In light of what has been said thus far, it is rather obvious that knowledge has an existential function. This is true not only of the act of knowing but also of the knowledge construct. The complexity of the impact of knowledge on humans and world is becoming better known, but we are far from having fathomed its total extent and the variety of consequences. Let us beware of believing that we have already, or will have in the near future, a global and adequate picture of the phenomenon of knowledge. What can and should be said about the existential dimension of knowledge concerns the relationship existing between knowers and the knowledge construct. Namely, the producers/users of knowledge and the product of their intellectual activity, the knowledge construct, are bound by a feed (feedback, feedforward) relationship, and are intrinsically interdependent, though each one in a different manner.

The interdependence of these two factors is not the only important aspect of their relationship. The other important fact is that together they form a system. The system is dynamic and evolutionary, a true driving force of human evolution. Let us call this system the knowledge system — knowledge system. It is sufficiently complex and important to merit a major study in itself. It is not, however, the only system which should be taken into consideration in the study of knowledge. Important as it is, this system is not self-contained and is not self-explanatory. This is a crucial fact for the understanding of the role of knowledge. The knowledge system is a subsystem of the culture system composed of knowers, the knowledge construct and artifacts/products of all sorts of human activity ranging from material objects like houses or tools, to the immaterial like customs or laws. The culture system is, in turn, an element of the existential system of man — the existential system of man, composed of humans, the knowledge construct, products and nature. In other words, the existential system of man is composed of the culture system and nature, this latter term taken in its broadest meaning possible.

This means that the knowledge system is an element of a hierarchy of systems, i.e., of a system of systems. It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of its insertion into this system of systems. Unfortunately, philosophers are all too inclined to view knowledge in itself, as if it existed in and by itself, an autonomous reality, a world apart from the world. The inability or unwillingness to perceive and take into account the relationship of the knowledge system to the more complex systems makes it impossible to understand the existential dimension of the very act of knowing and of the knowledge construct.

The above description of the existential system of man may appear seriously flawed to believers and/or to those who are aware of the role which the idea of the Supreme Being or of divinities has played and still plays in the development and present life of humanity. The readers should be aware, in light of what has been said thus far, that the author, too, is well aware of that role. The reason there is no direct mention of the Supreme Being in the existential system of man is twofold. The four factors: humans, nature, the knowledge construct and products are evident, verifiable, and, therefore, indubitable — which is not the case with the Supreme Being. Secondly, the notion of the Supreme Being is an idea, and, as such, is part of the knowledge construct, together with all the ideas and systems of ideas resulting from the idea of the Supreme Being, such as religious doctrines, theology and their refutations. Besides, it is a well-known axiom that in philosophy we have to proceed in the light of natural reason and have to respect its limits. Having said this, let us return to the description of the existential system of man.

As its very name indicates, its center, cause and reason of being is, of course, the knower, or to be more precise, the succession of generations of knowers, i.e., the human species. It is the broadest and most complete context of human life and activity, both material and immaterial. It is, therefore, the framework of, and for, thought. In order to fully appreciate the existential dimension of knowledge, it has to be viewed in the context of this system. Chart I illustrates the existential system of man but one should not be misled by the apparent simplicity of this representation. The situation is not as clear as it appears in the diagram. A picture is said to be worth a thousand words, but a visual image cannot convey adequately all the relations which exist in the existential system of man. In this two dimensional drawing the four constituent elements appear as equal partners of the system which, in fact, is not the case. They differ by nature, by the causality which they exercise, order of appearance, i.e., age, mode of development and degree of permanence, to mention just some aspects.

I. The relationship: nature — humans

(a) changes

(b) becomes less direct

(c) nature becomes less dominant

(d) growth of the human impact on nature

 

II. The relationship: humans — knowledge construct

A. General

(a) growing impact of the knowledge construct

(b) growing complexity of the impact

(c) growing dependence on the knowledge construct of individuals, societies and humankind

(d) growing ignorance of the totality of the knowledge construct by individuals and societies

(e) growing dependence of individuals and societies on other knowers: individuals and societies

 

B. Humanization of human: evolution of humankind —

increase of:

(a) personalization of individuals

(b) differences between humans and other species

(c) power to think: greater knowledge of the world and of oneself

(d) power to produce and change humans and the environment

(e) consequences of human activity: immediate and long range

(f) creation of, and dependence on, manmade environment:

i. knowledge

ii. products, including knowledge devices, among which are prostheses of the brain

