June 6, 2015 ·
All our knowledge may
be tautological like Mathematics and Logic. We start wih certain assumptions
and build on them. The end result is not any new knowledge but a restatement of
the assumptions. It is obvious in Mathematics where we ‘prove’ an equation. The
two sides represent one and the same thing. It is deceptive in natural
sciences. We should not be fooled by the utility of these disciplines. We are
talking of knowledge. Do we (as humanity) attain new knowledge? It is something
I can’t answer. We must turn to great thinkers, but it looks to me that the
great thinkers are at a loss and are not able to assure us that we discover
something new. But they provide us enough to mull over and spend the
intellectual life in what strikes as useful, just as science and technology
have increased the ways we engage physically and mentally creating a virtual
world that is a new way of spending life after basic needs are met.
TRUE KNOWLEDGE
True knowledge only gives independence, I said. The question arose what true
knowledge is. I set thinking. We say certain things often at the heat of the
moment, but find it difficult to explain it. But, my statement came from an
inner conviction and I do not feel I have blurted. All the same, to make it
intelligible in non-metaphysical terms calls for effort.
Knowledge is acquired in ever so many ways from our childhood. We start
learning about the basic needs of life first. Curiosity builds up about the
surroundings. We keep learning aimlessly. Formal education starts at some
stage for the majority of us. Formal education has for its purpose today some
vocational pursuit sooner or later. The general knowledge that is imparted in
early stages also sets the stage for acquiring some systematised knowledge of
a chosen discipline, which has proven commercial potential.
We can thus think of informal knowledge that is acquired in formative years and
formal knowledge that is acquired in seminaries.
When I learnt, I wanted to learn just like that. I never looked whether it would
have a useful purpose to earn a living. There was something to learn and I
should learn it cent per cent. Any deficiency meant failure. Of course, I did not
succeed cent per cent. We have today coaches training how to pass an
examination or interview. The educational institutions also are examination-oriented. In my school and college days, several students would read only
the notes and not the texts. Such pursuits break the backbone of education and
kill the joy of learning, but this awareness is not shared. Education is a means
to an end and not an end. Such is the belief that has currency widely.
What is true knowledge and how do we go about it? True knowledge is that
which gives complete clarity, lack of any doubt and the confidence to defend it
free of surprises at the criticism levelled against it. Not that we have to take up
cudgels for or run a crusade on it. We should have a rock solid belief in the
knowledge. Such knowledge inspires and motivates. The first requirement for
true knowledge is free mind. We are entering choppy waters now. We started
with the proposition that independence depends on true knowledge and now we
come upon free mind as necessary for true knowledge. Freedom and
independence are related and we have entered circular logic. I need to pause
and examine the solidity of my premise before I can build on it. We can try
another word though change of word may not end the problem of begging
the question.
Awareness is the condition precedent to gaining true knowledge. We can
acknowledge that there are times when our mind is totally receptive compared
to others when it is in messy knots. When we are aware, our mind stops its
excursions and incursions and listens attentively to what is on offer. It is not
dumb, it is not at cross-purposes; it is not unquestioning, it is inquisitive to get to the pith and marrow
rather
than stick at the skin. It is not submissive, it is humble with a motive that is
mere learning. It avoids both favourable and antagonistic attitudes. It wants
to know and that is it.
Why do we want this knowledge? Have we got some use for it? These may
be necessary before we begin to learn something. But the use to which it may
be put does not define the knowledge. Once we have chosen to learn it for
whatever reason, such reason has no further role in the process. The avidity to know possesses
us, but does not addle the mind. We do not have the least desire to direct our
effort manipulatively.
Explaining awareness in other words, what we need to observe while learning is
silence. In a class, we observe silence when the teacher teaches. When there is
cross talk, the teacher shouts ‘silence’. When we learn, we may not observe this
silence. It distracts and the learning is impeded. More than verbal silence,
silence of the mind is important. This again is a tricky subject. Silence of the
mind is a precondition for learning and is the result of true knowledge. There
is a qualitative difference. In the former, there is a blankness and receptivity whereas in the
latter there is clarity and completeness. It is getting esoteric and we will not
delve deeper. When the mind is silent, devoid of distractions and preoccupations, it is aware
and this awareness leads to proper learning.
