3 ms·

For the most part that was completely incomprehensible to me. I read it three times, though, and I think he was saying that knowledge was irrelevant when it ca

by araneae 16y ago

For the most part that was completely incomprehensible to me. I read it three times, though, and I think he was saying that knowledge was irrelevant when it came to spirituality, and that spirituality has to do with how we experience life. This I will politely disagree with, if that's what he actually said. Since he brought up Rumi, I thought I'd use him as an example. Rumi has said "I died a mineral, and became a plant. I died a plant and rose an animal. I died an animal and I was man. Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?" Here he is pulling in knowledge; knowledge of nutrient cycling, maybe even evolution. But I can respond in kind; I could answer his question, saying that "you're less by dying when you die a man and become minerals." Here I too am pulling from knowledge again; if it's true that "you" become "more" by going from plant to an animal- then surely it follows that you become "less" by traversing the opposite direction. And that is most definitely what happens when men die; they are reduced to their components by the process of decomposition. I don't see how anyone can completely decouple "spirituality" from knowledge, since all forms of spirituality I've encountered speak in the language of knowledge. And I don't see Rumi's statement is less or more spiritual than mine, either. Perhaps his is more optimistic, but there's plenty of pessimism in some forms of spiritualism.

justsee 16y ago
No, he is saying that knowledge on its own ('academic "knowing"'), separate from the experience, is insufficient. This is straight from the school of thought that says any great truths have to be understood at the experiential level, not just the intellectual level. A pedestrian codification of this is the "Child has to learn it for themselves" statement when parents attempt to impart life wisdom on offspring but realise that in itself is not enough. They see, perhaps for the first time, the real difference between understanding and Understanding. A more specific example is love. An observer studying the biological / physiological mechanisms involved, and immersing themselves in second-hand accounts of new romance could allow themselves to intellectually approximate human love, but experiencing it directly gives them a much deeper, experiental understanding than would otherwise be possible. The case is no different when it comes to the meaning of life. The answer to that question cannot be extracted and written down as knowledge, and instead must be derived from the full life experiences of each individual seeking an answer. As the author states 'the essence of the question is about experience, not facts'.

by araneae 16y ago

justsee 16y ago

No, he is saying that knowledge on its own ('academic "knowing"'), separate from the experience, is insufficient. This is straight from the school of thought that says any great truths have to be understood at the experiential level, not just the intellectual level. A pedestrian codification of this is the "Child has to learn it for themselves" statement when parents attempt to impart life wisdom on offspring but realise that in itself is not enough. They see, perhaps for the first time, the real difference between understanding and Understanding. A more specific example is love. An observer studying the biological / physiological mechanisms involved, and immersing themselves in second-hand accounts of new romance could allow themselves to intellectually approximate human love, but experiencing it directly gives them a much deeper, experiental understanding than would otherwise be possible. The case is no different when it comes to the meaning of life. The answer to that question cannot be extracted and written down as knowledge, and instead must be derived from the full life experiences of each individual seeking an answer. As the author states 'the essence of the question is about experience, not facts'.