Our civilisation urgently needs more wisdom. Drawing on Part I of my book "The Science of Oneness" this article asks how we can find it amongst the flood of information. It argues that there are no ‘facts’ waiting to be discovered independent of the beliefs and mental models that guide perception, and that even scientific knowledge is based on unprovable assumptions. From this viewpoint, understanding can be increased by integrating rational scientific knowledge with subjective intuition, spiritual insights and direct experience. Wisdom goes beyond knowledge, integrating different ways of knowing with moral sense, values, and appropriate goals. The wise leader displays extraordinary personal development including balance, wholeness, self-awareness, inner and outer harmony, and compassion. The paper concludes that we can move towards deeper understanding and greater wisdom by rigorously testing the reliability of knowledge, putting greater trust in the wisdom of the collective, adopting wisdom as a primary goal.

Published in Network Review (J. of the Scientific and Medical Network), No.91, pp.3-7, summer 2006.

Apologies for poor formatting - the Authors Den editor doesn't work with Firefox.

Where is the life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
T S Eliot, Chorus I from ‘The Rock’


Introduction

Is it coincidence that the further we move into the information age, the closer our civilisation seems to come to breakdown? The world is awash with data. But one binary bit is no different to any other. Raw data are meaningless and useless until we classify them, put them in context, interpret them, and understand their meaning and significance. And even then, their true value only emerges when we use them to help us make wise decisions. It seems to me that what we need most is not more information, but the wisdom to use what we have well. But how can we make the transition from information to wisdom?

Let me illustrate these points by considering my bank transactions, represented by bits in a computer. If I came across these bits in isolation, they would be meaningless. They could equally well be daily maximum temperatures, the results of an experiment, or a digital image. In order to start making sense of them, I need to know that these bits represent my own income and expenditure, expressed in pounds sterling. But I need far more than this to understand their significance. I need to know how money works as a medium of exchange, and understand the operation of the banking system. But even when I have this contextual knowledge, I may be unable to decide what to do. Should I buy the camera I crave, or the coat I need? Should I go into debt, or save at least a little? What is the wise thing to do?
On a social scale, we encounter similar issues every day. Experts interpret information about complex issues differently. Who should we believe in the debates over nuclear versus wind power? Or about the extent and speed of global warming, and what we should do about it? Or the reality of telepathy? Or the healing power of prayer? In all these cases, the available information is the same, but the conclusions are totally at odds. Why is this? And how can we move towards greater understanding and wisdom?

Fact, Perception and Belief

A first step is to recognise that recorded, verified and identified data are not ‘facts’ in the sense of being or representing truth. The ‘facts’ in any situation depend on how we interpret the data, and our interpretation is influenced by our beliefs, worldview, mental models, brain structure and processes, and other factors.
To most people, the pattern of black patches in the figure appears at first to be random and meaningless. And then suddenly they see the head of a giraffe. The marks on the paper are the same whether they see the giraffe or not. The giraffe is not extra information, but the meaning of the pattern; a meaning that we impose in the process of seeing. We are not free to see anything we choose, but we could not see a giraffe if we did not have an image of a giraffe in our memories. And unless we are told it is a giraffe, we may see other possibilities, such as the Pierrot face that my partner and I both saw.

(If it was possible on Authors Den, a diagram would be insert here)

The perception of a giraffe arises from our efforts to make sense of the pattern. Similarly, instruments provide us with objective, concept-free data, but it is our minds that interpret it and give it meaning by comparing it with our mental models. Thus, scientific discoveries are not inherent in the raw data, but emerge from the perception of meaning. As Paul Davies put it: “time and time again (physicists) unwittingly massage their data to fit in with preconceived ideas. Sometimes, several different independent experimenters will carefully measure the same quantity and consistently get the wrong answer, because it is the answer they have come to expect.”1 Thus, facts of nature are not fixed, objective bits of information waiting to be discovered, but patterns revealed by our mental constructs.
Further, scientific knowledge rests on unprovable beliefs and assumptions. As Karl Popper expressed it: “scientific discovery is impossible without faith in ideas which are of a speculative kind, and sometimes even quite hazy; a faith which is completely unwarranted from the point of view of science and which, to that extent, is ‘metaphysical’.”2 And Conrad Waddington claimed that “a scientist’s metaphysical beliefs have a definite and ascertainable influence on the work he produces.”2
Parapsychology provides a good illustration of this. When conducting identical experiments, scientists who believe in paranormal phenomena are more likely to get positive results than those who don’t.3 And Robert Matthews argues that the findings of parapsychology are rejected by mainstream scientists not because the research lacks quality, but because they do not believe the results are possible.4 Similarly, scientists may discover a mathematical universe not because that is its nature but because that is what they are looking for.5 Nature may reveal other faces to those, such as indigenous peoples, who approach her differently.
The discussion so far has focused on the subjectivity of perception and the knowledge arising from the interpretation of objective, scientific data. Once we accept this subjectivity, the door is opened to other ways of knowing that are often regarded as invalid because they are subjective. They include intuition, spiritual knowing and experiential knowing through relationship.