Knowledge can be personal or testimonial. We cannot acquire all knowledge by
direct experience. We learn form others. But there is an element of doubt when
the knowledge is through a secondary source. Ordinarily, if not as a rule, true
knowledge is gained directly i.e. personally. It is in matters of metaphysics that
we may choose to rely on the knowledge of seers or prophets. That, however, is
not the topic of discussion.
I have just said what facilitates true knowledge in more words rather than what it is.
Let us see if a few examples will take us closer to our destination.
Let us take knowledge of how to talk. Talking is an aid to communicate
something. Its purpose is to convey a fact (an incident, etc.), a feeling or an
opinion. There could be a further list, but this covers the gamut virtually.
The idea of truth crops up here. A priori what we talk should be truth. Falsehood or prevarication is
perhaps a vitiation that came later. Talking truth is thus posited as a gospel
because it is self-explicit that truth is the basis for talking and no other.
Semitic faith does not have a satisfactory solution to occasions that make talking the truth
undesirable. The Manu Smriti, which is the Hindu code of conduct, lays down that we should
talk that which is true and also pleasant. We can’t utter something which is
untrue or unpleasant. That was a digression.
As making ourselves understood is the purpose in talking, we have to ensure
that execution matches the aim. We may be too terse that the matter goes
over the head or our expression is ambiguous. We may on the other hand weary the listener
by being verbose or using words not in current parlance. We may deliver it at
a pace unsuited to the listener. A good talker chooses the right words and
delivers them at the required pace and has his antenna tuned to the body language of the
listener to pick up the feedback and vary his pace or even discontinue, either because
the other has understood or is impervious to it. I have seen people completing
the quota of words that they are armed with even if the purpose is achieved.
Talking is not to be done as a speech which is completed even amidst heckling. Here we
have made a distinction between talking and speech. We will not elaborate.
Knowledge
about the two will be required separately to prepare appropriately for either.
Knowledge is to fear as light is to darkness. When we were young, perhaps
even now, we are afraid of the dark. We do not know what lurks unseen in
the dark. There may be nothing, but we are not certain of it. The Vedic
prayer also says ‘lead me to light from darkness’. Light removes darkness and the fear goes
of darkness. In a way light brought knowledge of the nothingness and the
fear vanished. Knowledge that there was nothing came personally and
indubitably. We attained true knowledge and it did away with fear.
When we are afraid of something, we need to know what the feared thing
is and what of it causes fear. We are wary of new company at times, but
when we get to know them, we become freer. Not that we would have
made a once-for-all discovery, but the initial reservation evaporates.
True knowledge steers clear of judgement. When we sort things and
people on a scale, we run into problems. In Christian theology, the day of judgement
is final. I take it to be symbolic. We can arrive at a judgement only when
everything about a thing is known, a tall order. When we have arrived at that state, judgement
will be in order, but then no judgement will arise in the mind. In the state
of true knowledge, we will see everything as it is and also the process it has
taken to be what it is and the fact that it could not be otherwise than what
it is. Buddhism seems to suggest just that: everything is as it should be.
I have ended the piece in metaphysical terms though I made a promise to
avoid it. I am not sure I have given a good account of the topic. But I have
made an effort with serious consideration.
“Awareness of our ignorance is true knowledge”.
Fake knowledge
Often
we trade others’ knowledge, not our own. If, for instance, I read Vedanta and
parade what I read, I am simply acting as a conduit. That knowledge is still
not mine because I have read, not experienced, it.
There
are limits to what we can know. It is not just the capacity of individual
brains that is the constraint. The brain has been programmed so as to view the
surroundings from the angle of survival, and we as humans seem to have some
extra capacity, but still it is operating under the evolutionary paradigm. It
is an inadmissible question whether we can know beyond what our brain is
programmed for.
