HOW UNDERSTANDING EVOLVES
by Christopher Largent
Introduction
Though general, the problems this article addresses are more than just academically
interesting; they represent challenges to the cultural and physical existence
of humanity. Indeed, humanity feels threatened today precisely because its
problems seem so general - so universal - and because problems of such
magnitude have been previously regarded as only of academic interest. Following
the popular prejudice that the specific, the narrow and the concrete represent
the practical, problem-solvers have focused on surface issues rather than on
deeper, more fundamental causes of problems. As a result, quests for solutions
have been neither comprehensive nor profound enough to deal with problems
effectively, while the problems themselves continue to expand and multiply.
The cause of the
expansion, though, lies not in the problems but in the superficial approaches
to solving them. Those who hope for genuine, long term solutions must address
not only specific political conflicts, individual economic collapses and
particular cultural concerns, but also the deeper and broader causes of these
crises: the fragmentation of knowledge, the dogma of purposelessness, the
preference for opinions over understanding, and the worldview of limitation,
which restricts knowledge to narrow, distorting and ultimately destructive
endeavors.
Such deeper
issues are just now being noticed by academic and nonacademic disciplines. To
address them in a profound and comprehensive way - and thus to avoid
superficial approaches - disciplines must examine the way humanity understands
its own existence, an examination which logically begins with understanding
itself.
Fundamental
causes of problems cannot be accurately identified or constructively dealt with
while understanding remains fragmented from discipline to discipline, limited
by its own aimlessness or narrowed by appeals to opinion, dogma and prejudice.
Disciplines must liberate knowledge from dogmatism and unify it, thus making
interdisciplinary problem-solving possible. In fact, accomplishing such a
unification is the first step in comprehensive problem-solving.
To this end,
fundamental questions must be asked: What factors mold understanding? How does
understanding develop? Can the process of development provide a basis for
unifying disciplines? In other words, is there a model of the development of
understanding that indicates its stages and ultimate purpose and thus generally
defines meaningful activity in all human endeavors?
To propose
tentative answers to these questions, this paper describes four aspects of
knowing, which together form a model of understanding, potentially applicable
to all disciplines (see Figure 1). The paper then shows how disciplines
accentuate some aspects of understanding and ignore others, aborting the
development of understanding and thus unwittingly undermining their own
contributions to society. Finally, it examines the order of development within
the model, showing the necessity of each stage. In this way, the paper presents
understanding as an interrelated process, which offers new possibilities for
dealing with culture- and life-threatening problems.1
Figure I
A model of the development of understanding:
(1) the presuppositions or ¾¾¾¾¾® (2) the paradigm, worldview or
assumptions made about conceptual
tools used to
reality as a whole, about explore the implications
the fundamentally real, or of the assumptions made
the field of investigation about reality
½
½ ½
½ ½
½ ¯
(4) the
relationship between ¬¾¾¾¾¾
(3) experience, or the practical
the structure of under- working out
and application
standing and the structure of the paradigm as it shapes
of reality, or of the the perception of experience
ultimately real itself and experience itself
The four
stages of the development of understanding
(1) In general, the development of understanding has its roots in the objective
existence of the reality to be understood: something that can be known, that
exists independently of the knower. For understanding to be possible at all,
one must make assumptions about the objectively real - something that is
distinct from, but in some way related to the understanding of the knower - and
then pursue these assumptions to determine their validity. That is,
understanding begins not in a philosophical vacuum, but with the tentative
acceptance of presuppositions that can be tested and modified as understanding
develops.
Accordingly, the
first stage in the development of understanding makes explicit a discipline's
most fundamental assumptions: a) that there is a reality to be known, and b)
that there is some relation between the knower and reality that makes knowing
possible. The general aim of first-stage understanding is to adopt those
presuppositions about reality that maximize the knowing-relationship, that is,
that make possible the greatest domain of successful research and creative
activity with the least conceptual distortion.2
(2) From this
aim evolves the second stage: an operating framework a paradigm, to borrow
Thomas Kuhn's familiar concept - through which the implications of the
discipline's fundamental assumptions (stage 1) can be systematically pursued.
