Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of
“How Do We Know What We Know?”
Sunday, November 09, 2008
by Rev. Dr. Gretchen Woods
When I was writing my doctoral dissertation, my
supervisor, the Rev. Dr. Lloyd Averill, insisted that I could not enter into
any serious consideration of theology or what is ultimate without answering the
question, “How do we know what we know?” Addressing this question involves
epistemology, defined as “ . . . the study of human
knowledge,” (James L. Christian, Philosophy:
An Introduction to the Art of Wondering, 2nd ed. p. 169.) or, more specifically, “. . . the
study of the nature and validity of human knowledge.” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed. s.v.
“epistemology”)
While this may seem quite
esoteric and impractical, epistemology actually studies the basis for our
survival as individuals and as a species. As James Christian tells us, “In
exploring this field we are touching one of evolution’s fundamental mechanisms
for survival, for it is by knowledge that we orient ourselves in the world. (Christian, p. 179.) When we engage in epistemology, we try
to understand what it is that we know and can trust to keep us alive in the
world. Epistemology involves examining ourselves and is, therefore, subjective.
Given that caveat, I should like to explain my understanding of how we know
what we know and how this is related to religion, ultimology,
and experience.
I begin with experience,
because I believe it is the basic unit of knowledge. It is NOT knowledge
itself, but, rather, the building block necessary for knowledge. For me,
experience is the starting point of knowledge. A particular experience is an event
or, as Alfred North Whitehead calls it, an “. . .
actual occasion.” (Whitehead, Process and Reality, An Essay in Cosmology, p. 18.) It is
the basis for our knowledge and occurs at a level before language, before there
is any split between intellect and emotion.
This perspective, of
course, is based upon the assumption that there is a self which
has experiences and can build knowledge from them. As Paul Tillich asserts,
“Every epistological assertion is implicitly
ontological.” (Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vol 1. p. 71.)
That is a very fancy way of saying, “When we speak of what we know, we must
also be speaking of our way of being in the world.” If we cannot agree that a
self can exist, then we may as well not proceed at
all, for all that follows would be rendered meaningless.
There are four sources of
experience that provide the self with building blocks for knowledge. They are:
our senses (empirical knowledge), reason (rational knowledge), intuition
(knowledge from the preconscious), and authority (knowledge from others). (Christian, pp. 180-188.) To these I would add mysticism or
spirituality (though this might fall under intuition), as a direct connection
with the totality of consciousness that is Truth or Consciousness as Such.
These sources provide the self experience from which to build knowledge. I may
touch a hot burner on the stove which gives me the experience of being burned.
I create within my self a structure of meaning about this; hence, I know at the
deepest level of my being that this is undesirable, not to mention dangerous. I
may not be able to convey this knowledge to others, but I know. It is
information upon which I can base my activities in the world and which will aid
my survival.
We can not convey knowledge
until we take our internal knowing, or structure of meaning, and make it
intelligible to others. This involves using language or metaphor of some sort
(the arts come to mind here) that is a culturally agreed upon vehicle to convey
our experience. This vehicle, be it metaphor or language, is a way of conveying
our knowing or structure of meaning. Our language comes from our social
contacts within our culture. It forms and frames the way we share our knowing.
Through the acquisition of language, I not only know that the glowing burner is
“hot” and will “burn,” I can tell others this information. This information can
help others to learn about things that are “hot” and “burn” without having to
experience their dangers. This knowledge will aid in everyone’s survival in the
world. Now there is not only an experience that enables me to make sense of my
world and to survive in it, there is a means with which I can share that
experience. Thus, epistemology, examines our knowing (structures of meaning)
and the ways in which we share that knowing (metaphor or language).
I am aware that I differ
from many social scientists and theologians who believe that language is
essential for knowing. My experience asserts that, most often, the experience
of knowing precedes the effort to convey the knowledge. Our efforts to make our
knowing intelligible result, not only in language, but in the arts and other
methods of communication, like body language, which may or may not be viewed as
language.
