Levels of Knowing and Existence.....

I remember rummaging through my grandmother's house back in the early nineties and finding a gem of a book, Called Levels of Knowing and Existence; Studies in General Semantics, by Harry L. Weinberg. It had been there for years, but I had never bothered to look through it; however, several months prior to rediscovering the book, I had experienced some earth shaking experiences and was able to look upon literature in a completely and totally new way, such that to see a book titled "Levels of Knowing and Existence" was simply too provocative for me to resist.

My Mother and Grandmother had small, modest, but powerful libraries. As I got older and out of my teens, their libraries became treasure troves for me. Great books, some of the greatest books of my life were found on these shelves.

And it's a remarkable, strange, coming-full-circle type of feeling, when books you have looked upon since before you knew how to read, are finally able to tell you their tale, and share their wisdom with you at a later point in your life.

One of the other gems I found was, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L. Shirer. but that, is another story.

There are several standard descriptions that I give, over and over again, when describing the nature of my Mother and Grandmother. They were both very intelligent, but more than intelligent, they were sagacious and had mother's wit and a rooted humanist perspective from which they were able to examine life and seemingly, magically (to me) quickly apprehend any situation and state a position and argument for that perspective.

How could one not wish to be like them? and so, that being the case, the easiest way to be like them, was to become like them, and to learn their skill and manner of discernment and perspective, for it seemed to be one that was foolproof, deep, penetrating and beyond reproach.

When I finally got around to digging through the Weinberg book, I had made a recent breakthrough of the phenomenological type, which allowed me to feel free to indulge in philosophy, rhetoric, etc. Whereas previous to this breakthrough, I disdained reading such materials, for fear that they would prejudice me towards a certain perspective, or show me something prematurely, that perhaps, I could have/would have arrived at if left to my own devices.

I found this book to be so pleasing, that I asked my Grandmother how and wherefore she had acquired it. She did not have a long explanation, nor was it an academic reason, or a reason spurred by her own interest. She had acquired the book from Harry L. Weinberg because he was a "friend" who wrote a book, and so, gave her a copy.

She went on to say that he, like she, enjoyed talking about philosophy and existence and other matters of the sort. She said they also liked to debate such issues, make arguments and counter-arguments, and that this, was the mortar that sealed their friendship.

I too loved to talk/debate/attempt to convince my Grandmother of all manner of strange ideas on philosophy, as well as to engage with her in mutual inquiry about the mystery of existence, the puzzle of individuality, the nature of time, and the meaning of it all.

My Grandmother confessed to me that there were moments in her life, when she felt that she went "out of existence" for long periods of time. She had had visitations, mystical experiences, along with other members of her family, including my mother. Black folks used to talk about this stuff a lot more in the latter half of the 20th century, whereas now, I hardly hear it anymore.
I hope that it is still going on, but that I am just away from those vital discussions.

In any event, the reviews for Mr. Weinberg's book are quite good, and having read it myself, I applaud my Grandmother for being friends with Mr. Weinberg. And knowing that he was friends with my Grandmother, caused me to read it, as if it were from a peer, rather than an expert and savant in the world of semantics.

There are many marvelous things in this little book. Mr. Weinberg understands the core principle of semantics, which I had also realized, without knowing that this understanding had a scientific description and category.

Semantics, as defined by Merriam-Webster online is (truncated), "the study of meanings... dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth."

And my understanding, gained through this "breakthrough" experience was one of realizing and experiencing the "realness" of the world, above and through the verbal. For words are descriptions of things, not the "things" themselves. And realizing, this, one can avoid many so-called fallacies and conundrums, which exist only within the math and abstraction of semantics, and not within the thing itself....; however, realizing this, allows one to make many 45 degree turns within such fallacies and conundrums to arrive at a higher truth, which may then be named and expressed.

Weingberg's book is filled with all manner of gems and treats for the understanding. So to demonstrate an issue that is in effect semantics, and arrived at through the fallacy of confusing words and the understanding of things by the abstraction of delineated concepts (when the reality is that things are "whole" and can be defined, and yet are inextricable interdependent and never truly separated as we imagine as we class them, I give you the following:

"Since the seventeenth century a large body of evidence has accumulated to support the theory that light travels through space in continuous waves. With the development of the quantum theory there has been an increasing amount of equally reliable evidence to lead tot he conclusion that light travels in discontinuous bits called quanta or photons...Thus we are faced with two contradictory, incompatible concepts. Which is true?... both must be employed to give us adequate theories about atomic structures, even though logically they are mutually contradictory... As Lincoln Barrett states, 'the world is subtler than man's understanding, and the contradictions the scientist uncovers in studying nature lie not in nature itself but simply in man's own inadequate concepts.'."

Later, Weinberg is able to prove beyond a doubt, that God does not laugh.

"Only man can laugh... not God. God, being perfect and omniscient and omnipotent, cannot be surprised and surprise is necessary for laughter, assuming, of course, that there is a God and that he has human attributes, which by definition he cannot have; and by logic he cannot be our 'be'. ".