The paradigm, or
framework of basic concepts about reality, is the matrix for other tools of
understanding: criteria for theoretical and applied research, standards for
research methods, principles and rules of practice and all other conceptual
equipment necessary for the objective, specific and rigorous pursuit of
understanding.
With such tools, one can test the paradigm in experience (the third stage) to
determine whether or not it is in line with the reality to be investigated (the
first stage). That is, because there are many possible paradigms for pursuing
any field - always developing and being superseded by more comprehensive paradigms
- disciplines constantly check (in stage 3) which paradigms (stage 2) best
approximate the objectively real (stage 1), revising them accordingly.
(3) Thus, the
third stage of development demands that the paradigm be tested: How accurately
and successfully does it mold the perception of experience? Does it bring to
light the order necessary for perceiving patterns of interrelatedness among
otherwise random bits of data? Do the paradigm's working hypotheses work, and
have its tools for understanding been properly developed? Does it formulate
accurate expectations? Does it solve specific problems?
Answering such
questions on the basis of fieldwork determines how the paradigm can be expanded
or corrected. Researchers learn whether or not it is equal to the field it is
intended to make sense of and whether or not it prepares them to interact with
the field creatively. For this latter purpose, they specifically ask: Does the
paradigm reveal the 'given' in a new light, opening new realms of
possibilities?
In sum, since
paradigms always develop as they are applied and tested, this stage makes
explicit the practical ways paradigms change, suggesting that users of
paradigms must change with them to remain creative.
(4) Finally, the
fourth stage deals with the aim of understanding - its ideal or goal. Though
academic disciplines tend to give less attention to this stage than the other
three, the lack of focus is itself significant. The fourth stage speaks to
largely overlooked questions about understanding's purpose.
The central
concern here is the relation between understanding (as a whole process rather
than as a collection of particular facts or knowers) and the objectively or
ultimately real (the whole of reality, Being, God, etc.). Though it can be
couched in the language of the sciences, arts or religion, the central question
for the fourth stage may be generally rendered: Does the structure of
understanding that has evolved through the first three stages reflect the
structure of reality? Thus, the growing demand for disciplines - and the
purpose of the development of understanding - is to integrate the
understanding achieved in stages 1 through 3 with the most encompassing sphere
of objective reality.
While no one
doubts that this is an ambitious task - one that never ends, as Max Planck
noted3 - it presses more and more on all disciplines. Metaphysical
issues, values-debates, whole-systems analyses and the like appear with ever
greater frequency. Though some disciplines, especially the sciences, find
transcendent reality irrelevant (belonging only to religion or philosophy),
they also find it intruding on their work, especially (to borrow the
Neoplatonic language of emanation) in its translated forms: criteria, standards
and ideals that guide research and its application. Current events - including
much-publicized disasters - suggest that all intellectual work should be keyed
to values and realities higher than the superficially physical.
More positively,
the task has an almost irresistible appeal for practitioners of disciplines.
Actually doing it - that is, actually striving to align understanding more
closely to, first, the structure of a discipline and, second, the structure of
the objectively real - offers every individual a way to wed practical work to
the purpose of knowing: understanding reality, or Being, itself. Such a wedding
gives profound meaning to the work of each practitioner in each discipline.
The fourth basic
consideration, then, is: Does the structure of understanding, evolved from a
stage-2 paradigm, based on stage-1 assumptions, applied and tested in stage-3
experiments, evolve to reflect the structure of reality?
Accordingly, the
ultimate goal of the development of understanding is not the success or failure
of a paradigm (stages 2 and 3) but a clearer understanding of ultimate reality
as such - its laws, order, nature.or structure (stage 4). In working toward
such a goal, each individual and discipline can contribute to the total
conception of reality. That is, every truly creative achievement in a
discipline constructively restructures the total comprehension of reality's
order.
With such
restructured understanding, every discipline gains a new context for further
development, which recommends new assumptions about the nature of reality
(stage 1). New stage-1 formulations, in turn, give rise to an expanded
paradigm-conception (stage 2) and a broader base for creative experience (stage
3). In other words, stage-4 accomplishments turn the process of understanding
into a spiral of knowing. With stage 4 providing the integrating factor for
this upward-spiraling cycle (see Figure 2), all creative endeavors take on the
most comprehensive meaning: in some way, they move the structure of
understanding closer to the structure of the real.