Intuition

The great discoveries of science usually start with a hunch that proves to be right, and often end with a conclusion based on aesthetics. Similarly, the inspiration of poets, musicians, and artists flows from intuition, not reason. And the strategies of great statesmen and generals are mostly the result of intuition, although analysis may be used to work out the details. Normally, we do what we feel is right or beautiful, backed up by analysis, rather than the other way around.
Intuition comes by direct perception when we look deeply into something rather than standing back to get an objective view. Its insights cannot be reached by the thinking mind, and may radically change our perceptions. But intuitive flashes seldom happen by chance. They are usually the culmination of a period of intense thought, followed by sleep or relaxation during which the insight comes. At this point, the whole body relaxes, releasing the tensions of the unresolved problem.6 Indeed, kinesiology identifies the answers to questions by testing for this physical response.7

Spiritual Knowing

Spiritual knowing goes beyond intuition. William Bloom describes spirituality as involving the sense of being in and connected to a universe filled with beauty, mystery and meaning. It includes exploration and deepening of that connection, including enquiry into why we are here, where we come from, and where we are going.8 In slightly different vein, Roberto Assagioli, the founder of Psychosynthesis, described spirituality as “concerned with considering life’s problems from a higher, enlightened, synthetic point of view, testing everything on the basis of true values, endeavouring to reach the essence of every fact, neither allowing oneself to stop at external appearances nor to be taken in by traditionally accepted views, by the way the world at large looks at things, or by our own inclinations, emotions and preconceived ideas.”9
According to Diana Whitmore, spiritual knowing may include:10
• A new understanding about the nature of the universe;
• An experience of going beyond normal space and time;
• A sense of unity with all life;
• A clear recognition of what makes sense, or is true ;
• A sense of profound mystery, wonder and awe;
• A clear perspective on one’s life and of its meaning and purpose;
• A sense of being a channel for a larger, stronger force which guides one’s life;
• Feelings of joy, ecstasy, peace, freedom, gratitude, compassion, beauty or similar.
Spiritual experiences and knowing can be encouraged by spiritual practices and are not the preserve of the highly spiritual or gifted. They happen to millions of ordinary people of diverse beliefs including agnostics and atheists. Spiritual knowing may come in dreams, or through mental images, voices or words. There may be a sense of light, or normal reality may appear transformed for a moment, or an unbidden memory may arise. But for many, it is not so clear or dramatic. There may be a vague feeling about something, or an inner pressure to take some action, or a meaningful sequence of apparently chance events.
Spiritual knowing is often accompanied by a deep sense of truth that may not be rationally justifiable but carries unshakeable conviction. We see this in religious teachers like Jesus, the Buddha and Muhammad; in visionaries like Martin Luther King, and spiritual revolutionaries like Gandhi. More surprisingly, the founders of modern physics were also highly spiritual, including Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Planck, Pauli and Bohr.11

