To have answers or to have questions?

[CrystalViolet]

Hmmmm, being a questioner sounds like some sort of storm trooper, secret agenty thingy ma bob person....and answerer is sort of a empty vessel.
I was thinking what if this some how defined sexual identity in this imaginary world....I'd be a hemaphrodite then.....

 

[FC3S]

could you answer in questions?

*round of applause*

 

[wildcat]

This is interesting, isn't it?

Particularly as most threads are started by a question. And usually a leading question that telegraphs the answer.

And most here to give the right answer to the question. But if you don't give the correct answer, you are accused of being off topic.

The alternative to asking questions, leading or not, is to make statements and allow the listener to respond in their own way to the statement.

The continual questioning here is extremely controlling and inimical to creativity or even authenticity.

But the purpose of the compulsive questioning is to maintain ego control.

You can see this very clearly when anyone's ego control is threatened, and we have a clash of egos.

Ego control is important but once it has been achieved it can be let go for deliberate periods of time in the interests of creativity.

Otherwise ego control simply becomes tiresome.

What is ego control?

 

[Mole]

What is ego control?

Well, let's take my muscles as an example.

I can direct my muscles to do something, and this is ego control.

Or I can listen to my muscles and follow what they want - and this is called letting go of ego control for a while.

But what is most important is the movement between ego control and letting go of ego control for a while.

And so when you are letting go, you are also letting go of your critical mind for a while.

And when you return to your critical mind or ego control, you are able to analyse and evaluate what has occured while you let go.

Also you will be able to plan what you will do the next time you let go of ego control.

And so we have a recursive feedback loop between ego control and creativity.

So it is like a conversation between your ego and your creativity. Or it is like a dance between ego control and authentic creativity.

And so the next interesting question is, what is the quality of the dance?

Or simply, would you care to dance?

 

[Qre:us]

if there existed someone who knew all the answers, why would there be need for multiple "answerers?" are all the answerers in agreement and have drank the chalice of "absolute truth?" if the answers are all subjective AND incomplete and riddled with "holes" that the questioners are able to perceive, wouldn't it just create an endless feedback loop where both parties are paralyzed - one by skepticism and another by some sort of solipsism? would there even exist an answer if all the answers are full of holes and only lead to more questions? have the answers become questions and the questions, answers?

Specializations. Many specialities of knowledge.

whaaaaat?? this question doesn't make sense to me. I thought it was gonna be whether its better to be ingorant and be a philosopher in search of truths, or be a "wiseman" who has all the knowledge of the universe that he needs, but be intellectually bored...

but this is...... its kind of silly, cuz i just cant imagine any scenario where any cognating entity could either ONLY ask Q's or ONLY recite information. Je suis confused~



this^ is the problem. Gramamtically, a sentence can only be an interogative, or a statement, right? however, linguistically, this isn't as straight forward....

If i'm on the street and im a questioner, and some guy asks me "Hey man, can you tell me where the lemonade stand is on this flier?", I can say "Where is the place that has its denizens toll their bells on sunday whilst seeking this same lemonade?" I've replied with a question, and just told him that the lemonade stand is next to the Church. I also told him that its popular on Sundays with the local christians....

Now if you contend that the Questioners are not "allowed" to have knowledge, well then, they're not really asking questions, are they? They're output machines, not true questioners. True questions come from pre-existing knowledge and information. Its also linguistcally possible to make statements that are obviously "begging" for answers, making them essentially questions.

This problem is (in current form) bunk~ but i still love u Qre!!

~~~~~><~~<3 flower 4 joo!

N-FAIL.

could you answer in questions?

That would be Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead. Fun game.

Id rather be a knowledge seeker then someone who passes on knowledge, because they can never question against anything only give answers to questions asked. I'd choose asking questions.

Exactly. What do you find more meritorious...knowledge seeker or knowledge giver?

Many things in life will come into perspective then. And, give an inkling to what you place MORE value. Of course, it's not either or, it's an IMAGINARY world, whereby I forced you into a choice. But, it does give predispositions of one form over other (being forced into choice).

Are you a better student or a better teacher? What role do you see being a parent? Imparting knowledge or learning to be a parent FROM your child? What are the roles of academic institutions? Of government (knowledge translation [one way from experts to 'laymens'] or knowledge mobilization [directionless, dialogue])? And, many other things in life.....

The answer is in the question.

I can see that. But, an answer as an explicit answer is received quite differently than an answer hidden within a question, by most people. There's a fine balance that underlies power, that is entangled with knowledge - imparting and seeking.

And, in that, I wanted to delve.

 

[Take Five]

In the words of George W. Bush, "I'm the decider."

 

[EcK]

The only answer we need is the one to the question : what question to ask next\ What to doubt next?
And even that might be too partial

 

[Prototype]

Which would you choose to be and why?

What's with the questioning, and how is it important?

 

[wildcat]

Well, let's take my muscles as an example.

I can direct my muscles to do something, and this is ego control.

Or I can listen to my muscles and follow what they want - and this is called letting go of ego control for a while.

But what is most important is the movement between ego control and letting go of ego control for a while.

And so when you are letting go, you are also letting go of your critical mind for a while.

And when you return to your critical mind or ego control, you are able to analyse and evaluate what has occured while you let go.

Also you will be able to plan what you will do the next time you let go of ego control.

And so we have a recursive feedback loop between ego control and creativity.

So it is like a conversation between your ego and your creativity. Or it is like a dance between ego control and authentic creativity.

And so the next interesting question is, what is the quality of the dance?

Or simply, would you care to dance?

The I is not there, Victor.
You raise your hand?