A Lesson in Uncertainty
not just un-learning, we also have to re-learn, no such thing as certainty
Here I am at the end of what has been a fraught few days relaxing by checking out emails and articles I like and am caught by the latest from Elif Shafak: The Tyranny of Certainty in Uncertain Times.
It is only a few weeks since I myself was writing something about omniscience - a cousin of ‘omnipotence’ that gets fewer mentions than that egotistical wish to be ‘king of the castle’. What I said was: Using words like ‘certainty’, ‘knowledge’ brings the thought of omniscience to mind. What is omniscience? Most would say it is a fallacy, an illusion, even a delusion, but nevertheless, contradictorily, we often find ourselves thinking that we know, or that we could know if we make the effort needed. We allow omniscience and act as if it were so, forgetting that the dynamics of not-knowing are ever-present.
I feel like changing that ‘most of us’, as most of us don’t use those kinds of words much, and also, like Shafak describes, maybe the culture the modern world encourages, is Be Certain, Look Strong.
I would also have said that I do know to say I don’t know, and also that I believe admitting to vulnerability and to having limits is enabling, better than the brittleness of false strength. In fact in a recent conversation I was asked something about architecture as we happened to pass a building where a particular something was visible on its wall. The actual architecture is irrelevant, I knew what it was, still think that I knew correctly, but nevertheless when answering said: take this as what I call 80% knowledge. I might know, but then its a bit of information that I have gathered along lifes way, so it could well be that it is right, but there is a probability that I have managed to add a bit, or forget a bit, or confuse or conflate with some other bit… Luckily nowadays, one of the other cultures we also live in is the one where we can look it up and check very easily.
Isn’t it interesting that often many would rather say they know, than stay curious, or stay with the genuineness of feeling limited? To me that feeling how I really am is worth any kind of attempt to hold a self-image that isn’t actually there.
I suspect the psychology is about safety and avoiding pain, sadness, grief etc. as when these hit us a bit of certainty feels like a good thing. And maybe that gets carried into being a habit when so much of history, especially the history in the one or two generations of people we still know, is just plain horrible and traumatic. All those twentieth century wars and disasters were bad enough, but the destruction around now, and the desperate prognosis for collapses of many kinds, make one switch off the news, turn on the news, start conversations stop conversations, …
Start and stop this attempt to write sensibly. The fraught few days I mentioned above? Real uncertainty following the shock of a loved sister suffering a severe stroke. I am grateful to the consultant who did not offer comfort, had the courage and sense to express his don’t know. Every person is individual, we can see from scan the severity of loss in her left brain, and as you can see, she has lost movement in her right side and incapacity to make speech. Recovery is uncertain. Further trauma is uncertain. we care for her as we can and we wait.
The plus side is being with the family who are near enough to gather, and the texts and face-time from others in far away places, and many friends. Like many families now we are geographically distant, and at the same time, caringly close.
No matter how omnisicent any of us might be, or want to be, the nature of life will show us the true certainty; life itself is uncertain, wellness is uncertain, we can be thrust into witnessing this any time at all.
Lets find ‘not-knowing’. It brings riches unthought as we share the loving that is here and the losing (capacities? life?) that also comes.
I find myself laughing and quite happy just now, we humans are very contradictory. We can be sad and happy at the same time, and also feel quite ridiculous.
Hurray! Stop striving, and be kind. (Like the consultant and the staff doing their jobs, even though outcomes are uncertain).
When we hear "omniscience," we so often tend to think of it in terms of mental knowledge, facts, understanding, information.
Your column brought to mind Krishna's statement to Arjuna in Chapter 13 of the Bhagavad Gita: "I am the knower of the Field in all Fields.... knowledge of the distinction between the Knower and the Field, O Arjuna, that in my view is true wisdom."
Here, the "Knowing' is not knowing "about" - it is the Knowing in which, as St Paul put it in Acts II, "we live and move and have our being." It is that Knowing without which nothing could even exist, it is the Logos which brings the world and all worlds into being from timeless moment to moment.
Perhaps ironically, or even paradoxically, it is through our individual unknowing, not-knowing, that we most fully come into union with this Supreme supra-mental knowing. It is beyond left or right brain, though with right brain as master and left as emissary, we are more likely to be open to it, because we let go for the left brain's obsession with certainty, and we open to the right brains' joy in non knowing.
*****
Timely enough, I'm giving a brief talk next week in celebration of "the Descent of Krishna's consciousness into Sri Aurobindo, in 1926, and the subsequent descent of the Supramental Consciousness into the earth's atmosphere in 1956, and the influence it has had on the world ever since.
This involves both the increasing dissolution and almost literal dismemberment of the mental structure of consciousness that has dominated since some 2500 years ago - just as Iain McGilchrist illustrates in his first book (and Jean Gebser covers as well) - first in its holistic form, with right hemisphere as master, leading up ultimately to what Gebser refers to as the "deficient" form of the mental structure, the left hemisphere dominated mental consciousness of the past several centuries.
This is all coming apart as the new integral consciousness is affecting the world. The great danger here is so many who are drawn to the "disruptors' and "chaos agents" don't realize that the kind of destruction many of them bring leads us back to a more primitive semi-conscious participatory consciousness rather than forward to what Owen Barfield called "final participation."
In any case, none of these complicated concepts are ultimately necessary. As Ramana Maharshi put it, let attention be not on what is seen or the act of seeing, but
"That which sees."
Knowing that, all is known (back to omniscience!!)
Sending you and your sister love amidst the not-knowing. xxx