My words construed as words of wisdom, by others, especially coming from Sodium and She, is very humbling. Humility can be helpful, but sometimes can be used as excuses for not taking the next step.  This may be were I find myself in many facets of my life. Aside from being a “bonyfied procrastinator”. 

Please accept my appreciable feelings toward both of your complements, no; thank you.  It was good timing, for I was beginning to feel the need to drop out from Truth Digging posts, must say the political race has become a mind embalming injection in some strange degree, encompassing our minds and our lives. Like any addict, cold turkey is a weak persons substitute for control, I would prefer to wean myself from the teat of political discourse slowly.  As I stated before, our discussion on wisdom was very refreshing, even found both sides of the Fenwick discourse interesting.

She and Sodium, I take your requests heavily and with respect and will post as “Sodium does” when time permits.

Sodium and Leefeller – To try to express my view, I have always had the highest respect for Leefeller as well as you Sodium.  Leefeller has the unique ability to synthesize popular idioms with the profoundest wisdom of the ages and it always astonishes me how directly to the intellect it goes.  He displays an extraordinary high level of humor often combined with homilies that almost everybody has heard in other contexts before so he makes his points accessible at once.  I thank Leefeller again and ask him to please keep being so kind to bring that ring of truth, as the ancients once said, to us who are often at poverty’s door in our thinking.  This is a special kind of wisdom unusually found in our midst.

Once again a lovely explanation that I can appreciate.  Seeing the value of metaphor is an art in itself and you have that skill, Sodium, nonpareil.  I recently made a study of the distinctions within the rubric of metaphor:  metaphor, analogy, simile, trope, allegory, etc., and for those who wish to be able to use these literary devices well, I suggest they do the same research.  I resist giving the website since I believe you ought to do your own search.  The information will stick better, as in mental taffy.  Now to intuit to which category mental taffy falls into is your challenge.

It is always fascinating to see how clever one can use a metaphor or trope to bring to mind difficult or obscure concepts.  Wisdom and truth are two of these elusive concepts and any sound and intentionally good help given toward insight is most welcome at least by me.

Ho hum again, FENWICK.  When I once said you were a mean man, I neglected to notice how picayune you were.  I don’t mind admitting mistakes.  I did make a mistake using “cursive” rather than the word truncate.  I was very rushed this morning but no matter. I don’t ever mind being corrected.  It’s part of life and being human.  And you are sooooo right about more and over. Again, human error.  Moreover, I can be a real shithead sometimes.  But you are a turd too.  FENWICK says: Your x,y,z, model could just as well by did you mean “be a” three card monty or the three shell and a pea game. Thus, You have demonstrated there is truth in folly. Seems the picky picky FENWICK Jamacamistakes too.  So sollie, chum.  I also admit to being horrid, I find I am not horrid enough sometimes.  Oh well, I’ll find other times to make up for it.  And I am just as bad as I can be. 

I deem that you are not worthy of any further explanations about wisdom, or trooth, as you are unable to fathom objective models for subjective states of mind nor are you deserving of any further comments from me.  But if you have to respond do please refer to me henceforth as Your Highness (oh, and anything else you might find joyfully disrespectful).

I correct myself,
What you have demonstrated with the model and your barbarian defense of it is, “There is wisdom in folly.” Or vice versa.

You remind of the little girl in the childhood rhyme,
When she was good, she was very, very good,
But when she was bad, she was horrid.

When they start throwing around their degrees and credentials and point to everything else except the argument at hand, then you know you’re getting close to or have already struck bottom. 
“The blathering adolescent you are speaking with here does in fact have advanced degrees including philosophy and logic and was a university professor for over a decade.” By the way, the correct grammar is for more than a decade, not over. 
After the slurs and insults:
“Your verbal offense is sophomoric at best and reminds me of a sandbox retort, one without any essential meaning or import.  If you could further the discussion rather than take a tantrum of a petulant child,...”
“If you are going to argue well, please be prepared to provide at least the appearance you know what the f*ck you are talking about.  Try not to show how lazy you are in your thinking.  It makes me think my comparison of you to my favorite and precocious nephew was premature.”
“I also suggest you catch the next tornado to OZ to see about getting a brain.”
Your x,y,z, model could just as well by three card monty or the three shell and a pea game. Thus, You have demonstrated there is truth in folly.
PS. BTW In another post, “cursive” means a type of handwriting.  You ought to take an ESL course.
Report this

