WHERE HAVE WE ARRIVED `?

FROM KNOWLEDGE TO UNDERSTADING

By

(Manfred A. Max-Neef)

(by Terrence Mckenna)

We have arrived at a point in our human evolution, the characteristic of which is that we know a lot, but we understand very little. Our chosen navigation has been piloted by reason, and leading into the port of knowledge. As such it has been an overwhelmingly successful navigation. We have never in all of our existence, accumulated more knowledge than during the last one hundred years.  We are celebrating the apotheosis of reason, but in themidst of such a splendid celebration we suddenly have the feeling that something is missing.

Yes, we can achieve knowledge about almost anything we want. We can, for instance, guided by our beloved scientific method, study everything there is, from theological, anthropological, sociological, psychological and even biochemical perspectives, about a human phenomenon called love. The result will be that we will know everything that can be known about love. But once we achieve that complete knowledge, we will sooner or later discover that that we will never understand love, unless we fall in love. We will realize that knowledge is not the road that leads to understanding, because the port of understanding is on another shore, and requires a different navigation. We will then be aware that we can only attempt to understand that of which we become a part. That understanding is the result of integration, while knowledge has been the result of detachment. That understanding is holistic, while knowledge is fragmented.

At least we have reached a point in which we are finally becoming aware that knowledge is not enough, and that we have to learn how to attain understanding in order to achieve the completeness of our being.

We are, perhaps, beginning to realize that knowledge without understanding is hollow, and understanding without knowledge is incomplete. We therefore need to undertake, at last, the navigation we have so far postponed. But in order to do so, we must face the great challenge of a language shift. José Ortega y Gasset, the Spanish philosopher already mentioned, used to say that “every generation has its theme”. Wemight add that, in addition, every generation, or historical period, is dominated by, or falls under the spell, of some language. That is the way it is, and there is nothing wrong with it, as long as the dominant language of a given periodis coherent with the challenges of that period. 

The important thing to keep inmind is that language influences our perceptions and, hence shapes our actions. Let us go through some examples. During the first three centuries of the SecondMillennium of Western civilization, the dominant language was of a teleological nature, meaning that human actions had to be justified in terms of a calling that was superior and beyond the needs of every day life. That made possible the construction of the great cathedrals and monasteries, where time was no issue. That the construction would take six hundred years? And so what! Nobody was in a hurry. After all, they were constructing for eternity, and eternity is not infinite time, but timelessness. Thank God that the language of “efficiency” had not yet been invented. The importance lay in the deed and not in the time it might take. It was a case of coherence between language and historical challenge. 

The language dominating the Nineteenth Century was basically that of the consolidation of the nation-state. The great speeches of political leaders such as Disraeli, Gladstone, Bismarck, are relevant examples. Without going into details, we may also say that the dominant language of the Century was coherent with the historical challenge of the times. It is only in the TwentiethCentury that the dominant language is that of economics, especially during the second half. A quick overview shows some interesting perspectives. The late Twenties and early Thirties, the time of the so called great depression, coincides with the emergence ofKeynesian economics. The Keynesian language is in many ways the result of a crisis, having the capacity of both interpreting the crisis as well as overcoming it. It is, again, a language (or rather sub-language) coherent with its historical period. 

The next sub-language shift occurs during the Fifties and Sixties, with the emergence of the so called developmental language. This was an optimistic, utopian and happy language. Economists writing in those days were mainly dominated by the feeling that, at last, we had discovered how to promote true

development and overcome world poverty. For the purpose of our argumentation, it is unnecessary to reproduce the prescriptions here. However, what should be pointed out is that although the hoped-for goals were not fully achieved, many things during those decades changed in a positive manner.

A language, at least partially coherent with its historical challenges. And then came the last three decades of the Twentieth Century, with the emergence of the neoliberal discourse. A language that is still dominating over a period in which global poverty has increased dramatically, debt burden has crippled many national economies and generated brutal overexploitation of both people and natural resources, destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity has reached levels unknownin human history, and accumulation of financial wealth in ever fewer hands has reached obscene proportions. The disastrous effects of this

language, absolutely incoherent with its historical challenges, is clear to be seen by everyone, although decision-makers and holders of power prefer to look in the opposite direction, and hold on to a pseudo-religious concoction.