]

[MENTION=11455]dogman6126[/MENTION]



So, are you saying that having knowledge means we naturally know what to do with it? Does someone always know they have information which is valuable? If they don't, is it really powerful if they don't know they have it and/or don't know how to use it?

When I first posted about this, I thought about this to myself, and was kinda curious if anyone would point this out. I didn't know how to answer that, but I've been thinking about it.

To answer this, we must remember that so far as we have discussed, there are three types of knowledge. When I made that statement, I was referring to knowledge in the general sense, so now we can discuss this implication in these three types of knowledge. Lets also make a scenario. Lets say your about to get on a plane, and unknown to you to you, a terrorist attack is going to occur.
The first is personal knowledge. This would be if you were to meet the terrorist, you gain this kind of knowledge of that person. Now in this case, this is to say nothing about anything else. Lets say all you knew was this personal knowledge. On its own, no you might not do anything. Technically, you might not even know that terrorism is a bad thing (depends on your perspective on morality). It also depends on the amount of personal knowledge you have. You might not gain enough personal knowledge to know to do something. In this case there is a random chance that you say something to a third party that has procedural knowledge of what to do, in which case the attack could be stopped.
The second is procedural knowledge. This is to say you have knowledge about what to do in the case of a terrorist attack or whom to notify of the terrorist attack. Again, it also depends on the amount of procedural knowledge you have. Now in this case, you might know what to do, however you might not know that you need to do it. In this case, nothing would probably be done because you don't know to act.
The third is propositional knowledge. This means that you might know the facts of the case. A terrorist attack will occur. You might know of a story where someone had intervened in a terrorist attack. You might know every detail of the event. However, this isn't to say that you would act successfully or that you would act at all. This one also depends on your perspective of morality. In this case, it is more likely you would be successful in stopping such an attack, but knowing of a story where someone stopped a terrorist attack doesn't mean you would know what to do in this terrorist attack. And most importantly, that doesn't say anything about you actually doing anything with this knowledge.

In any case, it is a combination of these three types of knowledge is the type of knowledge you actually have. Now lets say you have some combination of knowledge that is sufficient for you to enact change. Now comes the action. This is about the person, and whether they choose to act or how to act on that knowledge. According to Aristotle, knowledge that a person has exists in two ways. The total sum of their knowledge, and that knowledge they consider in any given circumstance. Because of this, any two people could have the exact same knowledge available, but each could consider different subsets of that knowledge. That can lead to different conclusions/actions, or even the same conclusions/actions. To many possibilities to predict, but this does explain why people can think or act differently with the same information available. Also, I think it's safe to say that no two people will ever have the exact same set of knowledge available, so that's another difference. Next you have to consider perspectives on a persons natural disposition, tendencies, and all kinds of other variables before an action is ever made.

Basically to sum it up, the power is in the action in my opinion, not the knowledge. An action that is taken can happen two ways it seems to me. Dumb luck or with intent. For it to be with intent, you must have some kind/type/combination of knowledge. To me, the power is with the person, knowledge is just what we use to make an action (usually).