Ho hum… yawn
It is unfortunate you are not up to the level of sparring I thought you were FENWICK.  Your verbal offense is sophomoric at best and reminds me of a sandbox retort, one without any essential meaning or import.  If you could further the discussion rather than take a tantrum of a petulant child, it might be worthwhile to continue seeking a better definition for wisdom and truth.  All you offer, however, is a pathetic generic 8th grade algebra book, a physics book, and a dictionary without any specific reference from any of them.  If you are going to argue well, please be prepared to provide at least the appearance you know what the f*ck you are talking about.  Try not to show how lazy you are in your thinking.  It makes me think my comparison of you to my favorite and precocious nephew was premature.  The blathering adolescent you are speaking with here does in fact have advanced degrees including philosophy and logic and was a university professor for over a decade. 

In an effort to clarify how the model works, we will offer one last time some elucidation on what has become a kind of de facto collaboration between Sodium and Shenonymous for a what was intended as a pleasant visual model of an explanation of wisdom and truth.  I suppose if we were to ask what the shape of wisdom or truth were, we would have to deal with a geometric model.  But for the question at hand, I am directing you to the field of study known as subjective logic.

Subjective logic is relevant when the problem to be analyzed can be characterized by a large degree of uncertainty and incomplete knowledge.  Wisdom falls in this category.  In this way, subjective logic becomes a probabilistic logic for uncertain probabilities. The advantage is that uncertainty is carried through the analysis and is made explicit in the results so that it is possible to distinguish between certain and uncertain conclusions.  Wisdom is one of those subjective cognitive abilities that is often measured by standardized intelligence tests, it is an attribute that might be able to be improved with experience, but is not teachable since the idiosyncratic ability of insight is involved.  Within subjective logic, the x, y, z model is often used for a probabilistic graphical model, Sodium’s model, it can also be described as a Bayesian network to represent the intersection of what wisdom is and an example of what it is as an incidence of truth.  If this explanation is beyond your comprehension, I can only suggest that you familiarize yourself with subjective logic and Bayesian networking.

I also suggest you catch the next tornado to OZ to see about getting a brain.

Shenonymous,

You’re talking ragtime.  And you’re right.  I don’t understand that.
But your adolescent blather reveals something about the Internet, I think.  The Internet gives everyone access to a tremendous amount of writing on serious subject in all areas of study.  I think that some users of that information think they know more than they do, or in western slang, too smart by half.
I hope you are not doing any drugs while you are on this pursuit, and if you are, you should stop and get counselling. 
You should expound these theories to a level-headed counsellor that you trust to get an honest answer.

FENWICK – Thinking in the abstract can be elusive.  Models are just that, abstractions, not one-to-one ratios of reality. They just provide a structure on which one may think to extrapolate perhaps a way to understand complex or perplexing notions.  In this case, the model is functioning as a simile not an exact representation of a concretion of wisdom on the x axis, the example of wisdom on a y axis, and a resulting truth on a z axis.  It was merely a slight indication of how to see a path from wisdom to truth.  To make it more than what it is obviously is an attempt at over-sophistication, at which you succeed.  And an apparent attempt at aggressive swaggering.  It is really unbecoming.  To make a distinction between metaphor, analogy, simile, and allegory, I refer you to the interesting essay http://www.philosophy.su.se/personal/staffanstexter/me taphors.htm

Sodium, and we can presume Sodium is a mature male, gave a simple model of how to think about a subjective idea in an objective way.  The measure of how effective the model was is the degree to which it got you to think, which might have been a painful thing to do beyond simple decision-making, like hmmmm, do I want a Heineken or a Bud. hmmmmm? Gee, they say Bud makes you wiser.  hmmmmm.  Do I need to be more of a wiseass than I already am?  hmmmmm

As a representative, z, whatever is the result, is a description, rather, that is, it is just a representation of Truth.  But let’s do take the capital T off of Truth and make it a truth with a lower case truth since THE TRUTH would be the ideal to which all truths attempt to conform and to which the definition most closely resembles but which defies any perfect attainment, for if it does, please don’t hog the example.  I suppose you could take the Wisdom test.  But be careful not to believe whatever your score turns out to be is a measure of THE TRUTH about yourself.  Seems to me that the only one running in place is FENWICK.

