Narrowly Brilliant
Does anyone know enough . . . ? There has been an ‘explosion’ of knowledge, and our consciousness is being challenged, (even threatened), since availability of information is also increasing! We are confronted with events from all parts of the world; and then from light years away in deep space.
Not one of us would want to be ‘narrowly brilliant’, but does anyone think we can bring all of the forces into an “enabling, unified understanding?” Do we comprehend the impact of one advance in technology after another; and, are we keeping up with increasing demand? Is our economy managing the Earth? One question after another!
In my recent post, ‘Revere Life’, I admitted I have only one idea that keeps changing, and that I still do not know what it is. Also, in my post on ‘Perfection’, I said the world is in trouble, with no one able to say adequately what the trouble is. As difficult it is to admit, I do not know what I am doing and do not even know what the problem is . . . it just seems to me . . . we do not have an integral understanding that will assure a sustainable impact!
Some are suggesting that an increase in math and science are essential, and who can doubt but that is so. However, will that not simply increase our difficulty in being narrowly brilliant? Scientists and engineers have done wonders, and they will solve some of our more serious problems; and yet, . . .
An ethical dialogue among all the people of the Earth is imperative. We must learn how to be global thinkers, which means we must consider the whole. Capacity for evaluating must increase, since the canvass the artist is painting on is increasing tremendously. Contemplatives must ground our existence in the vast consciousness of Spirit beyond the mental constructions with which we are trying to comprehend and control existence.
E. F. Schumacher, in his book, A Guide of the Perplexed, discusses this in terms of the difference between convergent and divergent thinking. “Many people today call for a new moral basis of society, a new foundation of ethics. When they say “new,” they seem to forget that they are dealing with divergent problems, which call not for new inventions but for the development of man’s higher faculties and their application.”
He finally concludes: “All great works of art are “about God” in the sense that they show the perplexed human being the path, the way up the mountain, providing a Guide for the Perplexed. We may again remind ourselves of one of the greatest examples of such art, Dante’s Divine Comedy. Dante wrote for ordinary men and women, not for people with sufficient private means to be interested mainly in fine feelings. “The whole work,” he explains, “was undertaken not for speculative but a practical end . . . the purpose of the whole is to remove those living in this life from a state of misery, and lead them into a state of felicity.” The pilgrim —Dante himself— nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita, that is, at the height of his powers and outward success, suddenly realizes that he is not at the height at all but, on the contrary, “in a dark wood, where the right way is lost.”
Are we lost in the midst of too many facts? We seem to be getting more and more concise, gathering incredible amounts of information; and yet, we are struggling to comprehend. Do we know enough to effectively use the knowledge we are gaining in ways that are beneficial, leading us to a state of felicity? I think not! Perhaps, our question is, “Do we know too much . . . ?