knowing knowledges

8/6/2019 Knowing Knowledges

1/4

Knowing Knowledges

New Church, New York

July 17th 2011

Genesis 12:10-20 John 16:12-15

Arcana Clestia 1480

At night, when Protestants gather round the fires to swap old regrets, this is one ofthe 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 toscientiae

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 isthat Latin, like most European languages, has two words which in English are both

represented by know; and Swedenborg attaches great and crucial importance to thedistinction. John Potts writes about these in his preface to theArcana:

By Scire, Scientia, and Scientifica, Swedenborg indicates mere memory-knowledge,

that is, the knowledge men have in the external memory without application to lifeand practice
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2010:12-20http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:12-15;&version=50;http://is.gd/V8f5z2http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2010:12-20http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:12-15;&version=50;http://is.gd/V8f5z2


2/4

This kind of knowledge is knowing aboutthings 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 ourproprium, our very

self. Possibly Orwell would have linked them in the Newspeak Dictionary to the wordbellyfeel; as in the ringing declaration that OLDTHINKERS UNBELLYFEEL

INGSOC.

In French, the same contrasting meanings are expressed bysavoirand connaitre

for knowing aboutand knowing that; and so on.

And so the translator has to deal with phrases likefides scientifica. Rendering thisas 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, isscientiae cognitionum. Some

translations wrote science of cognitions; or science of knowledges; or learning ofknowledges. 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. Itis when spiritual things are assimilated only as matters of fact-memory, without livingthem.

.. 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 skilledin 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 onlythen 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. (AC1197.)

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 toscientifica, or memory-knowledge; and someone exposed to them faces a temptationdrawing him into the lust to expand his knowledge-about which feeds on itself.
http://www.smallcanonsearch.com/read.php?book=ac&section=1197http://www.smallcanonsearch.com/read.php?book=ac&section=1197http://www.smallcanonsearch.com/read.php?book=ac&section=1197http://www.smallcanonsearch.com/read.php?book=ac&section=1197


3/4

When I read this, I was struck still. And then I looked in the mirror. What is that

Egyptian doing there?

Why isscientiaecognitionum 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 weunderstand religion better than the other guy.

At its worst, it becomes a source of brickbats and clubs to use against people wewant 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 readabout the infamous Kramph Case2, the more I suspect that someone was circulating aBluffers 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 describedby The Earths in the Universe), once giving way to the desire to know more andmorescientiae, 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


4/4

1 See their home page at Oval Books2 Strong men still blanch at the words Kramph Will Case. See http://is.gd/lHMt5n. Or on second thought, dont.
http://www.ovalbooks.com/bluff/index.htmlhttp://is.gd/lHMt5nhttp://www.ovalbooks.com/bluff/index.htmlhttp://is.gd/lHMt5n

knowing knowledges

Documents