As a friend of mine used to say, “In all seriousity,...)
To consider Sodium’s idea, you need the following:
An 8th grade algebra book
A high school physics book
A dictionary.

In the algebra book, look up the description of three-dimensional graphs with x,y,z axes, and especially look at the figures that demonstrate such a graph.  In the physics book, look up, vectors and resultants and consider their dynamic relationship.  In the dictionary, look up “quantitative” and “qualitative”.  Consider the differences. 
Now in the description, Sodium defines 3 axes.  X is the def of wisdom, y is the example of wisdom and z represents the Truth.  He refers to z as the resultant.  Which is it, the resultant or the z-axis? Then he or she says, the resultant is always equidistant from x and y.  What is being described here is just a static drawing of three vectors or 3 axes, I guess it’s take your pick.
How do you assign them value or some quantitative parameter that can used to evaluate the resultant?  The answer is any quantitative assignment would be completely arbitrary.
Finally, considering the repetitive graphical representation that this exercise would obtain, Einstein said something about doing the same thing over and over expecting something different and getting the same result is the definition of psychosis.
Say, hi to Rocco for me!
PS Shenonymous, one thing I noticed in your writing a few weeks ago was you actually took the time to read all those posts, consider them and then write a critique on each one.  I thought it was presumptuous at first, but then I realized the caring that must motivate you.  With your gift of writing and your facility with words and ideas, your critiques are very humorous and insightful. You should consider a book, if you ahven’t already written one.

Why we wouldn’t think anything was rotten (bad) about you FENWICK, not your meaning, not anything, not at all, particularly since the lead between your ears is a better natural weight to drop you off the Brooklyn Bridge than the cement blocks my Uncle Rocco would use around your ankles.  I don’t mean that in a bad way either.  I meant it in a metaphysical way.

Oh and yup, Robert did appropriate Dylan Thomas’s name when he was thinking about who was going to ring his doorbell, then after that he changed his name to Bob.  There’s nothing whacky ‘bout that.  And who said infinite regresses are a bad thing, like a joke within a joke within a joke within a joke within a joke within a joke within a joke..... But then some abstract discussion might be fruitful if you fell plumb in the middle of one.

And I don’t mean anything below in a bad way.

I just re-read the posts, and I finally got it all inside my head and I came to this section:

“The Resultant “Truth”,(The Z-axis):
=====================================
Since there will always be some kind of contetions
rotating around the definitions of wisdom and the examples of wisdom and since the whole concept and characteristics of wisdom aimed at exploring the road to the “truth”,one is compelled to draw the Z-axis as
a straight line from the connecting point of the X-axis and Y-axis with equal distance from both.In other words,regardless of the degree of contentions
about the definitions and examples of wisdom,the
“Truth Of Wisdom” still exists somewhere between what
was defined as wisdom and what was stated as an example of wisdom.”
If the resultant originates at 0, 0, 0 and always remains equidistant from x and y, then, in other words, what you do to get to the Truth is you just draw a three dimensional x, y, x graph and then you draw another one, then another one, then another one, etc.  I’d rather try to get the lint out of my navel.
That’s completely whacky.  Are you selling something on the Internet by any chance?
As for Robert Allen Zimmerman, that not the same Robert Allen Zimmerman who was born in Hibbing MN in 1941, is it?
If it is, then I’ll be damned.  I’d be willing to bet he took the name Dylan from Dylan Thomas. 

As far as filling all space and substance go, they are meant in a metaphysical nature.  If you cannot think about a subject unless it has weight and takes up space, then any abstract discussion would fruitless.

Sodium,

You comments have made sense in the expansively dense empty space between me ears. Using dimensions as layers in a model almost clears it up for me in a abstract way. 

Thank You,

She and Sodium, since I have a tendency to employ levity when others are being serious, my intention is not to be mean spirited.  My apologies if I offended either of you, sometimes I over do it? 

If I had been on the Titanc, I would have been thrown off the ship by the captain for saying “Fine mess you got us into Ollie” after he ran into the iceberg.

