Knowledge
There are many kinds of conceptual systems which are
considered to be knowledge. Most of these forms of
"knowledge" may have no lasting or essential value.
For example, one can have knowledge of philosophy, and one
can have a philosophy of knowledge. However, philosophy,
taken in and of itself, does not necessarily constitute
knowledge about anything.
Philosophy involves: methodologies, ideas, arguments, issues,
problems, theories, reflections, values, critical analysis,
imagination, intuition, reasoning, logic, systems, questions,
and assumptions. For more than two thousand years, human
beings have been combining these different constituent
aspects of philosophy into countless conceptual packages -
like widgets, of varied description, coming off an assembly
line.
One may find these philosophical packages interesting and
useful in various ways. One may derive meaning and purpose
from such packages. One even may organize one's life
around a particular philosophical package.
Whether any of these packages provide one with knowledge
of the nature of a given dimension of reality or truth is as
contentious an issue now as it was several thousand years
ago. Whether any of these packages will permit one to really
know whom we are or what we are doing here is uncertain.
To know the ins and outs of philosophy, requires a lifetime of
dedicated study. In fact, one lifetime is probably not enough.
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of philosophical
experts in areas involving: logic, metaphysics, ethics,
epistemology, history, education, mathematics, science,
economics, psychology, politics, and law. Most of these topic
areas can be broken down further into numerous
sub-specialties.
None of these experts has expertise in all areas. In fact, most
professional philosophers have only a passing acquaintance
with any but a small handful of philosophical areas.
Thousands of books and articles are written every year in
every one of these areas of philosophical specialty. No one
human being, not even a professional, can keep up with the
mass of material which is being churned out.
Someone may read it. Someone may reflect on it. Someone
may critically respond to it with additional books and
articles. What it all means is anybody's guess.
What relation, if any, such material has to truth or
knowledge is unknown to the vast majority of us and,
perhaps, even to professional philosophers themselves.
Indeed, one is faced with the following question. How much
of one's life does one want to spend trying to find out if there
is anything of lasting value in any of this material?
The story of philosophy repeats itself across the spectrum of
disciplines. We have lots of theories, conventions,
frameworks, principles, rules, methods, speculations,
conjectures, ideas, systems and perspectives in physics, law,
biology, economics, mathematics, history, literature,
medicine, engineering, social sciences, and so on.
In almost all of these topical areas, there are facts,
demonstrations, experimental results, proofs, confirmations,
probabilities, and possibilities. In addition, there are
unknowns, uncertainties, inconsistencies, anomalies,
paradoxes and controversies.
Thousands of books and articles are published every year in
many different languages in all of these subjects. For almost
every position taken on any given issue, there are usually
several counter positions.
Theories are constantly changing. Material is being updated
on a daily basis. New technologies and instruments are being
introduced. Ideas, methods and textbooks regularly become
outdated.
How does the non-professional individual navigate her or his
way through all of this? How can one speak of becoming an
educated person when any given individual is ignorant of so
much? Furthermore, even with respect to that in which we
have become educated, what is it we really know?
Any one of these areas can totally consume an individual,
and, yet, even a very brilliant, totally committed individual
still would not have mastered all that can be learned in such
areas. How long and how far should one pursue any of these
areas to determine if they have any lasting and essential
knowledge concerning the reality of human beings and
creation?
To complicate all of the foregoing, we really don't have a
great deal of time in which to digest, reflect on, and evaluate
any of the material to which we are exposed. Much of what is
taught and learned is for purposes of getting a job which can
pay enough money to keep us going. Each of us must
economically justify our existence. Meaning, purpose,
identity, justice and truth have, at best, only marginal
importance in the commercial scheme of things.
Knowledge frequently is of value to the extent it can be
exploited commercially. Education is valued, for the most
part, because it serves the economic needs of government
and business.
As long as we work and consume and pay taxes, neither
business nor government really cares whether we ever come
to realize our essential identity and capacity. They don't care
what we know about ourselves, or anything else, as long as
we know how to help them do, and get, what they want.
Business and government are not interested in spirituality
unless one can show them how it will enhance productivity
and competitiveness or financially improve the bottom line.
The scary part in all of this is we are business, and we are
government. We tend to call something "knowledge" for the
jobs, money, consumption and gratification it makes possible.
For the most part, we want education to serve our economic
interests and career needs.
We complain about the great need for values, meaning,
purpose, justice, truth and identity in our lives. Yet, we are
not prepared to let these qualities get in the way of the cycles
of business, profit, ambition and success which are
consuming our lives at a faster and faster rate of speed.
Is modern "knowledge" really helping us to come to terms
with whom we are? Does modern "knowledge" even know
whom we are or what our essential capacity is? Does modern
"knowledge" have the capacity to assist us to realize our
essential identity, even assuming it accepted such an idea?
Each person will have to come to her or his own conclusions
concerning the above questions. In reflecting on these
matters, however, one might keep certain things in mind.
The essence, purpose, general nature and basic methodology
of the Sufi path has remained unchanged since its inception.
Whatever legitimate changes may have emerged, over time,
among the practitioners of this mystical path were of a
derivative nature from first principles.
The Sufi understanding of the potential of human beings has
remained consistent over time. Furthermore, every
generation of Sufi practitioners has exhibited many
individuals who gave clear evidence of having realized that
potential.
To be a Sufi, one does not have to grapple with the
impossible task of mastering all of the information and data
coming from the many different disciplines to which
modernity gives expression. Instead, one merely has to
grapple with the very difficult, but far from impossible, task
of mastering oneself.
To seek to have knowledge of one's essential spiritual
nature, one does not need to have access to, or an
understanding of, any aspect of modern conceptual
knowledge. All one needs is an authentic Sufi master and a
sincere commitment to that shaykh.
According to the practitioners of the Sufi path, whatever
knowledge may come from science, medicine and other
forms of modern scholarship will be of use, at best, only up to
the time of our death. After that, such knowledge will have
no value to us.
On the other hand, Sufi masters indicate that whatever
knowledge we gain on the Sufi path will have value beyond
the present life. In fact, such knowledge will have its greatest
significance and use after our physical death.
| Return to Streams Menu |
|
