Ir al contenido principal

Words and Concepts: Being an Ignorant - Does it make me Innocent or Guilty? (Day 60)

Within this post I am going to share a question that I have been expressing while being with some workmates, friends and family with regards to the word Ignorance.

The question goes as it follows: Does being an Ignorant make me Innocent or Guilty?

I have heard that being an Ignorant makes you Innocent, just like a child when he/she is discovering the world and sometimes “makes mistakes” without knowing how to manage a specific event, because he/she had never experienced it before.

But, let’s have a look at the definition of Ignorant:

Ignorant / Adjective:

1. Lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned.
2. Uninformed; unaware.
3. Lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact.

How have I experienced this in my life? The other day I had to buy new tires for my car and my dad said he wanted to go with me. 

For you to know a little bit more about my dad: He is very organized, he always writes down the prices of everything and he knows where to buy the cheapest things in order to save money/not unnecessarily waste money. I could say he is well informed towards the things he participates in.

Well, it was going to be the first time I had to buy tires. To me they all looked the same, but soon I realized that there are different models, brands, sizes, etc. So I extrapolated the tires thing to what I do; play the guitar. When you want to buy strings for your guitar you have different sizes, brands, colors, models, etc. so probably for a person who has never bought strings before, they all look the same. 

This happens when we are going to buy/do something for the first time, so we could say that we are all Ignorant at a certain level, because as long as we experience ourselves with new stuff, we will be acquiring more knowledge/information/wisdom and we will stop being ignorant at those points once we have already faced them - apparently.

Now - Let’s imagine I go alone and completely Ignorant to buy the tires for my car and I lack of knowledge and information. Then after buying the tires I realize I bought the wrong size and the car feels so heavy that it makes it hard to drive. 

Should I say that am I an innocent being or a guilty one?

I could probably say “I’m Innocent, because it was the first time I was going to buy tires, so I am just learning”.

And I could also say “I’m Guilty, because I knew I was lacking of knowledge. I didn’t investigate more, therefore it was my fault”.

Both sentences sound honest. Probably I would be Innocent and Guilty at the same time if I go completely ignorant to buy the tires for my car.

Let’s have a look at the words Innocent and Guilt:

Innocent / Adjective

1. Not involving evil intent or motive
2. Free from moral wrong; without sin; pure
3. Uninformed or unaware; ignorant

Guilt / Noun

1. The fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or penal law; culpability
2. A feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc.

And just to add a little bit more ; the Antonym of the word “Guilt” is “Innocent”, therefore, it’s a polarity manifestation. One concept cannot exist without the other and vice versa.

So - What word better defines when you are Ignorant instead of Guilty or Innocent? - Accomplice. 

Let’s see now the definition of Accomplice:

Accomplice / Noun

1. One who participates in the commission of a crime without being the principal actor.
2. A person who helps another in committing a crime 
3. One who assists a lawbreaker in a wrongful or criminal act.

Why do I say that Ignorance is more related to an Accomplice than to Innocence or Guilt? 

Because when one is going to participate in something “new” or that never did before, one has the (Self) Responsibility to be aware in order to see a new opportunity to learn something.

I am not saying that to be more informed or educated means to acquire all the knowledge and information of the world- that’s impossible. - It’s only necessary to be clear about what we are doing so as to avoid experiencing this feeling of remorse or guilt as a negative manifestation as a consequence or even justify yourself saying that you are Innocent, because you think, believe and perceive that you haven’t done anything wrong, therefore you think you are still positive and you want to remain there, because you don’t want to face yourself.

The Accomplice is a secondary participant. It’s the one who delegates his/her responsibility to the system and then he/she can say “I didn’t commit the crime I was just there, I participated, but it wasn’t my idea. I never thought this would end up like this. I am innocent”. Therefore, being an Accomplice/Ignorant places you in a position where you have to use Free Choice wherein you can define yourself as Innocent (Positive) or Guilty (Negative) and we all know what that entails. - If you don’t… are you Innocent or Guilty?

The Accomplice could also be the one who has no clear direction. He/she is only following something/someone because he/she needs to get something and the action of only "following" and not "leading", gives the perception that one is innocent, because he/she was guided/persuaded/cheated. 

The Follower does not dare to "Lead", because he/she has placed himself/herself in an inFEARior position and tries to get something through the leading of another one, without allowing self to expand his/her real utmost potential. Therefore, he/she is just living something through someone, but not as self because it depends on something/somebody else to make it exist = it's not real as One.

This is what I have learned in the last few weeks. I am not saying this is the truth. It’s just that it makes sense to me. You don’t have to beLIEve me. Doubt it. Investigate on your own. 


Entradas populares de este blog

Getting Angry with Students (Day 30)

Within my job as a teacher I can remember a few moments in which I took things personal, but they happened during my first year. Now, I am on my third year as a teacher and it's hard for me to get angry with students, because I prefer to address the issue through communication and agreements.
Today, I got angry with a student and I didn't even realize it until another student that was next to me said "teacher, don't get angry".
The scenario went as it follows:
Students were presenting oral reports. Before they start, I take the time to tell the class that they have to be quiet while their classmates are performing, because I have to assess them and if there's too much noise, I can't hear very well.
It was hard to me to keep them completely quiet today - teachers know that not all lessons with the same class work the same due to different factors -. So, I had to constantly stop and say "guys, be quiet. Your classmates are performing". That happened d…

When You See Only What You Want To See (Day 162)

Someone made an observation about me after communicating with them a couple of times. They noticed that I tend to see only what I want to see; meaning, that I understand things in the wrong way.

At first I was within myself like “But, how can that be possible if I try to be objective when I observe or listen to the information being shared?”, until today while watching a video and then, when giving it a second watch, I realized that “Hey, the first time I watched the video I understood something completely different to what I am understanding now”.
So, I asked myself “Why did that happen?” and in self-honesty I can say that I was not fully aware of what I was doing. I was watching the video, but at the same time having a chat and also concerned about a problem I had. 
It’s like for moments I am paying attention, but then I go into my mind. Then, I get back to my body/awareness and I listen to the information and ‘understand what I want to understand’ or what it’s related to what I was t…

Mr. Nice [Day 174]

I read a conversation between two people where they were talking about me. Person A was sharing a ‘problem’ that had had with me, while Person B was judged by me as Mr. Nice, because they were not supporting Person A, but adding more to the problem. What I mean by ‘adding more’ = no practical support, but continue talking about the same thing, without a solution, but only supporting Person A’s words without questioning them.

What I didn’t like was that for instance Person A was saying stuff like “He said/did this and that, fuck him”, while Person B went “Yes, that’s too bad,he is wrong, I understand what you are going through. Fuck him”, without even knowing me in person, without even talking to me once at least. So, I went within myself “This person thinks they know me? Plus, Person A’s arguments were an interpretation of the events, so Person B was basically reacting to Person A’s reaction. That’s why I say it was not supportive, but reactive.
Why did I judge Person B as ‘Mr. Nice’? …