Cameron on Knowledge
Wednesday, January 9th, 2008Blogfriend Charles Cameron left the following comment on my knowledge expertise post but I’m promoting it here ( while I munch a quick bite to eat and digest his remarks) because it will resonate with the interests of a number of my other readers.
I’ll update later tonight with a response:
“I’d like to propose that the reason, as you say, that “a space in which people from diverse fields of expertise can get together to exchange ideas” is so powerful isn’t because the more “people” the merrier – its because the more “diverse fields” the merrier.
Each new expert, if expert in one field, brings one new family of “frames” together, and it is the viewing of the known facts (and occasional anomalies) in new frames that provides the unexpected glimpses. So that in fact the most useful expertise would be in (almost content free) frames – in knowing a wide variety of angles from which to look at each situation.
But I’d like to take this farther, and then deeper.
I’m speaking of frames, but those are fairly easily gathered by a decent collector, since they don’t on the whole challenge people’s existing emotions – the assumptions which exemplify our worldviews, to which we tend to be emotionally attached, are harder to get at – and deeper still there the archetypes in which our entire sense of reality is anchored, shifts in which, like psychedelic drug experiences, shake us to the foundations.
For a practical minded child of the enlightenment to question some position proposed by John Cain or Hillary Clinton is not too difficult. To admit one’s own foolishness after offering unwanted though well-intentioned advice to a confirmed alcoholic is harder. But to question the law of cause and effect as commonly understood seems, well, suicidal.
And yet that’s what, for instance, al-Ghazali did, and the Islamic world is still halfway of the opinion that he is right. As an author under the pseudonym Spengler put it in a recent article for Asia Times:
There are no intermediate causes, in the sense of laws of nature. Mars traverses an ellipse around the sun not because God has instituted laws of motion that require Mars to traverse an ellipse, but because Allah at every instant directs the angular velocity of Mars. … Allah is everywhere doing everything at all times. He sets the spin on every electron, measures the jump of every flea, the frequency of every sneeze.
That’s a hard one for us to swallow, as is the neo-Platonist view – popular with Marcilio Ficino, the leading light of the Platonic Academy in Medici Florence – expressed here by Plotinus, (and echoed by Shakespeare in a familiar phrase):
Men directing their weapons against each other- under doom of death yet neatly lined up to fight as in the pyrrhic sword-dances of their sport – this is enough to tell us that all human intentions are but play, that death is nothing terrible, that to die in a war or in a fight is but to taste a little beforehand what old age has in store, to go away earlier and come back the sooner. … Murders, death in all its guises, the reduction and sacking of cities, all must be to us just such a spectacle as the changing scenes of a play; all is but the varied incident of a plot, costume on and off, acted grief and lament. For on earth, in all the succession of life, it is not the Soul within but the Shadow outside of the authentic man, that grieves and complains and acts out the plot on this world stage which men have dotted with stages of their own constructing.
These views – that all the world’s a play, that each sparrow falling, each arrow or bullet fired, each airplane tilted towards a distant tower is held between the fingers of a God – they seem unnatural to us, they are foreign, medieval we c all them, archaic even – and yet the hold some terrible compulsion for us, they are the stuff of dreams, and for those whose “niveau mentale” is less firmly fixed in the twenty-first century and its certainties, they can unleash a fervor we find it hard to understand.
My point in quoting al-Ghazali and Plotinus is to show, as Erich Auerbach showed in his Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, that realities at odds with what seems like reality to us have significant histories and can inspire powerful emotions and impassioned acts that leave our western speculative imaginations standing in their dust.
The warfare of the Aztecs, the berserkers seeking Valhalla, and most significantly today, the Islamists seeking martyrdom – these are not “rational actors” in a sense that tweaking our Prisoners Dilemma tables will not address.
To know them, we must think not merely our of the box but out of boxes, take not just the road less traveled but a path so overgrown a machete is required to cut it, and no one can say whether it was a path before, or is new found land, a haunt of owls or badgers, or an habitation of ghosts… a trackless track as zen might call it, crossing the Cartesian rift between brain and mind, passing between real and imaginal, fact and myth, story and history as easily as we might pass between Colorado and Wyoming.
All this requires a sort of intellectual courage … and a poetic / archaic cast of mind.
Well, that’s one end of an Ariadne’s thread…
I hope to follow the thread deeper into the labyrinth in upcoming posts.”
