Discovery September 13, 2006
Posted by admin in : Psycho/Spirit , trackbackI guess the/an opposite/alternative form of knowledge to revelation is discovery. With revelation, a knowing or superior consciousness or mind reveals the truth to you. But discovery is the result of a process, one’s effort to know. It’s earned. Often revelation stories make much of how pure and deserving is the privileged recipient. Of course. They have to. Otherwise you’re wondering, “Why him?” It seems unearned and undeserved, so the stories have to compensate for that. But with discovery, no one asks, “Why him?” because the reason is obvious. Because he enquired. He sought; he studied; he learned; he tried; he failed; he worked; he saw; he reflected; he discussed it with others; he discovered; he knew. It’s more familiar to us. It’s more common. We see a lot with our own eyes. We experience the blinding white light of revelation much more seldom.
Anyone who tries can learn. Most of us are not as pure of heart as Mohammed, or well positioned as Moses, or God’s only son. Practically none of us are. Knowledge dependent on such rare and improbable events and personalities is not worth having, as compared with the rock solid wisdom like, “If I eat the purple berries, I die. I know this because Grog there is dead and his fingers and lips are purple.”
Now it’s true that either form of knowledge is personal. Mohammed received the Koran. Krok discovered the purple berries are poisonous.
What becomes of the next generation?
1) they remain ignorant and the knowledge dies
2) revelation/discovery are luckily, coincidentally repeated
3) the knowledge is communicated in a teaching
So that next generation – for them what’s the difference between being instructed in the ways of the revelation knowledge and being instructed in plant biology? Are they not in both cases being asked to take it on faith? Don’t I know, for example, that we landed men on the moon, not because I saw it for myself, but because I believed/trusted the people who reported it to me?
I guess for some people, there really is no difference.
But the difference should be that knowledge based on discovery is knowledge based on the process of discovery, which is repeatable and democratic. Anyone can experience it. If you are told this plant is poisonous, that knowledge is demonstrably true or false. Its basis is material and verifiable. Even if you don’t bother to verify it yourself, you know that it is subject to verifiability, which makes it likely that eventually its veracity will be tested.
Whereas revelation knowledge is simply not verifiable. It’s sanctified. It’s invested in narrative, not process. It has emphasis in authority. It’s based entirely upon your credulity.
I should repeat that revelation is not necessarily false. It might actually be true, but it’s either coincidentally true and could have been achieved though discovery (i.e. science proves existence of God, Christians were right all along) or it’s true but not verifiably so. (leap of faith).
And, of course, discovery knowledge is also fallible (bad science, errors, etc.)
But discovery knowledge is like a WikiWorld – collective minds constantly at work to vet the propositions. Revelation systems are medieval. They may have legions of advocates but all their efforts serve a monolithic authorized narrative.
So, discovery, yea! Revelation, boo! Hiss!
This might be too easy of a duality or compare/contrast exercise. Although I found this Wikipedia article something of a validation of this thesis.
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?