Knowing… Beyond Belief and
Epistemological Closure
Posted by John Hutchinson
Recently, the presidential election in the United States came as a shock to many leaders of the party that lost. It came as an unbelievable surprise to fundraisers and directors of super political action committees [SuperPACs] and to their donors who flushed hundreds of millions of dollars into these efforts in the hopes that their dollars would influence voters.
I heard a term from a political
commentator which caught my attention. 'He' called the dynamics of the losing
party as that of falling into the category of “epistemological closure.” What?
As they discussed this, I came to understand it as a way of saying, “We know
that our candidate is going to win because all the people we talk with also
believe he is going to win… and the polls that show other information are
biased toward the other candidate and therefore ‘wrong.’” This ‘closed-minded’ approach of only
listening to those who ‘believe’ the same thing is not confined to many in the
political party which lost the election. They ignored or reframed all empirical
data as ‘wrong,’ ‘biased,’ or ‘irrelevant.’
Supposedly by raising doubts about something
means the opposite is true. And we know this is not the case. Another example
is the area of climate change. Raising doubts by quoting a handful of ‘scientists’
who are not convinced that climate change is happening and that humans play a
role in it as nearly 95% of ‘climate scientists suggest, does not change the
empirical data that exists. If in fact someone wishes to prove science wrong,
then the scientific method needs to be used to refute scientific argument. Or
one can just believe what they want to believe. This does not make it so.
There are other examples of “Epistemological
Closure” we can look at and some relate to what is “believed” in religious and
spiritual communities. There can be, though not always is, a certain ‘closed-minded’
agreement of “believers” whether it is in the fundamentalism of a religious
belief system based upon a sacred scripture or revered doctrine or in the New
Age and Consciousness Movement ideas that are shared among the “true believers.”
This begs the question, at least to me, “How
do we know something to be true?”
Do we depend on a teacher or book or
doctrine to say what is ‘true’? We can. Yet this is information and data that
is feed into our sensory being. We can use these as tools perhaps to explore
more about life and to see them as one interpretation of life-s meaning or
path.
How do we learn of love? Is it through
reading concepts or is it in experiencing the dynamics of Love. One can point
to love in a conceptual way; the other provides first-hand knowledge of some
energy dynamics that leads to an acceptance and knowing that love is. I would
suggest this is real ‘knowing’ beyond egoic and mental knowledge.
Many spiritual teachings speak of the oneness of
life. Science even grapples with these quantum and unified field dynamics of
life. Hearing or reading about this can point to the possibility and the words
of spiritual teachers, when authentic, emerge from their experience of ‘Oneness.’ Yet you and I do not fully understand the
experience of ‘oneness’ until our egoic mental egg has cracked a bit to allow
us to experience the wonder of ‘Oneness.’ Talking about what others have said
does not make it so for us. Personal knowledge comes from personal experience,
even when it is impossible to put into precise words.
Carl Jung was once asked if he “believed
in God?” His answer, “I don’t believe, I
know.” He spoke from personal experience of the ‘Numinous’ or spiritual source
and also from the personal experience of seeing healing in his patients when
there was this numinous experience in their ‘treatment.’ And we too can say, “I
know” as we have experienced that dynamic of “Mystery” which is the One Life.
So let us move beyond closed-minded “Epistemological
Closure” and experience ‘Life Energy’ or ‘Spirit’ or the ‘Numinous or ‘Mystery’
or ‘Source’ or ‘God’ for ourselves. Then we can speak from understanding and
knowing, not because others agree with us, but because of our own witness to
what has happened and is happening in the present moment.
To return to the opening example, Nate
Silver was 90% sure of the elections outcome, because he did the live math from
real poll averages and researched it in all its ‘nerdiness.’ He was lambasted
by pundits from all political parties. Hats off to Nate and his statistical
analysis for correctly predicting the outcome of the election down to getting
every state’s outcome correct. He didn’t listen to pundits; he listened to his
experience and empirical information he received.
And may this be a reminder to all of us
to look beyond the words of friends, colleagues, and co-believers and come to
the answers ourselves.