The first thing that came to mind upon reading Fenwick’s comment about wisdom filling all space and what it could mean was the space between the ears which for many is usually empty or gets filled with hot smelly air.  Ergo, my tiny poem.  Now filling that habitually empty space with any substantial thought, if thought indeed could be substantial, since the word substantial implies substance and the word substance means something that has mass and occupies space, in other words, is filled with matter, one who only has hot smelly air between his ears may commence to pursue exchanging that hot smelly air with something that matters, and that could be an instance of three-dimensional wisdom.

And in the words of that wise Mr. Zimmerman, Times they are a-changin. 

Come gather round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
Youll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin
Then you better start swimmin
Or youll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance wont come again
And dont speak too soon
For the wheels still in spin
And theres no tellin who
That its namin.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Dont stand in the doorway
Dont block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled (which could very well mean a bathroom stall)
Theres a battle outside
And it is ragin.
It’ll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And dont criticize
What you cant understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin.
Please get out of the new one
If you cant lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin.

Please heed the call.
Vote Obama/Biden.

She,

Words of wisdom, expected if not anticipated; further thought suggests, we should pursue this from the Physic angle, quite different from the 45 degree angle Fenwick was talking about earlier. This may turn out to be quite mind boggling and could even exceed expectations and capabilities of human intellect.

Seems like, Bob Dylan, doancha agree,
to see which way the wind blows,
a fart would do the trick,
everybody knows. 

Never really thought about it before, but how many dimensions is a fart?

Now you all expected that, didn’t you?

You mean something like this,
“Since it seems to be insufficiently valuable to be worth your time, effort, or interest (has issues), that is, it is worthless, just dump the word wisdom.  It could be a real f*cking albatross and probably wouldn’t affect you significantly anyway.  It is kind of an old fashioned word with hardly any contemporary utility, like the words ‘morals’ or ‘authenticity.’

It’s so simple to be wise.  Just think of something stupid to say and then don’t say it. “

To paraphrase Bob Dylan, “You don’t a three dimensional would-be definition of “wisdom” to know which way the wind blows.”

If it is any help to you, think of wisdom as filling all space.

Since it seems to be insufficiently valuable to be worth your time, effort, or interest (has issues), that is, it is worthless, just dump the word wisdom.  It could be a real f*cking albatross and probably wouldn’t affect you significantly anyway.  It is kind of an old fashioned word with hardly any contemporary utility, like the words ‘morals’ or ‘authenticity.’

It’s so simple to be wise.  Just think of something stupid to say and then don’t say it.

Fenwick,

I love writing in small print, but it was not I. Many years ago I met a fellow named, Rest Stop John, he is sort of like the Johnnie Apple seed of rest rooms all around the nation, he wanders around sowing his words of wisdom in rest rooms.  Actually he is more popular than Joe the Plumber.  Occasionally they let him into the Whitehouse to use the restrooms, it seems Bush acquires many of his brainstorms after leaving the restroom.  I never stated Rest Stop John was the brightest light in the room.  Since Rest Stop John does not own a computer nor have access to the web, he uses rest stop walls to express himself, as we do here on TD, without the interaction.  I have seen his work everywhere even in Canada.  Wonder if their is a Mrs. John?

She,

Thanks for the grammar updates, for some reason, I take issue with the word wisdom being a noun?

I took the writings on “Wisdom” to the lavoratory (Emphasis on the second syllable) to read in relative quiet.  Before I began to peruse the posts, I noticed a mark on the side of the stall with an arc emanating from it arcing forward and down.  At the end of the arc I noticed some writing in small print.  I had to bend all the way over to read it.  It said, “You are now shitting at a 45-degree angle.”
I think the most I can hope for is a sort of wisdom like Chaucey’s in “Being There” or Forrest Gump’s.
I think I’m out of coffee.  Worked for Leefeller.

A wise decision, Leefeller.  But if we may, we will take your pocket-sized essay on the words wise and wiser on a small adjectival pilgrimage so we are not left in the dark.  Seeing that this forum is gentler and less vicious than the other ones at the moment, I hope it is all right to play a little bit here because some levity needs to be injected in otherwise boiling Truthdig scenes elsewheres. 

In our language there is a grammatical form of an adjective or adverb which indicates the degree a person or thing has as a quality greater or lesser in magnitude than another and which is called the ‘comparative’ form; and when the adjectival modifier points to the highest or greatest measure, it is called the ‘superlative.’