Knowing through Relationship and Experience

The third type of knowing I want to describe comes through relationship and direct experience. The scientific method encourages dissociation from the object of study, but this approach often misses rich dimensions. To truly know another person, I must enter a relationship with them, not just collect personal data. To fully understand nature, I must encounter it directly in my own being, not just study science. To become spiritual, I must experience the spiritual realm for myself, not just listen to a Teacher. To fully understand an idea, I must enter a dialogue with it: questioning, testing, comparing, making it my own. Such knowledge cannot be taught or stored in a database. It is a dynamic process that engages our bodies, emotions and spirit as well as our minds. It is a living response to that which is known.
Martin Buber distinguished two forms of relationship: I-It and I-Thou. The I-It relationship to what is known is typified by the scientific method - objective, impersonal, disengaged, unfeeling, utilitarian; concerned with measurement and calculation, cause and effect, manipulation and control. But despite this effort to separate the researcher from the object of study, interactions are common. Parapsychology experiments are influenced by the beliefs of the researchers; the results of tests on laboratory animals can be changed by loving carers; plants respond to human emotions; instruments seem at times to respond to the ‘vibes’ of their users; and the state of quantum particles are determined by the physicists’ objectives.
In contrast to scientific objectivity, an I-Thou relationship is personal, engaged and feeling; a sensual, non-verbal, non-conceptual communication that may occur without conscious awareness. It is an intimate encounter without concern for the outcome in which there is a mutual giving and receiving, touching and being touched, seeing and being seen. It is not manipulative or exploitive but a caring participation in the existence of the other. It is an experience of the unity of self and other; a synergy through which each becomes more fully itself. Most of us experience I-Thou relationships with our parents, families, partners, friends or pets. We are less familiar today with such relationships with plants, rocks, machines or ideas.
I can relate to a tree as a beautiful picture or a graceful dancer, as an example of a particular species, or as an ecosystem of tree, lichens, epiphytes, insects, and birds. Or I can measure and quantify it, and simulate it on my computer. In all these cases, the tree remains an object, an It. But I can also relate to the tree as a Being that is aware of my presence and touch and love; that draws my attention and ‘speaks’ to me of its life story, offering me companionship, empathy and shelter. I can encounter the tree itself free from conceptualizations. And in doing so, I need not deny the other ways of knowing, which deepen and broaden my connection with the tree as a Being.
The essence of I-Thou knowing is exemplified by the relationship between indigenous peoples and their land. According to David Peat, knowledge for them is a living thing with the spirit of which we enter into relationship with our hearts, minds, souls and spirits. This knowledge is inseparable from the land and its people; it cannot be translated, written in a book, or transposed to someone living thousands of miles away.12 It is also possible to form such relationships with modern materials and machines. Mike Cooley described how an old-fashioned maintenance fitter would listen to and touch an aircraft generator, correctly diagnosing any fault and assessing its reliability based on a lifetime of experience.13 Mitchell similarly described how a traditional Tanzanian blacksmith could weigh a piece of scrap in his hand, observe how it responded to being heated and beaten, including listening and smelling, after which he would know for which purpose it was best suited.14

Wisdom

Having explored the nature of information and knowledge, it is now time to turn our attention to that complex quality, wisdom. At its heart is the idea of pursuing the best ends by the best means, but our society often seeks the best means without worrying about ends. If something is technically possible, we do it regardless of the consequences. And we pursue economic efficiency, productivity and growth without ever asking ourselves why these are important, if they are right, or whether they help us attain what we really want.
Rational knowledge contributes to wisdom, but is not sufficient. Siu argued that it needs to be integrated with intuitive and spiritual knowledge15, whilst Ralph Waldo Emerson claimed that it must be tempered by the moral sense of what is right,16 and Nicholas Maxwell emphasized the importance of seeing what is of value, and striving for it.17 Often, wisdom emerges through asking the right questions, rather than from finding the right answers, and through remaining open to new ideas and information. Wise decisions do not necessarily conform to norms of right or wrong, but may redefine what is acceptable.18
The philosophers of ancient Greece believed that to be wise is to love harmony, beauty, and truth, to know yourself, and to strive for moral perfection.19 Thus wisdom entails extraordinary personal development. The wise person is balanced, integrated, and whole; self-aware, and in harmony with him- or her-self; empathic, understanding, patient, compassionate and humorous. The wise know how to learn from mistakes, and are not afraid to change their minds. They weigh evidence and advice, and make clear, sensible and fair judgments that take both long- and short-term consequences into account.20
The association of wisdom with balance, wholeness and harmony in western thought parallels the Taoist search for balance and harmony between yin and yang. We can never know for certain when we are in what Taoists call ‘the Way’, but imbalance is revealed when our actions have unexpected results, and is more likely as we move towards one end of any spectrum.
Harmony does not mean uniformity, however, which is like a song with one note, or a dance with one pose. Rather, harmony is a dance in which wide-ranging notes and movements blend into a pleasing whole. It is not only compatible with diversity, but is impossible without it. A harmonious community emerges when people with different talents, tastes and tempers all contribute to its creation.21
We desperately need to move from the information society towards one that integrates rational scientific, intuitive, spiritual and experiential knowledge with the aim of reaching wise decisions. How might this be achieved? In the remainder of this paper I suggest three steps. First, to broaden scientific tests of the reliability of knowledge to include other ways of knowing. Second, to seek the wisdom of the collective rather than the knowledge of individual experts. And third, to develop critical questions for evaluating the wisdom of alternative actions.

