4 kinds of things

[Terrapin Station]

Anyway, where does the part that I knew something that I didn't know enter into this? I make an assessment of beauty in each case--I know that when it occurs. So where is the unknown (known) part?

No you do not. Your values of beauty are already in place before you saw these images. You made no assessment, you reacted. So the phenomenon - the mental activity was preconscious. And in fact most of what we do is of that nature.

??? Making the assessment is having the mental content "(I find this) attractive" for example. That's a conscious phenomenon when it happens.

[ken]

There is stuff we don't know we know. This, if it exists, is the most fascinating of the four. I imagine it is something like intuition. What do you think?

When I came to understand stuff like 'Who I am', 'Why we are here', 'What the meaning of Life is', 'How we come to be who we are', and 'Where we are heading', etc., etc., then I realized I already knew these answers and all the other answers to all the meaningful questions in Life, but that not until that realization did I know I already knew the answers previously. None of us are conscious of this fact, that is until we learn how to find the answers to these questions. The actual reason we do not consciously know what is unconsciously known yet is also a realization in of itself, which is self-explanatory and also already known, unconsciously. The stuff most people do not yet know they know is already intuitively known, and is only revealed from the teacher with-in, i.e., in-tuition.

Why would you believe that you already knew the answers, but you "just didn't realize" that you knew the answers? What would count as evidence of that?

Firstly, we have to disregard your use of the word 'believe' here because of my view of that word in regards to Me.

Secondly, because of the way you write you appear to actually believe the contrary of what you are asking for here, so there would be no thing whatsoever that I could supply you with here that would count as evidence to you.

Your strongly held belief that there are no unconscious mental phenomena will not allow you to see any evidence to the contrary. That is just a sad fact about beliefs and believing in them.

If and when you do come to uncover by yourself for example what is actually right and wrong in Life, why we all think and do what we do, and/or what is needed compared to what is just wanted, which shows why you/we are greedy, and you also come to the realization that every other person could be in total agreement with you, then you will KNOW how and why you always already (unconsciously) knew what is that you now do not yet (consciously) know.

One can not provide another with the "answers" to what is already unconsciously known. This is something that is discovered by and for one's self only.

[Terrapin Station]

If and when you do come to uncover by yourself for example what is actually right and wrong in Life,

I don't think there's anything "actually" right and wrong, by the way. I think that's simply an issue of individuals having preferences about interpersonal behavior.

why we all think and do what we do,

"Because that's the way each person's brain works" ultimately.

and/or what is needed compared to what is just wanted,

In my view, needs always hinge on wants.

which shows why you/we are greedy,

I gave my view on that in the recent thread on it.

and you also come to the realization that every other person could be in total agreement with you,

I think that's logically possible but it's obviously not contingently the case.

then you will KNOW how and why you always already (unconsciously) knew what is that you now do not yet (consciously) know.

So I guess that just won't make sense to me. :-p

(Also, I'm already in my 50s for what it's worth.)

[surreptitious57]

One can not provide another with the answers to what is already unconsciously known

Is it actually logically or physically possible for something which is unconscious to be known
given that to possess knowledge of something would require conscious understanding of it?
The notion of unconscious knowledge would therefore be rather oxymoronic would it not?

[creativesoul]

I don't have a problem with the idea of a "known unknown."

A simple example is this: when I get change--coins, I throw them into a jar at home. I take the jar to a change machine occasionally to get bills back instead. When I do this, I don't know how much money is in the jar. But I know there is a definite quantity of money in the jar (or we could say a definte number of each type of coin). So I know that there is something that I don't know.

You don't know X. Let X be the quantity of money in the jar.

You do know Y. Let Y be there is money in the jar.

Where's the so-called 'known unknown'?

[creativesoul]

...because of the way you write you appear to actually believe the contrary of what you are asking for here, so there would be no thing whatsoever that I could supply you with here that would count as evidence to you.

Your strongly held belief that there are no unconscious mental phenomena will not allow you to see any evidence to the contrary. That is just a sad fact about beliefs and believing in them...