What Weinberg means by surprise is that the creator's necessary attribute of not being time-bound, results in there being no irony, no possible angle, twist, possibility or even thought (that would give rise to the thought of humor or anything else). A thought would be a diversion from omniscience... Such "furtherings" on the part of the reader that takes a concept introduced and explained by Weinberg, and then contemplates it such that futher meanings and implications can be had in the process, is one of the great joys of this book. It is, in a sense, Socratic reading.

Weinberg also has some words of wisdom that seem to point the direction to the "goods" of life for humans, based upon their level of consciousness and knowing which allows, and forces them, to arrive at such truths,

"Pleasant as the satisfaction of the lower-order needs may be, they do not produce the lasting and, in a way, more desirable, effects that come with the satisfaction of the higher-order needs--a profound and pervasive happiness and serenity not to be confused with the full-bellyness and docile peace of mind associated wit the satisfaction of the lower-order needs; a true dignity and nobility which comes from rich inner life quite distinct from the pomposity and arrogance which are the mark of warped and restricted patterns of evaluation."

Later, Mr. Weinberg tackles the "holy grail" of Semantics, Enlightenment.

He first starts by describing D. T. Suzuki's universally accepted (in the west) characteristics of Satori and concludes that the experience of Satori, is on a wholly different level of abstraction than any level which attempts to describe it. in short, Satori, is an experience, and words are naming, labeling, abstraction of a different sort, and most importantly, not the thing itself.

I marvelled at Weinberg's complete perfection in the understanding of Satori, from the Western mind, with the understanding of Satori, from the East and his ability to mark the crucial distinction, in semantics, between the two.

Having myself, experienced the stopping of all words, and finding myself thrust out of my abstracted mind, and into the experience of pre-verbal, full, complete life, for several weeks afterward, I marvelled at how, by using words, I could continually cicumnambulate around the experience, in inexhaustible phrases, and yet, the truth of reality was ever-present as a joining of all words, things, parts, descriptions and experiences of reality.

Weinberg provided important instruction and synthesis for me at the time, which allowed me to see that although Satori is a level of abstraction removed from words, all that needs to happen, for the words to share the same level of abstraction as Satori, is for one to look at the words while in Satori... and then plainly, all pieces of the reality puzzle, click together perfectly.

So, it is not the words that lie or, as Weinberg states, "The Buddhist, by refraining from interpretation, avoids this evil.", it is that the master-quizmaster, who has been foretold in all legends of mysticism, has yet to arrive and master the tongue and force words to do his bidding in the explication of all that is unknowable and unspeakable. For the master-quizmaster, has the ability to not only be in truth (for we are already a part of it), but he will be able to speak truth, plainly, for all to hear.

And here, is where Weinberg makes his one error in this book. By inferring that because the Satori/Mystical experience has not successfully been spoken, he takes a truth, -that the experience of Satori is on a level of abstraction different from words- and infers that since it has not been successfully spoken about, it can not be successfully spoken about.

It is my contention that It can be spoken about, and that this vital transmission from indivdual, to indivdual, is the only way in which our world can collectively be tuned into this deeper, lurking sublime experience of truth, for if it can not be an experience which is indivdual, yet shared, then there is no hope for any such spiritual revolution to occur on Earth, regardless of how long life on this planet endures... But, it is easy to forgive Mr. Weinberg for this one small error, for he is a Semanticist, and they are, by nature, forced to make inferences to make their points.

But the lesson need be learned by all budding students of semantics. It makes no difference how good and reliable and historically "true" any past inference or inferences have been. Past performance, is not an Ironclad indicator of future returns.

But anyway, back to the chosen one, who will come to spread truth and unite the world (as he or she has been foretold). The question is, "How will we know the master-quizmaster when he or she arrives?" Simple, they will tell us, and we, having no ability to deny the truth of our existence, must recognize it. If we do not recognize him or her, and it is not because we lack cognitive ability, or that we do not share the same language, or that we are not hobbled in some real and measureable way, then, either we are not able to preceive truth, or they are a false prophet.

Now, if anywhere from 60-70% of the world, perhaps less is "turned on" by this individual, then that should be suffient to hold proof, that they are a "good enough" chosen one. At least until the real one happens along.

Weinberg also speaks about the difference between those that indulge in semantics as a way to classify, abstract, and attempt to separate reality into discrete elements, thus destroying it, and the opposite experience, of experiencing oneself and ones experiences and the world itself, as all pieces of a unified whole, that is accepted, and not abstracted beyond how it actually "is".

To me, this seems to be the semantic "truth" of the difference between the world's indigenous tribes and chiefdoms of the world, and how they lived their lives within the context of their environments and worldly conceptions, and the way in which the world's colonizers viewed their lives and the environment and their worldly conceptions. And, moreso, the effect and ramifications of these viewpoints in how the world's peoples intermingled and struggled, which resulted in the pervasive nature, of 1st world, vs. 3rd world existence and life.

Jeremy Diamond has his little theory on "Cargo" titled, Guns, Germs & Steel. My theory, is one that harkens back to the one real and true reality for humans, our thoughts, our psychology and the way in which we view and interact with the world. Surely, the truth lies somewhere comfortably betwixt the two, (admittedly, leaning heavily towards Mr. Diamond's interpretation).

All in all, Harry L. Weinberg's little book is wonderful, as it provides many wondrous launching points, such as the above, from which individuals may more meaningfully contemplate the levels of knowing, and their own existence.