It seems to me that some of us use this term differently than others. I see that, according to this definition, my own use of the term should be made more clear. For that, I apologize, and would like to clarify my usage (I had hoped it would be clear from the context, but after reading this definition, I fear it might not be so).

I have, on this forum and elsewhere, always used "ignorance" in the domain-specific sense, or "in relation to a particular subject", as the definition puts it. As such, I do not consider the term a pejorative at all, but merely a descriptive term. If one has not had exposure to a given body of information, one is ignorant of it. I see, however, that the first definition of the word above is "the want of knowledge in general". Given the limited exposure to one another on this forum, I would think that calling a person "ignorant" in this sense would indeed be pejorative, and would serve not as an accurate description (it cannot be, with our limited exposure to one another) but only as an insult. If Iacchus or any else here have believed that I called them "ignorant" in the general sense of the word, then I sincerely apologize to them. I assure you, I meant the specific usage, or I'd have said "stupid" instead, and I know I have not called any here stupid.

I will try to use other words or phrases to convey my meaning, but if a sentence only works with "ignorance", please understand the meaning I use.

Yes, the main complaint I have here is that it suggests I'm the one who's in want or need of something, when I can assure you it's not like that at all. It's like what's wrong with me (as if there really was) for not understanding what you understand, and I don't appreciate that at all ... which, is basically all I continue to hear from you guys or, so it seems. Thanks.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Digital,

It was thoughtful of you to make the clarification. I really didn't think you were referring to Iacchus as ignorant (not blatantly so anyway). The word sounds a little harsh but I didn't think you were using the word in a hurtful way. I wouldn't have thought that anyway because obviously Iacchus is far from ignorant and I think everyone would attest to that fact. He's a little obsessed with posting and I think he should spend more time in the fresh air (golf, for instance) but who am I to talk--I have my own obsessions, so who am I to say? I just recently got rid of my credit cards, so there you are.

He is far from stupid, yes. But in the manner in which I used the word, he is by definition ignorant--as we all are, in areas we are unfamiliar with. It is absolutely not a hurtful word when used in that context. I see, though, that both you and Iacchus still think of it that way, so it is regrettable that I used it.

No, Iacchus, it does not say you need something, merely that you do not have it. I am completely ignorant of the Chinese languages, and it makes no difference at all.

I do not at all say there is anything "wrong with you"...but you are, by the definition of the word, ignorant of the literature on dreaming (this by your own admission--unless you have been doing some study in the meantime). This does not mean you know nothing about dreaming, but simply that you have not read the literature that science has accumulated on the subject.

You may continue to hear it as an insult, but it was not intended as one. I have said only what you have already said, that you have not read the scientific literature on dreams. I believe it would add greatly to your understanding of the subject, and I have a hard time understanding why you would choose to continue your non-exposure to a literature which directly speaks to a topic of interest to you. (note the verbal gymnastics in that sentence, in order to avoid using the word "ignorance". There is a legitimate call for that word here, and it is quite unfortunate that you equate it with me calling you stupid.)