(g) responsibility — short and long-range for:

i. humans — their state and behavior

ii. environment

(h) mastery of the natural environment

(i) humans becoming increasingly their own makers and products

C. Globalization of humankind

1. growth of:

(a) capacity to influence each other

(b) synergy

2. growth of complexity and interdependence of:

(a) individuals

(b) societies

(c) knowledge

(d) cultures

(e) conditions and modes of life

 

D. Problematization of human existence

The growth of the knowledge construct results in the:

(a) multiplication of branches of knowledge

(b) multiplication of professions

(c) multiplication of differences between humans

(d) growth of the complexity of the human phenomenon

(e) growth of the difficulty in conceptualizing human systems

(f) growth of the difficulty of finding adequate solutions, i.e., in administrating human system

(g) growth of knowledge requirements for administrating human systems

(h) growth of the inadequacy of common sense alone for understanding and administrating human system

(i) growth of inadequacy of existing social and political (right and left) theories and forms of government

 

E. Relation to time

1. growth of the awareness of time

2. change of the relationship to time:

(a) increasingly more perfect measurement of time

(b) increasingly more efficient management of time

(c) acceleration of human time (history)

(d) devaluation of the past as teacher and guide

(e) increase of the importance of the future

All the elements of the existential system of man are related to each other in a two-way, feed relationship, either directly or through the knower. The relationships are in each case different and, although they are two-way relationships, they are not symmetrical relations because of the differences of nature of the elements. The most complex presence in the existential system of man is that of humans, who are both the makers of the system and its product. This apparently contradictory situation demands an elucidation. For clarity’s sake, let us list the main aspects of the situation in separate points:

(a) he human in himself is an integrated binary system, i.e., a whole composed of two heterogeneous elements: organism and intellect;

(b) the system "human" participates in and is dependent on a hierarchy of natural systems: inanimate and animate which form the system "nature";

(c) the system "human" forms with other elements new systems not provided by nonrational nature.

 

The existential system of man has certain noteworthy characteristics. Let us mention first those which are important from the methodological point of view. Namely, since it is a system, it is a totality which can be viewed as a structured whole and to which apply the general laws of systems. A systemic approach to its study is therefore justified. It will allow the most adequate exploration of the system. The general characteristics of the system may be described as follows: the system is dynamic, self-energizing and transformative — producing constantly more advanced modes of human being and activity, as well as of knowledge and products. The system grows in size, complexity and causality. Moreover, it evolves at an ever faster pace. In short, it is an evolutionary system. The characteristics of the system will become more understandable in light of this and the following chapters.

Any serious discussion of the existential system of man cannot avoid the question of its origin. Fortunately, with regard to this question we are on safer grounds than in the discussion of the origin of humans. Whatever is the origin of the thinking creature, and without attempting to take sides on this issue, it can be stated unambiguously that the existential system of man, as it exists presently, is made by humans and is not a product of nature. The human is the most active and directive component of the system. It is his rational activity that produces the fastest and increasingly more accelerating and more profound changes in the system. Knowledge and artifacts are man’s products, not nature’s. The growth of the system is mainly the result of human activity. The very growth of the system and its causation by humans are major facts indeed. Important as it is, the growth of the system is not the only consequence of human industry. Let us explain.

Humans have not only produced two out of four components of the system. It is obvious that their continuous activity increases constantly the spheres of knowledge and of products. What is less obvious is the fact that this increase changes the relationships between: a) humans and other elements of the existential system of man, b) knowledge and other elements, and c) products and other elements. As we have already explained, through the progress of knowledge the perception of, and the relationship of, knowers to nature has changed drastically: from subordination to mastery. The change in the relationship of knowledge to its other elements is, perhaps, less evident. Intellectual knowledge is not a natural factor in this sense that it is an entity which, as far as we can tell, is exclusively a human product. Its appearance and continuous existence depend on the existence of human knowers. However, it constitutes a different order of reality which exercises continuously expanding causality.

We will discuss the knowledge construct in more detail in the next chapter. Let us mention now that for a very long time indeed, the knowledge construct was not only very small but, moreover, was not systematically developed. Its impact was limited to simple basic survival activities and magic rites unable to change appreciably the conditions and the mode of human life. The activity of primitive humans did not significantly transform the human environment, but maintained societies and cultures in a more or less steady state — a fact to which we will return later in this book. How different is the status and the impact of the knowledge construct today! As far as the change in the relationship between products and the other elements of the existential system of man are concerned, suffice it to compare the stone age implements with our universe of material artifacts, systems of laws and regulations and their impact on us.