June 27, 2016 ·
Knowledge
" ‘No man of science ever has in view the utility of his work,’ said Liebig; indeed, he is too much absorbed by science itself to consider any ulterior aim.”
J H W Stuckenberg
Knowledge developed as a result of the attempt to satisfy curiosity. It spread because of the urge to show that we know. Knowledge stood out as a means of distinction and ability to influence, leading to the dictum ‘Knowledge is power.’ Pursuit of knowledge was for a time for becoming knowledgeable. Knowledge expanded and branched out. The pursuit could no longer be such as to produce an Aristotle or Leonardo Da Vinci. True versatility is impossible in today’s world (even if it were possible once).
Systematic dissemination of knowledge is possible only through institutions with defined courses and syllabus. Schools and colleges are inevitable. Education is the name of the game.
Education in its essence must sharpen the mind (not cram it) to observe (look for facts in experience), understand (learn the behaviour and interaction of what is observed), organise (put the facts in an apparent sequence) and harmonise (find a peaceful and useful existence in the world of such knowledge). Does this obtain?
Knowledge is pleasure and there will always be much to know. Knowledge is not a series of opinions. We are too eager to have an opinion even before understanding and that causes a stumbling block to real knowledge. Socrates and J.Krishnamurthy used to ask questions and did not answer. Even in Upanishad (Taittriya Upanishad), the guru asks the disciple to meditate and find the answer and each time the disciple comes with an incomplete answer, the disciple is asked to meditate more. Answers have to come from within. That is the way to know and understand. But, the knowledge cannot be static and static knowledge is deadwood.
Today, knowledge is rarely pursued for its own sake. There has to be an economic trade-off. One would rather qualify rather than study. One would seek to attain that much knowledge which will suffice to qualify. One would try to byheart an answer rather than rely on understanding to answer any question. One would like to know the questions beforehand. We have a wonderful culture where the teacher is at fault if a student fares badly. (vadyar karam vecchuttaru – the teacher has tried to settle some score). Or, the question paper was tough.
In college, a lecturer mentioned to me in a chat, ‘We can have a two-way stream. Anyone who attends classes (minimum), may qualify, but to get a grade, one must sit for exam that will test understanding.’ It is not a bad idea. As of now, no one takes the mark sheet at face value. An entrance exam is conducted. Some schools conduct entrance test for the plus one even if a student has passed from the same school itself.
If we want science to effloresce, we need to have able students pursue knowledge with passion, not just for degree. We need that talent pool, not just skilled workers who earn their livelihood.
March 14, 2017 ·
There are limits to what we can know. It is not just the capacity of individual brains that is the constraint. The brain has been programmed so as to view the surroundings from the angle of survival, and we as humans seem to have some extra capacity, but still it is operating under the evolutionary paradigm. It is an inadmissible question whether we can know beyond what our brain is programmed for.
November 15, 2015
Is ignorance bliss?
We hear it said, ‘Ignorance
is bliss.’ The origin of this is from Thomas Gray who said actually, ‘Where
Ignorance is bliss ‘Tis folly to be wise.’ The two statements are different.
When I quoted this to a friend (from a book by Wood), he said, ‘I am not
quoting anybody.’
That takes me to whether
ignorance is bliss universally. That cannot be. We need knowledge even to get
the basic necessities of life. But, all knowledge may not be helpful. It is
basically a question, so it appears to me, of our ability to handle the
knowledge. Children cannot understand the process of childbirth. So, we
withhold that information until they can handle it. A patient may not be able
to handle some adverse diagnosis, and it may be worthwhile not to share it with
him.
Often, we go after silly
knowledge that does nothing to add to wisdom.
In general, ignorance of
that which makes us uncomfortable, and the lack of which is in no way material,
gives bliss.
Ignorance of this post is an
eminent example!
Knowledge: My
musings from ignorance
Most of us are a library of
opinions. We collect opinions of others, who in turn might have picked them up
from some others. A book does not know what it contains. Carrying an opinion of
another is not equivalent to knowledge. Knowledge is what we acquire from
evidence and examination. At best we appreciate what another has done. But, it
can be surface knowledge.
