When we first shared the idea of a book on Not Knowing with people, the feedback tended to be negative:
“What’s good about not knowing things?”
“I don’t see any benefit in ignorance”
“I’d prefer to know people than not know them”
“Not knowing means I’m vulnerable, I can get cheated on if I’m naive”
“Why would I want to look illiterate, a buffoon in front of others?”
“I’m lost enough as it is, why would I want to get more lost?”
It follows that if knowing is good, then its opposite is bad. It’s a simple matter of logic for most people. But when we use the term Not Knowing we aren’t talking about the common view of those two words, but rather the ancient “apophatic tradition” used to describe what something was “not” ...