Words Fail

Worlds are colliding. Lately I've been reading Voegelin, Schuon, and Sowell, and these three -- who have never before inhabited the same sentence (I just checked: It looks like there aren't any great matches for your search) -- converge on one key point: that articulated knowledge can be a poor substitute for the experiential kind.

This post is primarily about mystical knowledge, which is to say, experiential knowledge of God. But the principle applies to every realm, which we already know from reading our Polanyi.

Let me begin with Sowell, since he is the most down to earth: literally, because as far as I know, he is completely secular. I've read all of his books, and don't remember him ever touching on religion except incidentally.

But principles are universal, otherwise they wouldn't be principles. Supposing you discover one, it may apply to things you don't intend. Suppose, for example, you believe in the principle that all men are created equal, but you also happen to be a Jim Crow or BLM or Antifa racist. Oops! You are unintentionally cancelled by your own principle. You can kill MLK, but his principle will take its revenge.

How exactly would we formulate the principle we are about to discuss? It's easier to do so in the context of aesthetics, since no amount of yada yada can contain or exhaust the mysteries of sound or color as conveyed by a master. But we're talking about plain old knowledge of any kind. Can our epistemological principle be reduced to an aphorism? Calling Sr. Dávila!

Each of the following touches on our principle from a different angle. Or, imagine trying to describe a hyperdimensional object with 3D language: even an infinite number of circles won't add up to a single sphere. For that matter, even an infinite number of posts will never exhaust that to which I am alluding. For

Certain ideas are only clear when formulated, but others are only clear when alluded to.

And Words do not decipher the mystery, but they do illuminate it. Light comes from Light. And returns to it.

B-b-b-but As long as we can respond without hesitating we do not know the subject.

This one is perfect: We do not know anything perfectly except what we do not feel capable of teaching.

What is the timeless truth taught by our trolls? That Nothing seems easier to understand than what we have not understood.

How to distinguish between the intelligent man and the learned fool? That which is incomprehensible increases with the growth of the intelligence. And this one is particularly obvious: Whoever is curious to measure his stupidity should count the number of things that seem obvious to him.

Honesty requires us to place strict limits on what we know, and certainly what we may express about it. This isn't just rudimentary humility, but common courtesy:

The honest philosophy does not pretend to explain but to circumscribe the mystery.

I'll say it again: One can only reread what suggests more than what it expresses.

You are no doubt familiar with the phenomena of "intelligent stupidity" and "mature immaturity." But in reality, To mature is to comprehend that we do not comprehend what we had thought we comprehended.

I know that I don't know. What's your excuse?

We especially see this unbounded pseudo-intelligence in our so-called elites, whether in politics, the media, or academia. One of the reasons mean girls such as Jim Acosta and Barack Obama so hate President Trump is that he has torn away the masks of competence, intelligence, and emotional maturity. High school students, Dude.

I wish I had more time, but I don't, so we'll pick up the thread tomorrow.