Now the comparative of the word wise is wiser, and the superlative is wisest.  It is a well-known fact that some men are considered wise, (and just for the sake of brevity, we will leave women out of this altogether since everybody knows (including Leonard Cohen) that women’s wisdom is a function of the virtue known as prudence, which has an association with wisdom but is distinct in that it is concerned solely with knowledge, where wisdom is concerned with action; and that all virtue is regulated by prudence, such is the province of women who love to regulate everything), and most often these wise men are called wise guys, and by another name are known as wise asses.  Other men, in comparison with wise guys, are wiser guys, and by this comparative are more wise asses, or to commit the sin of redundancy, are… wiser asses.  Then we come to the wisest guys of all, the superlatively wisest asses, which as a wise acre I might add, you very quickly and sharply pointed out was George Bush and numerous other unspecified politicians. To bring up the subject of wise acre, however, would take this petite treatise to some other field of possibilities so we will wisely stop while we are ahead.  And my sympathies to anybody who runs out of coffee beans.

She,

Your Philosophers 101 mini course requires a response. 

“How many philosophers does it take to change a light-bulb”?

Must say the meaning of changing a light-bulb should not be taken lightly, but at this time, I will step back instead, and discuss and try to answer the question you asked, regarding my statement on the meaning of wisdom in connection of the two words “wise” and “wiser”.

Wise and wiser has qualifications relative to each other only as perceived or intended by the one doing the perceiving, for both happen to be an adjectives. Wise and wiser do not really have to be searching for the meaning of truth like wisdom.  Wise can be used to suggest a person as “none the wiser”.  Meaning not knowing more than before.  Wise could be construed, to actually mean quite the moron, case in point President Bush and numerous politicians.  Wise in a positive light, can mean responding sensibly to something or having or showing experience, but can even mean only one subject, not really all encompassing.  Wiser is used to qualify wise, many of us already know this, for example we know what did not make Bud wiser.  Since I am out of coffee beans, which for me is a very major calamity, I have to cut this post short and may not finish it later.

Shudder me not, FENWICK but here is a website that might help you understand. http://web.media.mit.edu/~dustin/WhatIsUnderstanding.html
“Understanding is the ability to connect a representation to many other representations. If you understand something in only one or two ways, you scarcely understand it at all.

According to Marvin Minsky you understand things when you have redundant connections and alternative routes, so that when one line of thinking fails, you are not stuck.  Who is Marvin Minsky? A rather famous MIT Cognitive Scientist.

Here is something that might give an example of understanding philosophers:

How many philosophers does it take to change a lightbulb?

Pragmatist: Hey, if holding the bulb while four of your friends turn the chair works for you, then that is the right way to change a lightbulb for you.

Empiricist: We can’t know how to change a lightbulb, but we can make lists of how big it is, the wattage, the thickness of the glass, the composition of the filiment…

Thomist: When we examine the concept of “lightbulb” one requirement is that it light up. Hence, if it does not light up, it is not a lightbulb. If it is not a lightbulb, there is no reason to change it.

Aristotelean: Changing of lightbulbs can be divided into: manipulation of the old bulb, and manipulation of the new bulb. Bulb manipulation, in turn, can be divided into: Turning motion, raising motion, dropping motion. We cannot understand motion.

Kantian: By understanding the lightbulb-in-itself, it becomes, for us, a new lightbulb.

Platonist: The closer our lightbulb gets to the Ideal Lightbulb, the less it requires changing.

Socrates:  What is the nature of a lightbulb such that it even knows it is a lightbulb?

Dialectical Materialist: None. The lightbulb changes because of it’s own internal contradictions.

Skeptic: We can’t know if we’re changing the lightbulb. We can’t know if changing the lightbulb is an improvement. In fact, we can’t really know if it’s dark. Especially with the lights out.

Hegelian: When the lightbulb becomes irrational, it ceases to exist. Insofar as a new lightbulb sheds light on the Absolute Idea, it becomes a rational lightbulb, and comes into being as part of our striving for the rational.

Post-structuralist: By rejecting neo-Enlightment notions that privilege “light,” we can conceptualize the relationship between optically-oriented envisioning and those signifiers that address interpretations of post-colonial modernism as an established text within the framework of which, intertextually, we are lead to reject any causal relationship between the operands and the motivators.