Everyone carried the
knowledge of Newton, and no one really bothered to go beyond it until Einstein
and a few others questioned and furthered the knowledge. It is doubtful how
many follow Einstein, and even Newton. One may pass an exam, but that is no
guarantee of knowledge.
It is with that shaky
knowledge people put forth categorical opinions.
In a simple matter as
mathematics, how much do we know numbers? Numbers are the most abstract, says V
S Ramachandran, an eminent neuroscientist. One must read Russell to understand
the conundrum numbers are. (I have not read him precisely for that purpose.) But,
we think that assigning some numbers and applying some formula we solve all
problems.
A knowledgeable one is one
who knows from primary evidence and direct experience. Most of our knowledge is
like the forwards in FB.
Knowledge: My
musings from ignorance
Do we have authentic knowledge?
Most of our knowledge is borrowed. It depends
on what we read, and worse still, on what we believe. Not just religious views,
almost any view. Religious belief is easy to attack because in most cases it
stands out as a sore thumb.
Our knowledge of history is also based on
belief. It is almost impossible for us to know firsthand from the sources the
history that is constructed by the historians. The historians are not paragons
of impartiality. They have a baggage and a bias, often hidden cleverly by their
skill of communication. As Durant said, eloquence sacrifices accuracy. History
is for the most part the imagination of the historians. We should not mistake
their power of expression as proof of their authenticity. I do not allege that
all of them palm off untruth for a political end, but I strongly sense that
they have a belief based on sketchy evidence which guides their writing. As in
poetry, so in history, rich imagery and padding up makes up for the body
encasing a slender, if any, fact. Luckily, knowledge of history is not crucial
to life unless one wants to gloat on some past glory or nurse some sense of
injury of a past wrong.
‘Robert Burton feels (like Thoreau) that
if he reads the news of one day he may take it for granted the rest of the
year, merely changing names and dates.’ Reading history through Durant, I get a
similar feeling about history.
‘Robert Burton confesses that he knows the world only
through books.’ Now, children get knowledge from electronic media. Direct
knowledge is more and more non-existent.
How much do I really know? Knowledge can become
secure only if it has been examined critically while acquiring and vetted by
experience. Such authentic knowledge is bound to be rare.
*
*
It is a good beginning to know what we do not know. (That
will be vast knowledge!)
It is a measure of confidence when one knows what one
knows. (Rama, not given to boasting, asserts in a few places like to Kaikeyi
who doubts whether he would obey his father’s word he says – ‘I am on par with
Rishis’, and to Sugriva at the time of doubts expressed about admitting
Vibhishana ‘No one can be as good a son as I am.’ I owe this to Sri Nochur
Venkataraman).
But, the Upanishad stumps us: ‘He does not know who thinks
that he does not know. He does not know who thinks that he knows. He only knows
who thinks that neither he knows nor he does not know.’ I love this and do not
desire to find its denouement from commentaries.
*
We try to understand the
world in certain set idioms, certain physical ideas that have come about by
convention, common sense and consensus. We are too long entrenched in the ideas
that something new has to be fitted into that paradigm to be valid and
sensible. We are unable to break away and form a new framework. It requires a
scientific mind to switch between frameworks that are arbitrary.
We learnt and it seemed to
agree with observation that matter exists in three states – solid, liquid and
gas. Ideas like supercooled liquid and plasma do not sink in as easily. We were
told and we believed that electron can be a particle or a wave. But, then we
are told that it chooses what it wants to be like a human being. Even that was
understandable. But, quantum mechanics took the subject away from common
understanding. Very few people understand QM and even among the scientific
community there appear to be sceptics. Bohr said that if anyone says that he
understands QM he does not know what he is talking about.
We try to understand the
world (whatever it means) by some humanly conceived idea. We become regimented.
We assert that the view of science is the only correct one and even make linear
predictions, after accepting Darwin and mutation.
It is as well that we pause
and examine how solid our understanding is and how much we are led by nose by
history registered involuntarily in the brain. All our views are tentative and
not tenable across contexts.