When we ask, how do we know what we know, we respond to two basic questions:
“What is true? And “What is important?” These are questions that are essential
for survival. I submit that these are also the basic questions that religion
sets forth to answer at the deepest level of human experience. “Religion is the
search for that meaning which has power to give shape to experience, purpose to
existence, and motivation and moral energy to human enterprise.” (definition offered by Lloyd Averill in a D. Min. seminar at
Northwest Theological Union on February 6, 1990.) As such, religion is a
process, rather than an institution. The confusion over the true meaning of
religion and religions led Wilfred Cantwell Smith to suggest that the word be
dropped from usage. Rather than adopting this response, I suggest we reframe
our thinking to agree that religion is a process of seeking that which is most
meaningful and which religious institutions are – or should be - organized to
encourage and support. That this may not be reflected in our personal
experience of religious institutions does not negate the value of this
definition.
If we can agree to this definition of religion, then the
meaning of ultimology takes a new turn. Ultimology becomes the intentional study of the knowing
that results from the religious search for that which is most meaningful in our
lives and, more specifically, the study of the metaphors with which we convey
that knowing. When we ask how we know what we know, we are concerned with all
knowledge, great and small. Ultimology is more
specifically directed toward that knowledge which reaches deepest into our
sense of meaning: meaning beyond our selves. Ultimology
could be called a specific branch of epistemology, dealing with that which is
most important and gives most meaning, i.e., religion.
A great deal of confusion arises when considering the
object of this search that is religion, for, not only is religion itself a
process, but its object (whether called Truth, God, Allah, Brahma, mystery, or,
simply meaning) is also in process. We have yet to develop fully language that
is satisfactory for discussing processes, for we are still generally enmeshed
in language that is mechanistic and deals more with things than processes. This
cultural lapse limits our ability to articulate effectively our experience and
knowing about what is ultimate, as both are processes, not things, and our
current language is not adequate to address this problem. Poetry, or the
graphic and musical arts or dance, as language that allows for more levels of
meaning may prove to be more effective in conveying the essential knowledge
about what is ultimate. Many of us find our inspiration, not in prose, but in
the work of Mary Oliver or Kenneth Rexroth. Still, I choose to attempt to make
some sense of my knowing about my experience of what is ultimate through this
prose, knowing its limitations and its value for conveying meaning.
This assertion that both
religion and whatever is ultimate are in process may be very confusing to those
who wish to think of God or Source or religion or theology as completed things.
It will, however, be liberating for those who find their knowing is based upon
processes and not things. It is for those that this will be most intelligible,
for our knowing derives from experiences that can only be explained as
processes.
As process, my knowing is changing because my
consciousness is changing – I would hope toward greater consciousness. The
danger into which we always slip is the danger of reifying (making real) the
models, metaphors, and/or structures that we build. This entire work is an
attempt to articulate my structure of meaning based upon the limited language
that I possess at the time. It may make sense to you – if you resonate with my
structure. It may not. We need humbly to remember that our structures
or models are not real. They are simply metaphors we have built from our
limited language and consciousness. They point toward a greater consciousness
than that which our language can approximate.
Why then engage in the process of ultimology
at all? I believe that ultimology must be done to add
to the total consciousness that is available My
structure is limited by my consciousness and my ability to express it, but it
is worth adding to that which already exists. I bring it forward, not for
affirmation or justification, but to encourage polylogue
(give and take of consciousness) and further exploration by and with others,
that the whole may continue to grow.
For
I believe that there is reality: the total of all that was and is. There is
truth about that reality. This truth can only be known in part by any one of
us. We each experience a part of it, but not the whole. When we share our
structures of meaning, we have the opportunity to come closer to the whole of
truth about reality. When we share our structures of meaning, we may grow in
consciousness of reality. Our Source embraces the totality of reality – and
much more than we can comprehend.
Consider a diamond. No one of us can see all of it at
once. Our position relative to the diamond determines which facets catch the
most light and which are lost to us. Recognizing that we can only view the
diamond from our perspective, we may gain much more knowledge by engaging in
interchange with others who can see it from other perspectives. If the diamond
is our Source, we gain far more insight about our Source by sharing our knowing
with others. This is why we “do ultimology.” We need
to share our knowing and add to the whole.
There are many different ways to be human – at least
sixteen, if Isabel Briggs Myers is correct. Recognizing that
the experiences of each individual are responded to from vastly different
frames of reference, polylogue enables each and all
to approach truth – and our Source – more closely. No one has a corner
on experience of that which brings most meaning and truth. We need to share our
structures of meaning. Sharing our structures of meaning helps us through life
by bringing us closer and closer to knowing what is most true and what is most
important. It deepens our ultimology.