Do you not believe what you just wrote?

[creativesoul]

"Known unknowns" is a contradiction in terms, utterly meaningless, or at the very best a very misleading and unnecessarily confusing way to talk which borders upon language abuse. In every example where one claims to be offering a candidate of a known unknown, upon careful examination it quickly becomes very very clear that one doesn't know the unknown at all. Rather, one knows that there are unknowns, but it is never the case that there is a known unknown. It's a verbal sleight of hand, so to speak; the misuse of a category - by definition... necessarily so. The unknown realm - as a category of things we think about - has no content whatsoever that is known.

[Terrapin Station]

I don't have a problem with the idea of a "known unknown."

A simple example is this: when I get change--coins, I throw them into a jar at home. I take the jar to a change machine occasionally to get bills back instead. When I do this, I don't know how much money is in the jar. But I know there is a definite quantity of money in the jar (or we could say a definte number of each type of coin). So I know that there is something that I don't know.

You don't know X. Let X be the quantity of money in the jar.

You do know Y. Let Y be there is money in the jar.

Where's the so-called 'known unknown'?

You know there is some specific quantity of money in the jar, but you don't know that specific quantify. So you know that there's something (that obtains) that you do not know. It's not saying that you know and don't know the same thing. "There is some specific quantity of money in the jar" is not the same thing as the (number that is the) specific quantity. But the latter is unknown, and you can know that you don't know that specific quantity.

[Terrapin Station]

Rather, one knows that there are unknowns

Exactly. It's just another way of saying that.

[surreptitious57]

In every example where one claims to be offering a candidate of a known unknown upon careful examination it quickly becomes very very clear that one does not know the unknown at all. Rather one knows that there are unknowns but it is never the case that there is a known unknown

This is not true of mathematical known unknowns such as :

pi calculated to an infinite number of places
The ratio between the rationals and irrationals
The number of irrationals between any two numbers
The square root of minus one expressed as a number

[creativesoul]

In every example where one claims to be offering a candidate of a known unknown upon careful examination it quickly becomes very very clear that one does not know the unknown at all. Rather one knows that there are unknowns but it is never the case that there is a known unknown

This is not true of mathematical known unknowns such as :

pi calculated to an infinite number of places
The ratio between the rationals and irrationals
The number of irrationals between any two numbers
The square root of minus one expressed as a number

Which ones are known?

[creativesoul]

Rather, one knows that there are unknowns

Exactly. It's just another way of saying that.

You see that that is not a known unknown, right? We can know that there are things that we do not know. That which we do not know is unknown. We can know that there are unknowns. We cannot know an unknown. Thus, there is no such thing as a known unknown. It's a very sloppy and misleading(intentional in some cases) way to talk.

[creativesoul]

Unknown knowns is also a contradiction in terms. Incoherent. Just as known unknowns for much the same reasons...

[surreptitious57]

We can know that there are things that we do not know. That which we do not know is unknown. We can
know that there are unknowns. We cannot know an unknown. Thus there is no such thing as a known unknown

The distinction between knowing that there are unknowns and not knowing a known unknown is superfluous. Because
the knowing pertains to knowing we do not know. Not to what the unknown actually is. Otherwise it would be known

[Terrapin Station]

Rather, one knows that there are unknowns

Exactly. It's just another way of saying that.

You see that that is not a known unknown, right? We can know that there are things that we do not know. That which we do not know is unknown. We can know that there are unknowns. We cannot know an unknown. Thus, there is no such thing as a known unknown. It's a very sloppy and misleading(intentional in some cases) way to talk.

It's not that P is known yet P is unknown, where we're not equivocating. That would indeed be a contradiction. It's just an abbreviated way of saying that we know that P, where P asserts some description, D, where D describes some specific information that we don't know, such as "the exact dollar amount of the coins in the jar."

I don't have a problem with it as a phrase. For one, I don't think there are correct/incorrect ways to say something, only ways that are understandable or not, and this is easy to understand in my opinion. I also do not think there are "literal meanings" that can be different from (conventional) usage.