Luna,
et al,
Especially in reading your most recent post, I think I am with you. So at what point does it become necessary to introduce
the deus ex machina? At what point will our explanations
break down? Is it not possible to hold a worldview based on
scientific/literal knowledge, where
sacred knowledge helps bridge a gap or two, but does not
in & of itself become the substitute - for scientific knowledge?
At what point can your
Wisdom Knowledge become
rational knowledge, especially if we subject it to
scientific critieria, and perhaps also consult any existing
sacred knowledge available?
As you can see, what I'm getting at is really kind of a
synthetic knowledge, which you yourself speak of in your posts. Imho, this is as far as many of us get, but I do not think this is as far as knowledge goes. My philosophical background, and strong interest in epistemology, led me awhile back to consider
yet another category of knowledge, if you will, which has yet to be mentioned - except possibly where you say,
"if that divine revelation is personally received, then it may or may not also be wisdom, depending exactly what the belief is about (i.e., personal or community)."
(But what, precisely, constitutes the "yardstick?" )
One teacher speaks of this as
straight knowledge, while others simply call it
the Spiritual Intuition. In the East, it has been associated with
Buddhi, a faculty of conscious awareness
greater than the mind, and potentially 100% accurate, though interpretation must come through the more limited and error-prone consciousness of the mind, emotions, and brain. But
at least theoretically,
we can know.
Is this merely a
belief? Mmmm, I don't think so. It has been a long time since I tried playing these "logic-games" with others ... but if we proceed
carefully, I think we can
always arrive - at the same point! But is that what we want to do?
As I say, things are a bit
foggy for me now, but I do recall that the philosophers love to ask questions like, "
How do we know anything?" And the trick nature, or slippery part of that question - is that,
from a certain point of view, it is indeed true that we know
nothing.
We don't even have to adopt a thoroughly Eastern approach toward philosophy, Wisdom, & such in order to realize that
our 5 objective senses (and even the
6th/7th, as-yet-imperfectly-developed ones)
do not constitute "knowing,"
not even in your
scientific/literal sense. This is because they are part of a 3-part equation with which
every one of us has had experience.
Knower-knowing-known. The senses are the
knowing part, the apparently-external world(s) is the
known part. But that still leaves the
Knower - and accuracy of knowledge in the
three worlds (mind, emotions, body) is
elusive.
Some folks are
more convinced of these various distinctions than others. But the same distinction applies in the world of passion-pleasure-emotions, as well as within the world of mind. Just try
distinguishing between
Knower-knowing-known during really good sex, or say ... while you're completely intoxicated. In the former case,
why would you want to do that!?! And in the latter,
could you, if you tried? So that says something about desire, or the factors that influence
just how much and
in what ways we do or don't want to
know/understand someone or something - or ourself. True?
The sage Patanjali speaks of the
"modifications of the thinking principle," where
mind is still the
faculty of consciousness which is apprehending someone, something, or some experience. A definite disctinction
still exists at the level of mind between
Thinker, the
act of thinking, and the
object of our thought - which we can also call
Knower, knowing, and
known. The "knowledge" may be imperfect, incomplete, or altogether inaccurate at this level, but we should not become confused just because the
object of thought or knowledge might happen to be
internal rather than
external ("objective"). After all,
which of these is
"really" the truer reality?
Aha. The wrong question, unless this is about
ontology, but it's not. The question is one of
epistemology - "
How do we know,
what we know?" And I
do think we can
know things, rather than "merely"
believe them. And while up to this point I
do think relativism applies, it is at the level of the
Intuition, or "straight knowledge," that relativism breaks down, since finally, we
know a thing (person, experience, etc.) for
its true, inherent, and absolute value. Nevermind that
there are no absolutes, save One, at that level/point ... "relativism" in the way that I think many people at CR (or of strong religious faith) are disturbed by that term, disappears.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Here's how[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
Professor H. Wildon Carr defines the intuition
[/FONT]
"the apprehension by the [Knower] of reality directly as it is, and not under the form of a perception or a conception, nor as an idea or object of the reason, all of which by contrast are intellectual apprehension."[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] - Philosophy of Change, page 21. (emphasis mine)
[/FONT]
Direct apprehension: What would that be like? How are we to
understand what such an
understanding would be?
Hint: Only
mind divides, reduces, and dissects ... in a
non-synthetic and
non-wholistic effort to
understand the relation(ship) between
Knower and
known. The limitation, is thus the
form of "knowing." At best,
Inspired Mind can
synthesize, apply
Insight, and perceive a
Harmony between otherwise
disparate parts, or components, of the/a
whole.
Intuitive apprehension alone, can
grasp the true nature
of that whole, as it exists
before it is divided & dissected by
mind. And for this kind of
straight-knowledge to happen, the very
distinction between
Knower & Known must dissappear (or
not appear). The result?
There is only "knowing," in which
Self IS. And while this seems thoroughly Eastern to some, it is only because the Western mind is much more firmly rooted on, and founded in, scientific rationalism.
Only the Western
Mystics have presented to us the notion of
Straight Knowledge, yet with them, it is always
steeped in religious dogma, or couched in the language and symbolism of
esoteric traditions. Why not simply bring this
out into the open? After all,
if there really is such a faculty,
will we not all, surely, discover it someday? Shall we not grok, too ... as our Water-Brother Michael once did?
I hope so.
andrew
