Dr. Abo-Shaeer earned his Masters at Columbia University in New York and received his Ph.D. in physics from the University of California Santa Barbara. He has done research work in Italy and Hungary and taught in Brazil. He retired from physics to pursue fundamental inquiry in science and spiritual experience.
CAN KNOWLEDGE CONVEY A TOTALITY?
by Muhsin Abo-Shaeer, Ph.D.
We want to be able to understand and talk about the totality of experience. However, the way we are able to do this is by dividing experience into parts and juxtaposing them against each other. In this way, for example, we often divide human experience into physical, mental and spiritual. We go on and on about the three before we say: wait a minute, this division is artificial and, therefore, can't be true! Experiencing is a totality, a unitary process! But we don't stop there because we want to go on explaining and so we invent new words to reflect this totality in our discourse. However, such words invariably carry the baggage of division spelled out or implied and, therefore, serve to confirm division rather than propel us into a radically unified way of 'seeing'.
When we have the insight that division is false, why do we go on trying to heal it with a new invention? If there is no division to begin with, there should be no need to heal it. If the division is false, then healing that division is more false. If creating something not there is an illusion, trying to cause something that is not there to disappear requires a compounded illusion. First we must create the illusion of its being there before we spring up the second illusion of making it disappear. It is like one who has never been married but, for some personal gain, wants to join the divorced club. He would have to go through a marriage, then a divorce ceremony, both equally false, before being accepted as a 'true' member.
By definition, knowledge is something we can communicate and express. Let us see if there can be knowledge of a totality. The way we go about achieving knowledge is by examining parts and juxtaposing them against each other before we come up with definitions and descriptions. Science based on observation proceeds in this way and only talks about something concrete. Therefore, knowledge is by nature fragmented. Furthermore, the picture presented by knowledge in adding these fragments together cannot be built without making reference to the division used to obtain this knowledge. Neither can this picture be complete because we can never be certain that we have all the fragments and that the method we follow in the process of classifying knowledge into parts is unique. As a matter of fact, it is shown in mathematics that one can never prove the completeness of a system made of parts from within.
Knowledge is not only a jigsaw puzzle that clearly shows on its face the many lines of division, but also one that can never define its borders from within and therefore can never be completed! Therefore, if God is a totality, that totality cannot be found through knowledge. If the Universe is a totality then those looking to find a complete unified theory in physics through compounding knowledge are caught in the same elusive search as those trying to define God in religion or describe 'TOTALITY' in various spiritual endeavors.
The search for total knowledge is more about the seeker (the self) than about actual experience. When the inherent limitation of knowledge is 'seen' its spell is broken. The habitual way of the self cultivating knowledge by dividing experience into parts will no longer be the exclusive lens through which the totality of experience is 'seen' and interpreted. A 'seeing' in which our method of seeing comes to an end is a paradox only because we attempt to describe 'seeing' as knowledge involving separate subject and object, as when the reflection of an object falls on the retina of the seer (the subject). Seeing through knowledge is composed of pieces, while 'seeing' in experience is whole.
Like it or not, we are stuck with a totality of experience we cannot break into parts without creating illusion. Like it or not, we are stuck with knowledge which, though concrete, remains fragmented and incomplete. If we try to describe the totality of experience in terms of knowledge we must create illusion. If we combine knowledge together to create a totality we are degrading concrete knowledge to the status of illusion. To experience is to experience all. To know is to know parts separated and defined through a method. To invent methods purporting to seek a totality is to create unintended illusion. No wonder we come to a dead end when we try to use accumulated knowledge in religion and science as a springboard to define and experience 'TOTALITY.'