The Foundation of Knowledge -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greetings my friends! Well, I see you made it back--I'm pleased, because the last chapter was kind of difficult. Unfortunately, things don't get easier from here--at least, not yet. This week, we're continuing our discussion of knowledge, and it can get deep in here. Bad jokes to the side, the question of "How do you know that you know what you know" is an important foundation to the balance of this part of the website. Be at peace, my friends. Sit by the fire and relax. Help yourself to the s'mores and the cider--I brought extra cider, because it can get pretty dry from here on in. Why Not Metaphysics?
For those of you who have studied philosophy before, it is obvious that the first area that I'm tackling is epistemology (the study of knowledge), rather than metaphysics (the study of the nature of reality). At first this seemed strange, but it's really not--unless you define what knowledge is, you cannot define the nature of the reality that you may or may not know about. Of course, there's a problem here as well--you cannot define knowledge unless you define whether or not your knowledge reflects reality, and we haven't defined what is real yet.
It's a Catch 22, but there is a way out of it. If we accept that, as human beings, we cannot know everything--if we accept that our ability to acquire knowledge has limits--we can then accept that we work with what we are able to learn from our perspective. One of our limits in acquiring knowledge is perspective. As finite human beings, we cannot truly "step outside" of the ways that we think--and not all of us think the same. Psychologists have noticed the differences in ways people think, and they have various (usually contradictory) theories on why this occurs. The full scope and import of psychological theory is well beyond the scope of this website, but I highly recommend that any prospective Wiccan clergy get a basic understanding of the subject. Just as we cannot step outside of the way that we think, we also cannot step outside of the universe, or of our assumptions about the universe. All of the major metaphysical models--and there are several--are based on an internal viewpoint. We look at the universe "from the inside, as it were, just as we look at knowledge from "inside" our assumptions. Any metaphysical theory is going to be deeply influenced by a person's world-view, and remember, we defined world-view as "the combination of a person's culture, education, and learned values that affect a person's evaluation of the world around him." Remember when we discussed the scientific method in the last chapter? Metaphysics is not, and cannot be, an objective study. There is no way to develop a falsifiable hypothesis. No matter what metaphysical model you choose, if it is a workable model, the universe will seem to conform to your chosen idea. Do you follow Platonic Idealism, or Aristotelian Materialism? Either way you go, it makes no difference: the universe acts in a manner that conforms to your basic assumptions. Yeah, I know--I just lost those of you who never studied philosophy. We'll discuss the specifics of Idealism and Realism in Chapter 5, but for now it will suffice to understand that these are two metaphysical models that are mutually contradictory. So instead of knowledge of the nature of the universe, we deal with assumption, belief, and world-view. Now, that doesn't mean that we step completely into subjective experience, but it does mean that we deal with what some philosophers consider "dangerous territory." We deal with basic assumptions, so it is important to understand what those assumptions are--in this particular case, Wiccan assumptions. What Are Assumptions?