Our sense of trust in what we know is true and most
important is our faith. Our faith is our response to that in which we trust,
that to which we cling for support in life, that which we know. To be
worthy of our faith, our structures of meaning must be able to address mystery
and to allow for paradox and the random we encounter. They must be able to
respond creatively to experiences of good and evil from birth to death. Our
faith is our response of trust in that which we encounter through our search
for meaning, our response to our experience of our Source. And we share this
faith because we care for one another.
I am struck by Alicia Ostriker’s assertion: “Everywoman Her Own Theology”:
I am nailing them up to the
cathedral door
Like Martin Luther.
Actually, nop,
I don’t want to resemble
that Schmutzkopf
(See Erik Erikson and N. O.
Brown
On the Reformer’s anal
aberrations,
Not to mention his hatred
of Jews and Peasants),
So I am thumbtacking
these ninety-five
Theses to
the bulletin board in my kitchen.
My proposals, or should I
say requirements,
Include at least one image
of a god,
Virile, beard optional, one
of a goddess,
Nubile, breast size
approximating mine,
One divine baby, one lion,
one lamb,
All nude as figs, all
dancing wildly,
All
shining.
Reproducible
In marble,
metal, in fact any material.
Ethically, I am looking for
An absolute endorsement of
loving-kindness
No loopholes, except maybe
mosquitoes
Virtue and sin will
henceforth be discouraged,
Along with suffering and
martyrdom
There will be no concept of
infidels;
Consequently the faithful
must entertain
Themselves
some other way than killing infidels.
And so forth and do on. I
understand
This piece of paper is
going to be
Spattered with wine one
night at a party
And
covered over with newer pieces of paper.
That is how it goes with
bulletin boards.
Nevertheless it will be
there
Like an invitation, like a
chalk pentangle,
It will emanate certain
occult vibration.
If something sacred wants
to swoop from the universe
Through a ceiling, and
materialize,
Folding its silver wings,
In a kitchen, and bump its
chest against mine,
My paper will tell this
being where to find me.
I hope each of us will be
intentional enough to offer this to the rest of us: our declaration of our
knowing, our faith, with respect, responsibility, and relish for the process.
So Be
it Blessed be
“How Do We Know What We Know?”
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Order of Service
9:30 AM and 11:00 AM
Children will be in their classes all morning.
Welcome and Announcements
Choral Introit
Chalice Lighting: We kindle
the flame of our faith
aware that each of us seeks its light
to show us the way of truth and
understanding,
fully conscious that that may prove
different for each one of us,
yet knowing that its warmth and
illumination is needed
for the whole community. May we be
lights to one another!
Opening Words:
Out of many different
places and spaces
We come together with fear
and hope,
Aware of
the challenges that face us in this world.
Despite our questions and
hesitation
We connect and join our
energies into a whole
That is truly greater than
its parts
If we each bring the whole
of our selves,
To this
moment, and to the search. May it be so!
Opening Song: #338 “I Seek
the Spirit of a Child”
by William Ellery Channing
Celebrating with Music:
Teach Me Well” by Teresa Jennings
Sermon: “How Do We Know
What We Know”
Sung Response: #403 “Spirit
of Truth”
Spoken Response
Candles: Milestones of Joy
and Sorrow
Meditation
Closing Song: #295 “Sing Out Praises for the Journey” (verses 1 & 2)
Closing Words
Closing Song: #295 (verse
3)
Celebrants: Cliff Pereira
and the Rev. Dr. Gretchen Woods
by William Ellery Channing
The great end in religious
instruction is not to stamp our minds upon the young, but to stir up their own;
not to make them see with our eyes, but to look inquiringly and steadily with
their own; not to give them a definite amount of knowledge, but to inspire a
fervent love of truth; not to form an outward regularity, but to touch inward
springs; not to bind them by ineradicable prejudices to our particular sect or
peculiar notions, but to prepare them for impartial, conscientious judging of
whatever subjects may be offered to their decision; not to burden the memory,
but to quicken and strengthen the power of thought; not to impose religion upon
them in the form of arbitrary rules, but to awaken the conscience, the moral
discernment, In a word, the great end is to awaken the soul, to excite and
cherish spiritual life.