Figure 2
(4) stages 1-3 seen as restructuring ¾¾¾¾¾® (1)
new assumptions, or a clearer
the total understanding of reality,
understanding of previous
enlarging the context for the assumptions, about the nature
further development of understanding
of reality
½
½
½
½
½
½ ¯
(3) a higher and
broader base for ¬¾¾¾¾¾ (2)
an expanded or restructured
creative, constructive testing paradigm, embracing new truths
and application of knowledge and new knowledge
The stages of
the development of understanding (or lack of) in disciplines
The value of any philosophical model lies in its revelation of previously
unelucidated processes, showing relationships that otherwise may not be
apparent.4 In the model presented here (in Figures 1 and 2), such
relationships become clear when we examine not only how understanding evolves
(as suggested above) but also how it fails to evolve when disciplines
accentuate some stages and ignore others.5
For example,
contriving ways in which God (stage 1) should work (stage 3) - rather than
trying to understand how it does work (through a stage-2 paradigm) - popular
religious speculation concocts the familiar tribal god that sends tornadoes to
destroy houses on one side of the street while sparing the other side, that
enjoys flattery and begging in the name of worship, that favors some groups of
worshippers over others, and that will act only when invoked through ritualized
thoughts and actions.
Predictably,
this tribal god alarms adherents, who want to avoid incurring 'divine wrath'.
In response, religion constructs a dogma - which must be assented to, or
'believed' - in lieu of stage 4. If adherents just 'believe', life will go well
for them. Unfortunately, wedding contrived dogma to blind belief is the exact
counterfeit of stage 4, which demands an accountability to the structure of
Being and a higher understanding of that structure. In the end, adherents get
no help from this strategy, especially when suffering occurs. They are left to
fret over whether God is both powerful and good enough to ease their pain.
In fact, stage 4
is impossible under such conditions, because the vision (stage 1) that informs
understanding reaches no higher than human opinions. Opinions cannot substitute
for a genuine stage 1 (presuppositions derived, in this case, from centuries of
reason and revelation).
Further, without
the practical understanding that stage 2 makes possible, the very concept of
God begins to disappear. Questioning the power and/or goodness of God,
adherents move from doubt to despair to disbelief. Thus, popular religion's
confusion condemns humanity to atheism or agnosticism. Though
fundamentalist-evangelical and social-service religion try to offer
alternatives, they fail adherents (even when they are useful to society),
because they offer no way to understand God - the deep root of the problem.
Historically, of
course, such religious confusion has always been challenged by serious
theologians, philosophers of religion and more recently, historians of
religion, encouraging adherents to seek genuine alternatives. With analyses
based on the stages of understanding, adherents may be better equipped to avoid
future religious pitfalls.
The contemporary
quest for new developments - including renewed interest in systematic thinkers
- indicates that philosophy itself is dissatisfied with nihilism (under
whatever name it appears). With the stages of understanding clearly analyzed,
philosophy may not only move forward in understanding its past and charting its
future, but it may define its context comprehensively enough to value even
contributions made by anti-metaphysicians.
Unfortunately,
empiricism-only leads its adherents into metaphysical and ethical isolationism
as well as philosophical self-deception. First, removing themselves from a
well-examined metaphysical base (stage 1), super-empiricists are forced to
claim that their basis is merely a statement of what exists, uninfluenced by
philosophical assumptions. As a result, unexamined biases (in place of
consciously formulated stage-1 presuppositions) creep into their hypotheses
(stage 2), turning up in fieldwork (stage 3) as either paradoxes or disasters.
Second, such
unexamined biases - with which super-empiricists tend to identify - become
self-justifying walls; instead of making stage-4 assessments, practitioners
actually block efforts to define the larger meaning or value of their
endeavors. In this way, metaphysical isolationism becomes ethical isolationism:
the disasters caused by uncritically accepted biases make chilling,
anti-technology headlines, so that super-empiricists must deny accountability
to other spheres of experience just to be able to continue their work. They
fail to realize that their work is not the problem; the misleading biases cause
the disasters. Not seeing the root of the problem - namely, that they have
failed to wrestle with their own basic assumptions (stage 1) and thus to arrive
at a fundamental purpose (stage 4) - empiricism-only scientists suffer agonies
in addition to those they unwittingly inflict on humanity.