We are led by our minds
into what field we choose and acquire knowledge in that field. The knowledge
becomes credible if we have been truthful in our search and focused on the
subject. It may be vain to seek an all-encompassing knowledge (‘there is no theory
of everything’).
There is no one truth
that is intelligible as the same from any angle of looking at it. It may be
there, and we may see the way we are led, and are precluded from seeing it ‘as
it is.’ To believe that we will one day understand the way everything is in
itself and in its inter-relationships with one another may be a wrong handle to
it.
As we advance in our
concepts, we must give it a reality check every now and then. How far does it
fit into our experience?
*
Knowledge
June 09, 2015
Learning takes place at the biological level and at the
voluntary level. At the biological level, it is designed by nature for
self-preservation. At the voluntary level, there is one type of knowledge that
bombards us when we expose ourselves. For example, I saw here that Lopez is
likely to land in jail, something with which I may have nothing to do. Then,
what knowledge would interest one? Is there a universal choice? There will be
where our practice is born of ignorance and knowledge is likely to correct us
sensibly. The problem arises when people prefer ignorance (maya?) and continue
in their ways and even consider others misguided. This happens all the time to
any of us. Many of our opinions are impressionistic and immune to any
additional input. The world seems made that way. In any society, the learned
were not immediately understood and were even tried for heresy. In politics,
commerce and religion, the trading strength is ignorance. Nestle is putting out
videos explaining how Maggi is what the doctor, if not God, ordered. The Church
would not accept evolution. The politician has his day when there are people ammafying
you. I have the advantage of being philosophical!
Is Harari too not telling a story?
Knowledge is skewed in distribution - both as regards
availability and acceptance.
A trader in foreign exchange from FD told candidly to the
customers in a seminar, 'We make money because of information gaps in the
market. We make less, consciously.' That is the foundation of economics and
exploitation – differential in knowledge. Will it stop? Yes, when knowledge is
evenly spread – on the D day!
We assume that others know what we know (what we know may
still be scratch). How many have read Harari? Even here among those that are
intellectually forward, there is scant participation in knowledge subjects.
CAA, RSS, howlers of the dynast, and political and faith issues invite wider
participation. Someone who is a rabble rouser stirring up dormant issues
becomes a hero. Politics, religion and business depend on passive and excitable
followers. They know they have a free turf.
To expect that we can see a change in society because we
know so much compared to, say, 500 years ago, and even appear to be on the cusp
of a breakthrough in computing and biology, in atomic physics and outer space,
is to forget that such knowledge is not the driving force of human action.
How authentic is our knowledge?
We scratch at the epidermis often. That is what we do with
living. We are free of control or knowledge of the vital functions. We just do
mechanical and repetitive things like eating, sleeping and removing waste. Life
goes on with no real part for us.
When we probe subcutaneously, we see what calls in question
that surface reality. We are at times bewildered. We become puzzled in
understanding and ambiguous in expression. We begin to know more that little we
know.
We know that we do not know. (If I sounded like I know,
that is arrogance on top of ignorance).
We want to know. This is essential for understanding.
Answers are not what we need, but understanding. I will make an enigmatic
statement: understanding may come without answers. Questioning is key to
understanding. We will know in course which questions are really significant.
We will know the way to understanding. It is not necessary to explain it to
anyone. To be sure, I am in the beginning stage.
We do not accept testimonial evidence. We want the long
route of questioning and probing. Acceptance shuts knowledge for ever. That is
the mischief religion has done.
This is the methodology of science and believe me or not,
that of Upanishads that were millennia older than modern science. The vibrancy
of Hinduism is based on acceptance of divergence and relentless personal
enquiry into truth, not sheepish acquiescence.
We are somehow led to believe that there must be a reason
for everything. Possibly, we must question this belief.
Where reason does not work:
1. Ordinary
living. We are guided by instinct and habit, tradition and social norms.
2. Love
3. Etiquettes and
conventions
4. Relationship
with the senior for the most part.
5. Tastes
6. Faith
Almost in every manner of living, we use reason the least.
