Knowing Knowledges

New Church, New York July 17th 2011 Genesis 12:10-20 Arcana Clestia 1480
At night, when Protestants gather round the fires to swap old regrets, this is one of the stories they tell: "Tell me, are you a Protestant? "Yes" the guy answers. "Well, so am I!" "Methodist, or Baptist, or Presbyterian?" "I'm Baptist." Well, so am I!" "Northern or Southern Baptist?" "Northern Baptist." "Well so am I!" "Northern Conservative, liberal, or reformed?" "Northern Conservative." "Well, so am I!" Eastern region, or Great Lakes region?" "Eastern." "Well, so am I!" "Convention of 1898, or Convention of 1912?" "Convention of 1912." "HERETIC! What was the root of their trouble? It may have been too much attention to scientiae cognitionum. One of the quirks in the way we often explain our doctrines is that Swedenborg wrote in neither English nor Swedish, but late, very academic Latin, with concepts explained in heavily Latinate form. This has repeatedly presented challenges to translators (which those working on the New Century Edition are currently struggling with). One of these is that Latin, like most European languages, has two words which in English are both represented by know; and Swedenborg attaches great and crucial importance to the distinction. John Potts writes about these in his preface to the Arcana: By Scire, Scientia, and Scientifica, Swedenborg indicates mere memory-knowledge, that is, the knowledge men have in the external memory without application to life and practice

John 16:12-15

This kind of knowledge is knowing about things we know as facts, or say we do, without having a real and lively appreciation of them. On the other hand: Cognoscere and Cognitio are used in the stronger sense of actual and real knowledge of the matter in question, either by experience or in some other way; as when we say, " I do not think so; I KNOW it." This is Cognoscere. This kind of knowledge consists of things we have, in a term I find very meaningful, appropriated. That is, we have made them part of our proprium, our very self. Possibly Orwell would have linked them in the Newspeak Dictionary to the word bellyfeel; as in the ringing declaration that OLDTHINKERS UNBELLYFEEL INGSOC. In French, the same contrasting meanings are expressed by savoir and connaitre for knowing about and knowing that; and so on. And so the translator has to deal with phrases like fides scientifica. Rendering this as scientific faith will only confuse readers. What it really means is a faith which only acknowledges things as mere dead facts. As St. James warns us, the devils have this kind of faith. Another, occurring in our reading for today, is scientiae cognitionum. Some translations wrote science of cognitions; or science of knowledges; or learning of knowledges. None of these gives a real idea of the lesson here. Potts finally resorted, as we have heard, to memory-knowledge of knowledges; while the Sacred Texts edition uses the less polysyllabic version knowing knowledges. These should help us understand that here is a kind of second-order knowledge. It is when spiritual things are assimilated only as matters of fact-memory, without living them. .. for the knowledges of spiritual and celestial things and the very mysteries of faith themselves become nothing but matters of memory, when the man who is skilled in them is devoid of charity. The things of the memory are like things dead unless the man is such that from conscience he lives according to them. When he does this, then at the same time as they are things of memory they are also things of life; and only then do they remain with him for his use and salvation after the life of the body. Knowledges are nothing to a man in the other life, even though he may have known all the arcana that have ever been revealed, unless they have affected his life. (AC 1197.) And when the Egyptians saw the woman, that she was very beautiful, we are warned of how seductive these knowing knowledges are. For Egypt corresponds to scientifica, or memory-knowledge; and someone exposed to them faces a temptation drawing him into the lust to expand his knowledge-about which feeds on itself.

When I read this, I was struck still. And then I looked in the mirror. What is that Egyptian doing there? Why is scientiae cognitionum so dangerous? First, of course, because it encourages us to have pride and overconfidence in our own intellect. The more knowledge-about we can pick up, the easier it becomes to convince ourselves that we understand religion better than the other guy. At its worst, it becomes a source of brickbats and clubs to use against people we want to vaunt over or define out, as in our little parable. This sort of impulse may account for the success of the Bluffers Guides1, which instruct on just how to use little points of knowledge to parade as experts in whatever subject. So far, the BG writers have mostly let religion alone, but it is endemic there. For instance, the great controversy between New England and the Academy was marked by people writing long letters picking passages from Conjugial Love apart, and demanding responses concerning the phrase laws of order. In fact, the more I read about the infamous Kramph Case2, the more I suspect that someone was circulating a Bluffers Guide to Swedenborg. But aside from all this, it poses the danger of any appetite which demands the more to be indulged the more it is fed. We Egyptians (like the Mercurians described by The Earths in the Universe), once giving way to the desire to know more and more scientiae, may fall into the preoccupation with satisfying this appetite to devour increased knowledge, which can be as unhealthy for the intellect as it is for the stomach. Perhaps this is why the Lord on first appearing to Swedenborg warned him Do not eat so much. Certainly knowledge is a good in itself. But if attention is taken up by the obsessive wish to know more, so that there is scarcely anything it desires more, it may be time to pause and reflect on what we ought to do with what we know. Will Linden

1 2

See their home page at Oval Books Strong men still blanch at the words Kramph Will Case. See http://is.gd/lHMt5n. Or on second thought, dont.