The concept of disinterested knowledge seems to be a very difficult concept for people to comprehend. It is a simple idea but apparently so alien to our culture that few people can grasp its meaning quickly.
I'm not disputing the simplicity of difficulty of the concept (at least not in this post). Pointing to the simplicty of the concept, or to "our culture's" inability to grasp it, won't help you solve the contradiction between the two claims you're making here. The only way to tackle that, Coberst, is to answer the question. So I'll ask a third time: how do you reconcile the contradiction between your call for self-learners to apply their knowledge to stem cell research, global warming and globalization, on one hand, with your call for a kind of knowledge independent of specific applications, on the other hand?