Memetics: The speed at which the notion ("a burned out lightbulb should be replaced") has spread is inexplicable unless one looks at the idea itself.

Existentialist: Why change the lightbulb?

Buddhist:  Would changing the lightbulb lead to Nirvana?

Leefeller:  What lightbulb?

I’ve copied most of the entries in this thread.  I found it impossible to grasp the issues of wisdom at a casual reading, peering into a PC screen.  I looked up Monica’s (?) website and it is interesting as well.
One thing did pop out though was the lack of the word, “understanding” in any of the definitions, as in, “Get wisdom, and with all thy getting, get understanding.”
Now before you shudder, Shenonymous, I am looking at this Proverb from the bible not as the word of God, but as a human attempt at wisdom.  But it seems to me that understanding, grasping first the principles of the subject and the context under which it is being considered would be an integral part of wisdom. 
I am going to read the posts between Shenonymous, Sodium and Leefeller on wisdom and at this point, I am going to hope that I can unnerstan’ what y’all are sayin’.

Steve Canyon and Terry and the Pirates say the Illuminati AHs are f**k’n up their air space and that they better brace themselves for a hail of pigsh*t.

lastdaywatchers, October 15 at 2:00 pm #

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom
**************************************************

The repugnance of sane people to skypilot trolls like you is the mark of rationality.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

If luck is preparedness meeting opportunity, then wisdom is where learning meets experience.

Sodium

Or may I call you salty?

Yes,it seems I do many things “Unintentionally”, which seem quite often to turn out plausible. Sorry for being redundant.

Leefeller, She said earlier Wisdom assumes the truth so does not really seek it.  It is through the exercise of wisdom how truth becomes revealed, only through men’s actions and expressions. You said, Defining a wise person, could be any person wiser then [sic] you? What do you mean by wiser?  Are there any wise gals?  I don’t know about wisdom being restricted to man (men).  My cat shows extreme wisdom at times when he runs and hides under the bed when it thunders.  He also knows truth comes out of a can that says turkey feast on it.

Those three wise guys in the bible, were star struck.  Ever wonder how far from the orient they had to travel on camel?  I am not sure where the orient starts and the Middle East begins, excatly.  So, like, “Hey Melchior (one of the wise guys), did you load up enough Budwiser on camel #1?” asks Balthasar.  Now Melchior, Balthasar, and Caspar (the three wise guys) are names from how far to the East?  And Melchior replies, “Yeah, I got us each a 6-pack and a 6-pack for Joe.”

Defining a wise person, could be any person wiser then you?  Hence, the use of “wise guy”.

Wisdom should not be called real, for without man wisdom could not exist, for real wisdom only exists though man.  Subjectivity defines wisdom, only through man, animals do not, I believe have wisdom.  Wisdom seeking truth, suggests wisdom is not static.

In the bible we have three wise guys, they either had a heavy promotion campaign or had cards printed.

leilah, just getting in and relaxing from work, and thinking about the question about wisdom you so splendidly put, I see that Sodium has once again sagaciously given us the benefit of a marvelous explanation about the relationship between wisdom and truth.  It is for me a wonderful incidence of serendipity that I happened onto this forum, for the both of you.

I have given a good deal of thought to the question and so shall add my comments for whatever they might be worth.  If there are others with a different idea, they are welcome to chime in.

On the relationship between wisdom and truth, a working definition of each term needs to be made before a meaningful relationship can be established. 

Sodium gave a somewhat rounded definition of truth showing various paradigms of truth as viewed in the three Abrahamic religions, but refrained from saying exactly what truth means to atheists or agnostics.  The concept of space was offered as a legitimate environment to demonstrate a model of subjective ideas in a confluence, or intersection of wisdom and truth.

In my view, I don’t think wisdom is one of those things that is entirely subjective and my reasoning is because it takes the judgment of others in an external world to say whether or not someone is wise or not, where being wise is the signification of wisdom.  One cannot simply make the claim for oneself.  One can, however, know if some judgment or act was in retrospect wise by checking the external world to see if those judgments or acts were in fact good and asking the question, did it turn out well?  If it did not, it would have to be judged not as a case of wisdom but as folly.