The results are that, more and more, 'natural-potential'
schools of arts and education drift into self-deprecation, substituting this
activity for useful self-examination. Artists of this bent, having abandoned
the quest for objective standards (thus dropping stage 2), wonder out loud
about their social role, apart from stimulating society's over-stimulated
emotions (a culturally destructive stage 3).
Similarly,
educators who once espoused creative-potential-without discipline theories (in
lieu of stage 2, which demands the rigors of a discipline) recant in the face
of a generation whose intellectual skills, motivation and self-discipline have
sunk to society-threatening lows.
Fortunately, the
cultural wastelands created by the failed strategies of these schools now force
them to reconsider their fundamentals (stages I and 2) and to rediscover the
aims that inspire and sustain development (stage 4).
The
consequences of omitting a stage in the development of understanding
Another way to consider the implications of the model is to ask what is missed
when one specific stage is omitted. Because the four-stage model resembles the
interactive stages of a cybernetic system (input - process - output -
feedback), every stage is necessary for development to occur. When each stage
operates in conjunction with the others, development spirals upward in ever
widening, ever broadening understanding. When any stage is omitted, the entire
process is jeopardized, a fact made clear when understanding is considered
without one of its stages.
No stage 1. Without a clear definition of
assumptions about reality (stage 1), the discipline's paradigm (stage 2) builds
on presuppositions that may or may not support progress in its sphere of
activity. This, in turn, allows experimental work (stage 3) to be fundamentally
misconceived, appropriate perhaps in another field but confining and distorting
in its own. (One need think only of certain schools of sociology and
psychology, floundering among assumptions and methods adapted to studying
physical rather than sociological or psychological phenomena.)
More seriously
perhaps, a lack of conscious consideration of assumptions opens the door to the
belief that no such assumptions have been made - and to the concomitant claim
that ignoring the issue liberates research from any 'metaphysical biases'. As a
result, many assumptions (as well as biases and prejudices) sneak into the
discipline, never having been critically analyzed.
No stage 2. To omit stage 2 is to fail to analyze
the concepts, methods, criteria and rules that comprise a discipline's
framework for understanding. Such a failure leads to various consequences.
Specifically, without recognizing the paradigm that forms the approach to any
field of study, researchers do not realize that a paradigm molds their
research. As a result, they take as objective evidence what is merely a
projection of their unrecognized but nonetheless governing framework. They
ignore the paradigm (stage 2) that makes them see something as something and
not as something else, and it is precisely this mistake that undermines
objectivity and reliability in research (stage 3).
For example,
unaware of their paradigm, researchers do not know how to respond to anomalies
or crises; they do not know what is being challenged. In the belief that
experience (stage 3) occurs in a conceptual void (no stage 2), they do not
realize that what needs correction is the framework of concepts (and related methods)
that they bring to the experience.
In fact, if all
paradigm predispositions (stage 2) could be removed (which is functionally
impossible), so-called facts would be rendered incomprehensible. Events and
experiences (stage 3) would have no significance (stage 4), because there would
be no conceptual context (stage 2) within which their meaning could be
determined. As a result, there would be no way of distinguishing information
relevant to progress from conceptual and experiential dead-ends. The discipline
would be left with an amorphous mass of perceptions that would have no
information-content.
Finally, without
a paradigm, the discipline would lose its means for educating future
generations in the exemplary achievements of its pioneers. The paradigm provides
the framework within which pioneering achievements can occur, be understood and
be perpetuated. As the discipline matures through time, paradigm-based
developments uncover deeper dimensions of earlier achievements. Without a
paradigm, however, such achievements, standing far above generally accepted
concepts, can be - and often are - dismissed as non-repeating dispensations of
genius, beyond the reach of common humanity. But, although each achievement is
unique in time and space, the understanding on which it is based is nonetheless
available to all who are willing to pursue it. Only the lack of a paradigm -
and therefore the absence of an analysis of the principles on which the
achievement rests - allows it to be dismissed as a fortunate aberration.