Testing the Reliability of Knowledge

One of the greatest challenges facing all ways of knowing is to discriminate trustworthy, reliable knowledge from nonsense, delusion, fantasy, or mass hallucination. The great strength of the scientific approach is its persistent testing of knowledge through objectivity, quantification and replication. But these methods are not readily applicable to intuitive, spiritual or experiential ways of knowing. So how can we make sure that such knowledge is reliable?
On the one hand, if we are to become wiser, we need to cultivate subjective insights and trust the knowledge of the heart as well as the head. On the other hand, we must be aware that we cannot ever be sure that any knowledge is true . We must remain vigilant, constantly challenging what we think we know, and maintaining a critical, questioning attitude. We must live with the uncertainty that what we currently believe may turn out to be mistaken.
The remainder of this section suggests some key questions that can be used to assess the reliability of any knowledge.

How trustworthy and credible is the source?
We take much of what we ‘know’ on faith in an authority, whether parent or teacher; doctor, scientist, priest or guru; newspaper, TV, book or sacred text. We can test the trustworthiness of our sources by asking questions such as: Has this person studied the subject, or have direct experience of it? Is this person or organization known for its truthfulness and integrity, and the accuracy of its information? Is there a hidden agenda or motive?

Does this knowledge work when applied in practice?
This test underlies the scientific method, and is simple to apply to natural sciences and technology. But it becomes more complex in relation to social issues. Before we can apply it, we need to ask questions such as: What do we want? What is of value to us? What is right, just and good? How should we balance competing goals? For example, do we want ever more spectacular technologies, or to lead happy lives within harmonious societies and flourishing ecosystems?

Is this knowledge internally and externally consistent?
One of the key tests of scientific knowledge is its consistency with other, related findings. Similar questions can be asked of non-scientific knowledge within particular cultural contexts. Is this idea similar, different but complementary, or contradictory to accepted ‘truths’ of our culture, and of other cultures? Is this idea ethical and just within our culture? Does this feel right in the context of our society?

Does this knowledge make sense?
Does it make sense to me intuitively as well as intellectually? Does it make sense according to an established system of thought, such as western logic, the Taoist balance of yin and yang, or the reasoning of an indigenous people? In this context, it may be possible simultaneously to hold different ideas, each of which expresses a facet of the truth, and that collectively give a deeper insight than any one alone. Examples include the wave-particle duality of quantum physics, and the tension between transcendent or immanent visions of Spirit.

Is this knowledge supported by other people?
Do those who support it have relevant experience and/or qualifications? Have they all been trained in the same discipline, or influenced by the same teachers, leaders or peers, or are they from a variety of backgrounds? Are the methods used and the results obtained publicly available and open to scrutiny? How many times has the process leading to this knowledge been repeated and found to be valid? Does this knowledge arise from only one culture or sub-culture, or has it been found to be valid across cultures?

Tapping Collective Wisdom

In our complex modern world, no single person, no expert group or priesthood, no government can possibly be the fount of all wisdom. In particular, scientists have no special authority when it comes to integrating scientific knowledge with other ways of knowing, and ensuring its wise use. But the community at large is replete with ordinary people who collectively have great wisdom. I believe we need to tap this collective wisdom, and learn to trust it.
This is not to say that wise leaders are not needed. But wise leaders listen, and draw on the wisdom of their communities. They meld varied opinions into a coherent shared vision, and express that vision in ways that people understand, and that inspire them to work for its achievement. And having inspired them, Taoist leaders fade into the background and let their followers believe they did it themselves.
This is quite different to the approach of social scientists who seek to understand human behaviour and social systems in order to predict the effects of different policies. In essence, this enables unaccountable experts and corporate managers, and unscrupulous politicians to manipulate people. Instead, I would suggest that the path of wisdom has faith in the collective wisdom of cooperative communities to identify and resolve their own problems.
There is a rich heritage of approaches to local, grassroots democracy that can be built on here. And there is at least one process designed to facilitate collective research into subjective questions. Cooperative inquiry relies on critical group reflection rather than external authority.22 It has been applied to many issues including professional practices, organisational structures, alternative lifestyles, and different states of consciousness.