It sounds like a simple definition: assumptions are basic statements that a person takes for granted--statements made without proof, and without the need of proof. But if it's such a simple concept, what's the problem with using them as the basis of a philosophical system? The foundation of a building is the part that supports the rest of the building; well, yeah, obviously. If the foundation fails--if the materials are not strong enough, or if the foundation was shoddily built, or if it was built in an unsuitable location--then the building will fail, usually catastrophically. So if the foundations of a building are important, then the foundations of one's philosophy are also important--if the assumptions contradict known facts, or if they only reflect a person's prejudices, then the philosophy that rests on those assumptions is not going to accurately reflect the universe. We all make assumptions. Some of the assumptions are soundly based in logic: to continue an analogy from the last chapter, if I jump off of the roof of my house with my broom, I can safely assume that I'm going to suffer a painful fall. I assume that gravity is in effect, and that the ground is hard. In that case, my assumption matches known facts about gravity and impact. Assumptions that directly contradict known facts cannot be true, and therefore are not a good foundation for philosophy. But what happens if we are trying to work from an assumption that cannot be correlated to a known fact? I could assume, generally speaking, that magic works, or that prayer is a good way to get in touch with the Divine, but with no scientific way to verify these assertions, I cannot correlate my assumptions to fact. In that, assumptions can be a type of belief. Belief cannot contradict fact, but not all facts can be known. We saw that we cannot step outside of our universe to get an objective understanding of it, so if we want to base any ideas on our understanding of the universe, we have to base them on assumption, rather than on known fact. Our assumptions may or may not be true--that's rather ambiguous, since we're working with things that cannot be known as facts. So why assume anything? If many of our basic assumptions are not verifiable as fact, why do we bother? Seemingly, humanity feels the need to know--or, at least, to think that we know--what makes the universe tick. The basic questions of "Why are we here?" and "What is our purpose on earth?" have been asked at least since Socrates--probably before then, but Socrates was one of the earliest recorded people who asked that question. They're important questions--at least, they're important in certain contexts. Our base assumptions of the nature of reality affect the way that we react towards that reality. Someone who views the universe as the creation of the Gods is going to treat it as he thinks the Gods want him to, whether he calls the Gods "Kernunos and Aradia" or "Yahweh" or "Allah." Someone who views the universe as a product of random chance may treat the world as if it had no importance beyond that randomness, or may treat it as a miracle of probability--the one place in the Universe where we know, without a doubt, that life evolved. Assumptions are basic not only to our understanding of the universe, but to how we behave towards it, and towards the people in it. So our assumptions are the basis of our ethics: to one degree or another, our assumptions dictate how we act. Therefore it is important that our assumptions model, as accurately as possible, what we know of the world around us. Wiccan Core Assumptions
Wiccans assume (there's that word again) that the world is a real thing, and that the world shares in Divine nature. At the same time, most Wiccans accept the Big Bang theory of cosmology. Now, it sounds like I'm getting into metaphysics, but I'm not, yet--we're still talking epistemology, the study of knowledge.
Most Wiccans view the world as created by the Gods, not necessarily for a specific purpose, but out of an act of love for each other, and for the world that they were making. We've already taken a brief look at the Wiccan Creation Myth in the last part of the introduction, but let's think through the ramifications for a moment. If the world shares in the nature of the Gods, then getting to know the world is getting to know--at least by approximation--the Gods. We'll discuss this in greater depth later in the chapter. Most Wiccans also accept the Big Bang theory of cosmological origins. Now, it sounds like that should fall under the category of knowledge, not assumption--and it does, sort of. But remember what we said about facts: facts can be refuted by later discoveries. In a large sense, factual knowledge of the Universe is beneficial and helpful, but because of that impermanence, it is not "ultimate" knowledge. The scientific model of the universe is an attempt by finite humans to understand a finite, but immensely large, Universe--but as humans, we cannot attain all knowledge. The scientific model speaks solely of the mechanics of the universe: this is "how the car runs," as it were. The Wiccan theistic creation myth--like all other creation myths--speaks of the One who turned the key. The problem with these things is that both are human attempts to understand something that is fundamentally outside of human understanding. As the Christian scriptures state: "Now we see through a glass darkly...." We can understand in a limited fashion the universe around us, and we can believe or assume certain things about the purpose and origin of the Universe, but we cannot really know the truth of these issues. The Wiccan Creation Myth