Though this
tendency is less prevalent in the sciences, it is common in religion and the
arts. That is, when one cannot master the discipline of a Raphael, a Milton or
a Mozart - much less an Isaiah, a Buddha or a Jesus - one dismisses the
understanding that the achievement represents by claiming that its masters were
'simply geniuses' and that no one else can aspire to that degree of mastery.
Resignation to mediocrity then becomes the response to what otherwise would
have been a spur to understanding. The specifically religious version of this
is to convert the achiever or exemplar into a god to be mindlessly worshipped,
when in fact the exemplar's intent was to offer those lost in mindless beliefs
the alternative of understanding.
No stage 3. To ignore stage 3 is to have a theory
without a practice, to accept a set of interrelated hypotheses and methods
(stage 2) without reference to their practical impact, implications or
consequences (stage 3). This tendency characterizes various forms of
absolutism, especially the religious type, in which the repetition of
dogmatically correct but little understood phrases counts as understanding.
Assenting to absolute truths is supposed to stand in not only for
paradigm-consistent reasoning (stage 2) but also for practical problem-solving
(stage 3).
The more
familiar consequences of ignoring stage 3, however, are certain forms of
emotionalism, on one hand, and reductionism, on the other - both oblivious to
whether they impact experience in constructive or destructive
ways.
In the arts,
religion and popular psychology, for example, emotionalist practitioners
'express their deepest feelings' by assaulting the public's sensibilities,
privacy and dignity in the names of self-expression, salvation and
self-knowledge. In other words, ignoring the stage-3 effects of their
emotionalist worldviews (a counterfeit stage 2), these practitioners produce results
repugnant to the very groups they wish to impress, convert or convince.
Reductionists,
on the other hand, are largely accepted wherever they go, especially in the
sciences, which they have invaded to the extent that 'science' has become
almost synonymous with ‘reductionism’. Engaging in the pseudo-scientific
practice of reducing all reality to one level or thing, reductionists treat
that thing or level as a self-contained, self-justifying island, with little or
no relation to other phenomena. With this atomistic approach, they reduce whole
subjects to isolated bits, then collect and name as many of the bits as
possible.
Reality,
however, remains multidimensional, composed not of isolated things but of
patterns of relationships. Such patterns, expressed as structures, principles,
orders and laws, constitute that which is of genuine scientific interest.
Accordingly, the scientific method does not reduce a multidimensional universe
to one atom or level but instead reduces it to categories of interrelated
wholes, grouping similar sets of. relationships for the purposes of analysis.
In this way, for
example, chemistry may be reduced to the categories of (1) the fundamental
chemical elements, (2) their interactions and (3) the various forms in which
the interactions appear in nature - all of which refer to the whole discipline.
Using these three groupings to organize chemical relationships, the chemist can
understand chemistry without reducing the subject to bits that must then be
assimilated one at a time. Because the scientific method represents a worldview
that is genuinely relational (stage 2), it enables scientists to understand the
world as they actually experience it (stage 3).
The fragmented reductionist worldview, on the other hand, never recognizes and
so never participates in the relational universe. To a reductionist,
relationships are just more facts about things. As a result, reductionism
wanders in an imaginary billiard-ball world, derived from its own atomist
concepts. Never experiencing reality as it is (that is, never experiencing
stage 3), reductionists merely collect data, which, though alleged to be
practical, are seldom useful and - removed from the context of the interrelated
universe - may prove harmful. By omitting stage 3 - that is, by refusing to
test their worldview in contexts other than their own collecting hobbies -
reductionists threaten to drown science and humanity in a sea of atomistic,
sometimes-destructive facts.
No stage 4. If the fourth stage is omitted, there
is no accountability to either higher purposes or to the structure of the real
itself. The consequences are that disciplines either drift apart or try to
unite on superficial bases: opinions, personal authorities or the comparison of
isolated conclusions (religion and science are periodically forced together on
this last basis). Because no genuine unity can be built on such bases, the
problem of fragmentation is compounded by the disappointment that such putative
solutions have failed.