Evaluating the Wisdom of Alternatives

The search for wisdom requires that we individually and collectively go beyond testing the reliability of our knowledge as discussed above, to evaluating alternative beliefs, worldviews, theoretical frameworks, perceptions, values, and courses of action. Relevant questions to ask include:
Would adoption of this bring my model of reality towards a point of balance and harmony, or carry me towards an extreme? Would it tend to bring my community and society towards the middle ground, or to an extreme?
Amongst conflicting ‘facts’, perceptions, theories, plans, etc, which one leads to the most positive worldview? Can deeper insights be gained by holding more than one in tension? Is there a way to integrate them into a coherent whole?
How well does this compare with the teachings of the wise figures of history such as the Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi or the Dalai Lama? Does it spring from love, compassion and understanding for all beings? Or does it come from emotional needs, and the desire for recognition and power?
How would adoption of this affect the way I live my life? If I acted on this, what effect would it have on the physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual well-being of myself, other people and other beings? Would following this reduce environmental degradation and resource depletion, violence and war, and/or hunger and poverty?

Conclusions

This article argues that our civilisation needs to move beyond the information age towards wisdom by integrating rational scientific knowledge with intuitive, spiritual and experiential ways of knowing, vigorously challenging and questioning what we think we know, engaging the wisdom of the collective, and consciously seeking wisdom as a goal. Adopting this approach would not guarantee wise action, but it would shift the balance in that direction.

For 25 years, Dr Malcolm Hollick was an academic at The University of Western Australia. His teaching and research spanned many disciplines, with a primary focus on environmental and water resource management. In 1997 he left the University and moved to the Findhorn Community in Scotland, where he helped to establish Findhorn Foundation College. He has also been actively involved in the establishment of the University for Spirit Forum. This article is based on Part I of his recent book The Science of Oneness: A Worldview for the Twenty-First Century.
References

1. Davies, P. and Gribbin, J. (1992) The Matter Myth Touchstone Books, NY, p.23.
2. Goldsmith, E. (1988) The Way: An Ecological World-view The Ecologist, Vol. 18, No. 4/5, p.162.
3. McCrone, J. (2004) The Power of Belief New Scientist, 13 March, pp.34-37.
4. Matthews, R. (2004) Opposites Detract New Scientist, 13 March, pp.39-41.
5. Ziman, J. (1978) Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 197p.
6. Bastick, T. (1982) Intuition: How we think and act Wiley, Chichester, 494p.
7. Diamond, J. (1979) Your Body Doesn’t Lie Warner Books, NY, 208p.
8. Bloom, W. (2004) Soulution: The Holistic Manifesto Hay House, London, 272p.
9. Assagioli, R. (1991) Transpersonal Development Crucible Book, London.
10. Whitmore, D. (1990) The Joy of Learning Crucible Books, London.
11. Wilber, K. (1991) Grace and Grit Shambala Publications, Boston, 422p.
12. Peat, F. D. (1994) Blackfoot Physics: A Journey into the Native American Universe Fourth Estate, London, 322p.
13 Cooley, M. (1980) Architect or Bee? The Human/Technology Relationship TransNational Cooperative Ltd, Sydney, 114p.
14. Mitchell, R. J. (1980) Experiences in Appropriate Technology Canadian Hunger Foundation, Ottawa, 150p.
15. Siu, R. G. H. (1957) The Tao of Science MIT Press, Cambridge, 180p.
16 Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Rathunde, K. (1990) The Psychology of Wisdom: An Evolutionary Interpretation In R. J. Sternberg (Ed) “Wisdom: Its Nature, Origins, and Development” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.25-51.
17. Maxwell, N. (1984) From Knowledge to Wisdom Blackwell, Oxford, 298p.
18. Arlin, P. K. (1990) Wisdom: The Art of Problem Finding In Sternberg (Ed), op cit, pp. 230-243.
19. Robinson, D. N. (1990) Wisdom through the Ages In Sternberg (Ed), op cit, pp.13-24.
20. Orwoll, L. and Perlmutter, M. (1990) The Study of Wise Persons: Integrating a Personality Perspective In Sternberg (Ed), op cit, pp.160-177.
21. Cooper, J. C. (1981) Yin and Yang: The Taoist Harmony of Opposites The Aquarian Press, Wellingborough, 128p.
22. Heron, J. (1998) Sacred Science: Person-centred Inquiry into the Spiritual and Subtle PCCS Books, Ross-on-Wye, 271p.