That being said, the subjectivity of wisdom is also descriptive inasmuch as it is a culmination of one’s intelligence, knowledge, perceptiveness, spirituality, penetrating insight, and good judgment distinguishing it from other virtues.  These are mental capacities, awarenesses, mental vitality, and mentally distinguishing abilities, hence are psychological in nature, i.e., subjective, arising or proceeding from a person’s mind. As a kind of knowledge, Wisdom is not just one type of knowledge, but is diverse clear and certain apprehension. What a wise person needs to know and understand constitutes a varied list: the most important goals and values of life and puts that knowledge into practice.

A significant element of the question is to ask whether or not wisdom is subjective and can it be analyzed and exhibited as if it were an objective reality on a graph? If this can be done, it reasonably implies wisdom may be treated as a discrete, or distinct, thing.

As a coordination of knowledge and experience, there are elements that are measurable, specific public knowledges and particular verifiable experiences.  The degrees Sodium talks about are similar to the degrees around the circumference of a circle that are facilitating when working with the concept of angles.  He has given a way to view the subjectivity of wisdom empirically as expressed on an implied 3-dimensional x, y, z graph.  He admonishes that we must not mistake the relationship as illustrated as the graphic form of it, which is only offered as a way to objectively see what is actually subjective. That there is an intersection between the concepts of wisdom and truth will depend entirely on particular instances of wisdom and the truth to which it is wise about.  It would be a matter of application.  I hope Sodium I have understood your comments correctly.

Offering a different, but analogous to the x, y, z, graph, objective model, I refer you to sociologist Monika Ardelt who so much as theorized a Wisdom Scorecard, see
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/magazine/20070430_WISDOM.ht ml?_r=1&oref=login
check it out if you have an intrigue for yourself.  This model also claims that wisdom while a subjective state, may be treated as an objective reality.
I hope leilah, this has helped and not contributed to further confusion.

The problem with aplying graphical analysis to subjective issues as wisdom and truth is that in the end you are left with what appears in the mind’s eye as a spatial relationship.  (Aside, by perpendicular I took it to mean vertical to form a simple x, y, z graph.)
Now a spatial arrangement of truth and wisdom might be misleading to the pursuer.  Do truth and wisdom meet at the origin of x, y, z or does it expand somehow? 
I just heard an interview of with an author who wrote a book on proverbial wisdom from around the world.  Does your method imply that each example of wisdom we are interested in should be graphed and the resultant would tell us what?
I read your post and your exchange with Shenonymous.  I agree with Leefeller.  Both of your posts are mind-expanding. 
What it got me thinking of as an afterword, was democracy.  It’s amazing to me how examples of truth and wisdom (sometimes painful)can create or open up lines of communication with such brilliant thought-provoking people who are willing to take the time to pose a rhetorical question, and those who are capable and willing to respond with such a novel answer.
Pardon my interuption if I am being obtuse.

Oh I almost forgot, there is mail-in voting already going on and we can only trust there are reliable people on the collection and tallying end of things.  Except I’ve learned not to trust anybody, right?  Well, maybe more than a few are trustworthy.  This is a vast country and I would expect the absolutely red states will absolutely fuck with the votes to make sure they stay red, the blue states will have overwhelming votes for Obama but for purple states every polling place and vote counting location will have to be monitored closely.  Too bad this goes on in America.  But voter fraud goes on in every country that has “free” elections.  The criminal fascists are always lurking and stalking.

Sodium, I predict Obama/Biden will win by a landslide, because all those disenfranchised people of color and colorless are going to get themselves out of their normal complacency and into the voting booth and will watch all the voting locations like hawks.  Course those where voting machines are used someone will have to figure out how to make sure there isn’t voting machine hacking.  Also exit polls are going to be matched with voting counts.  Isn’t there something called ACORN at work in your neck of the woods?  Supposedly the Republicans are all up to shitsticks about that group.

Great posts on wisdom by both, Sodium and She,

Agreeing with wisdom or perceived wisdom can define the difference of what is not the truth?  If wisdom is seeking the truth, not agreeing with wisdom means not seeking the truth? 

Opposite word of wisdom defined?  Stupidity, bad judgment, doing desperate things, many words come to mind, is their an antonym to the word wisdom? Politics?

Thanks again, enjoyed the refreshing enlightenment.