Real unity lies
in the continual reassessment of the fundamentals of all disciplines in light
of the constituents of reality itself (stage 4). Plato, Kepler, Bach, Leibniz
and others were not merely waxing poetic when they claimed that their
achievements were for 'the glory of God'. Their insights pointed beyond the
accepted limits of their disciplines to a universal, transforming
understanding. By continually reevaluating structures of understanding in light
of a continually emerging model of the structure of reality (stage 4), practitioners
of any discipline can further the development of that discipline and at the
same time participate in the unification of understanding.
Thus, the fourth
stage offers a way to lead understanding to new heights by unifying disciplines
- specifically by uniting the structure of human understanding with the
structure of the objectively, or ultimately real. Though this goal may never be
realized perfectly, its provides a direction for understanding. It prods
humanity to go beyond experience (stage 3), to pursue understanding not for its
concrete benefits alone but for the larger purpose of consciously coming into
unity with higher structures of reality (stage 4) - a purpose realized with the
evolution of understanding through all its stages.
Summary
Because understanding is
an evolving process, it cannot be approached piecemeal. No stage in its
development may be omitted or over-emphasized without giving rise to
crisis-producing problems. The challenge to solve such problems and to
participate in understanding - continually spiraling beyond itself to wider and
more comprehensive knowledge - is open to those in all areas of human endeavor.
Further, the
more understanding is approached in this ordered way, the more the results of
work in any discipline can be constructive rather than destructive. In fact,
creative interaction between the multi-faceted fields of human endeavor
requires such an approach, the aim of which is to constantly evolve an
understanding of reality. On this basis, disciplines can both develop
creatively and unite to solve the problems wrought by fragmenting methods of
knowing. This prospect of unified understanding is what gives hope in the face
of present crises.
NOTES
1. Though I have added few formal notes - because the paper is largely derived
from discussions carried on in the seminar - the stages of understanding did
not appear in a vacuum. Four-stage models of humanity's, society's or reality's
operation abound in the history of religion and philosophy, including Hindu and
Buddhist teachings, Taoist and American Indian cosmology, Platonic-Neoplatonic
and Biblical symbology and Judeo-Christian theology. Of course, I am generally
indebted to those philosophers - from Plato to Leibniz - who established the
goal of unifying understanding. Finally, I am most indebted to my colleague
(and wife), Denise Breton, without whose work on the first draft the paper
would never have been completed. Since then, she has offered not only
suggestions and criticisms but also an application of the four stages to
worldview evolution, helping me identify similar stages in problem-solving and
decision-making in many disciplines.
2. The arts
(including music and literature) present problems when one discusses knowing an
objective reality, because theorists in these fields claim that practitioners
are expressing their 'inner feelings' rather than attempting to know and/or
experience some objective reality. Though there is validity to this, the
reduction of the arts to 'inner feelings' is a troublesome position on
theoretical and practical grounds: with such a position, objective standards
gradually vanish (often replaced by market defined criteria), and the constructive
impact of the arts on society diminishes during the time such a position
dominates (e.g., a large part of this century). This is not an easy issue to
resolve. Nonetheless, more emphasis on understanding (as outlined in this
article) and an attempt to grasp the relation of the arts to objective
standards or values such as unity, beauty, harmony and structure could, I
think, bring something of a renaissance to artistic endeavors.
3. Max Planck, Where
Is Science Going?, (Woodbridge, Connecticut: Ox Bow Press, 1981), 82-83,
198-200.
4. After I wrote
the paper, I noticed the four stages of understanding underlying the whole of
Planck's famous Where is Science Going? and a variation of them in
Rescher's The Limits of Science (Los Angeles:University of California
Press, 1984, p. 29). I have no doubt that they have been noticed by other
thinkers with other variations that I simply am not familiar with.
5. I have chosen to criticize not entire disciplines but only those schools or tendencies within disciplines that have been criticized by others before me, especially by critics within the disciplines themselves. With such critiques, I do not wish to throw stones at easy targets but to offer critics within the disciplines additional tools - specifically, the stages of understanding - for correcting problems they have already identified.