Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00616)

<< "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.  We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.  But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know.
- Donald Rumsfeld, February 2002 ">>

It occurred to me that students of Theosophy might have had similar thoughts, maybe wondering how they should deal with their various notions about defining "known" and "unknown" in various contexts.
But if knowns and unknowns are not acknowledged/defined as essentially relative in a dualistic/multiplistic world, based on whatever collective/individual notions about "initial assumptions," say, then seems to me that one could go on interpreting (per whatever notions, preferences, politics, religions, sciences, philosophies, Theosophies, etc) "known" and "unknown" more or less into infinity, while leaving no end of room for more creative "knowns" and "unknowns."

Speculatively,
Mauri

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]