We've already seen this once, but rather than go back to that page and have to flip back and forth, let's look at it again:
Before Time, there was the One -- and the One was All. And the One beheld Itself in the curved mirror of Nothingness, and loved Itself, and the one became Two -- Male and Female, separate, but still One. And the Two (who are One) came together, and loved, and as they sang in their love Time was created, to hold the meter of the Song. And Space was created, to contain the bounds of Their Love. And as Their song of love became cries of pleasure, of Their joy and love for each other was born all that is, spun of the very essence of the Two (who are One). The great galaxies that spin, and the stars within them; the planets and moons that revolve and turn, each in its own path; and all of Creation sang back the Love of the Two (who are One). And of their love was born all things that live, spun -- like the Universe itself -- from the very substance of the Two (who are One). And thus all Life was born in Love. For we are all from the One, who is Two -- created in Love, born of Love, and returning to Love. And thus was everything made that was made. OK, here we have the Universe being created in an act of love--or, if you prefer, a sexual act. While we will discuss several issues relating to this myth, including the sacredness of sex, and the ethics of sex, in later chapters, right now we're discussing knowledge. This is one of the primary myths of Earthstar Wicca, and as such it is foundational to our philosophy. Now, as I said before, we believe that Creation shares in the Divine nature, and that learning about nature helps us learn about the Gods. But what does that mean? How does studying rocks, weather, or human nature help us understand the Gods? The Creation Myth shows a Universe born--literally "given birth"--by the Goddess. If the Universe is the product of the Gods' reproductive act, then creation shares in the nature of the Creator--just as a child shares in the nature of the parent. We are the children of the Gods, in that we are part of the Universe that is also the child of the Gods. This relationship to the Gods cannot be abrogated. Many Christians view mankind as being in a state of separation from God: this comes directly from the cultural roots of Judaism, the predecessor to Christianity (as well as a viable religious path in its own right). Judaism developed in a culture where Gods were viewed as kings, and kings were literal despots. Their word was law, and if you were banished from their kingdom, you stayed banished. A king was to be appeased with gifts and absolute obedience--similarly, the God was to be appeased with worship, sacrifice, and absolute obedience. Wicca developed with different concepts of the Divine: we do not accept the concept of sin--a state of separation from God. We believe that while one can anger or even dishonor the Gods, one cannot deny or break the relatedness between Man and Divine, any more than one can abrogate the connection between Man and Nature. Our concept of the Gods is quite parental: even if parents are angry at us, they still love us, unless something is really wrong with the relationship. So if we are connected to the Gods, and we are connected with nature, then the Gods are also connected with nature. What does that tell us about knowledge? It means that if we can learn about nature--if we can take steps to understand the Universe around us--we have a closer understanding of the Gods. True, this understanding is at one remove, but even so it illustrates the concept. We cannot experience the Gods in an objective manner, but we can experience their greatest work: Creation itself. Science, or Faith?
So was the Universe actually created in a divine act of reproduction? Scientifically speaking, of course not--but remember, science cannot comment on the existence or nature of the Divine. Science deals solely with fact, not belief. The Wiccan Creation Myth is a mythico-religious metaphor, not scientific theory.
On those points that science speaks, however, the Myth is certainly compatible--or, at least, there is an analogy. Science states that the Universe, before the Big Bang, was compressed into a single point. There was no time, no space, no existence: the entirety of what now stands before us was compressed into a singularity (similar to a massive black hole). All of Creation resulted from that singularity. In one sense, the "Big Bang" could be seen as the actual moment of birth. Again, the scientific model speaks of how the car runs: the theistic myth speaks of who turned the key. The Basis of Knowledge
So our theory of knowledge is based on the assumption that the universe is real--that it is intrinsically and fundamentally existent, outside of human experience. We believe that Creation is the basis of the reality that we experience on a day-to-day basis, and we further believe that our experiences more-or-less accurately reflect that reality. These three statements are fairly simple, but they are the core of the understanding of knowledge.
The Universe is Real
As I said earlier, the assumption that the Universe is intrinsically real is not universal: there are people who believe that the nature of reality is based on their perceptions of it, or on their beliefs. While I believe that perception and belief can be powerful tools for changing the Universe, this does not disprove the basic reality of the Universe: if your beliefs are going to change something, it has to be there to be changed.
There are those who say that the world that we see around us is not real, but is the product of illusion. This world-view asserts that what we see of the universe is a self-imposed deception: we have an unfalsifiable assertion, so we cannot use science to gauge the correctness of the assertion. The problem comes because no matter what test one would apply to see if the world is real or not, the illusion would make the test occur in a predictable fashion. If the illusion is actually that accurate, it affects everything, including the senses that one would use to try to pierce the illusion and see reality. For my own part, I believe that the world that we see is real: it existed before I did, and will exist after I am gone. The Universe will not last forever, but it will last a lot longer than me. The problem with this assertion is that it is also unfalsifiable--I cannot tell, from my point of view within the Universe, if I am interacting with real things, or with illusion: my statement that the Universe is real is a statement of faith, on my part. The Universe is the Basis of The Reality of Our Sense Experience
With that one statement of faith, everything else in our Wiccan assumptions follows logically. When we sense something, we are not getting some form of "feedback" from our imagination: the images we see, the sound that we hear, indeed all of our senses are reactions to physical events. Philosophy used to be quite interested with the actual mechanism of sensation. Well, science has taken over that particular study: as students of philosophy, we don't need to know as much about how the light affects the appropriate cells in the eye, or how sound vibrates the eardrums, or how heat, cold, or contact affect the nerves of the skin; we don't need to know how the nerves relay this information to the brain; we don't need to know the biochemical changes that occur in the brain when these sensations take place. Most of us are familiar enough with the basics of anatomy and physiology to have at least an awareness of these things. At the same time, our assumption that the universe is the basis of our sense experiences is directly based from the science. Our senses are not some form of projection of our conscious mind: this information comes from the outside, and the process of light, sound, or touch physically affecting our sense organs demonstrates that this is the real world acting on our physical bodies to produce these sensations. We see because the light is there to be seen; we hear because the sound is there to be heard. Now, that doesn't mean that what we sense is everything there is to the world: but more on that in the next section. Experience (more or less) Accurately Reflects Reality
Our sensory experience accurately reflects the status of Reality--more or less. That "more-or-less" is important: we already know that, as human beings, we cannot learn all that there is to know, but what we can learn is significant and important.
The reason for the disclaimer is that our senses are not perfect: they can be deceived, and the information they provide can be incorrect. We see the oar half-way in the water, and it looks bent: is the oar actually bent, or is it just the water that causes it to be so? Well, we know that light "bends" when it hits water at an angle, so rationally we "know" that the oar is straight, but it looks bent. Sensory information is not perfect. At the same time, it is useful--when used with due caution. Because we are aware that our senses can be deceived, or can miss information, we can make allowances for these things. We can make tools to make our senses stronger, or more reliable: cameras, telescopes, microscopes, all of these (and many more) are tools to improve our eyesight, or to preserve the memory of what was seen. Even here, these tools will not show what is not there. A camera cannot take a picture of something that is not visible: telescopes will not show what is not there. So when we see the universe around us, we see something with its own reality, and therefore with its own value. What's that--I hadn't mentioned value? You're right: I haven't yet, and we'll get into the concept of value more in Chapter 6. So what does all of this mean? Among other things, these assumptions put paid to the philosophical riddle about the tree in the forest: If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? By our view it does, because the tree (and the forest that it is in) are real things. Even if there is no human being around to sense the falling tree, the tree crashing into the ground makes noise. Of course, this does not answer all of our questions about knowledge, much less about the nature of reality. We'll talk more about knowledge next week, and about reality later in the series. For now, it's time to bank the fire, and head to our beds. This has been a deep chapter, and we're not through all of the hard material, but this is one of the most difficult. So if you've made it this far, I congratulate you: you're through most of the worst of it. Rest well, my friends, and be at peace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1997-2003 c.e., et seq., Justin Eiler. This text file may be freely distributed via computer, print, or other media, provided that no editing is done and this notice is included.
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