Among the conclusions which can be drawn from the above discussion, two are of particular interest to us. In the first place, it is rather obvious that there exists a relationship between rational activity and knowledge. Let us express this fundamental fact in the form of a law:

Law XII: "Rational activity is proportional to knowledge" and its corollary

 

Law XIII: "The efficiency of rational activity is proportional to knowledge."

 

The second conclusion concerns the consequences of human activity for the relationships existing between the parts of the system. Namely, as we have seen, it transforms all these relationships. This fact has far-reaching consequences for the system as a whole and for each element of the system. One of these consequences is of particular interest for our discussion because it concerns our understanding of the existential system of man. The change in the status of the elements of the system and its impact on their relationships makes the understanding of the system particularly difficult. Moreover, it does not allow a definitive description of the system. The changes occurring constantly in the system limit the adequacy of insights and increasingly diminish the period of validity of even the most careful and thorough descriptions, i.e., accelerate their obsolescence. Consequently, in order to be understood, the existential system of man demands a continuous effort involving more and more sophisticated intellectual tools.

One may, perhaps, ask whether such effort is called for, and whether the existential system of man is necessary for theoretical and practical reasons. Humans have to comprehend the relationships existing between the elements of the system if they want to understand the situation they are in, their relation to the ambient world, and if they wish to establish satisfactory relations with the elements of the existential system of man. The present ecological, political and social crisis is the best indication of this need and a timely warning of the risk of ignoring the system and of the relationships within it.

The situation seems paradoxical, to say the least. Human rational activity changes the existential system of man. The more humans think and act, the more and faster the system changes. The more and faster it changes, the greater the challenge it poses to their intellects, the more they have to think to understand it. Therefore it may be stated in all generality:

Law XIV: "The need to understand the Existential system of man is proportional to the level of knowledge"

 

The problem is that the understanding gives humans a capacity to act on the system. The more they understand it, the greater becomes their impact on the system and, as we have already said, the more the system changes, forcing them to think even more. And the positive feedback between knowers and the system continues at an ever larger scale and faster pace.

Somebody may object that the above reasoning is not quite correct, because there exist modes of intellectual knowledge which do not appreciably change the existential system of man. Among these types of cognition are contemplation, wisdom and, in general, theoretical knowledge. The objection seems to be valid and demands an answer. Let us begin with theoretical knowledge. As we have seen in an earlier chapter, all theoretical knowledge has practical consequences. One cannot theorize seriously with impunity, expecting that no concrete results will follow from this mental exercise. Wisdom is an ordering, evaluative, judgmental type of knowledge, relating the concrete with the abstract, the singular with the universal, facts with values. This accounts for its role and importance in life. Even if the wise human does not do much himself in the way of practical activity, his or her judgements have far-reaching practical impact. As for contemplation, which played and still plays an important role in the traditional culture of India and in mystical currents in all great religions, it, too, has important practical consequences for the one who contemplates and for others as well. The case of contemplation is, indeed, particular and we will return to it again later.

For now let us state unambiguously — all modes of knowledge impact on the existential system of man, although they do not impact on it in the same manner and with the same results. This is an important fact which is essential for the proper understanding of the existential system of man and which has to be kept in mind in any discussion of the system. This clarification does not alter the fact of the general practicalness of knowledge. It is, therefore, not astonishing that the existential system of man changes and changes ever faster, which means that it is an open system. Moreover, not only it is an open system, but its openness grows with the growth of the knowledge construct. The openness of the system is proportional to the level and type of knowledge. It is a precious property of the existential system of man which is at the same time, but under different aspects, the condition and the product of human progress, as well as an indicator of the state of humanity.

Since the openness and the rate of change of the system are proportional to the knowledge construct, they are proportional among themselves. The rate of change is proportional to the openness of the system. Thus, we arrive at the same conclusion as earlier in this chapter, namely, that the more the existential system of man develops, the less is any given state of the system permanent and able to serve as a basis for a definitive description of the system as a whole or of the human species. Interesting consequences follow from this situation. The first conclusion which we can draw concerns the future states of the existential system of man. The more there is knowledge and the more it impacts on the system, the more they become different from any present state. Consequently, they become increasingly more difficult to predict adequately. Paradoxical as it may sound, the greater the knowledge, the more unpredictable becomes our human future. Apparently, the rational powers produce a situation of humanity bearing some resemblance to the Heraclitean world in which everything changes and nothing remains the same. Such a state of affairs augurs badly for futurology and for our ability to direct the development of humanity on a large scale. Our human future may be more and more rational, but we cannot predict it rationally.

Change is the enemy of certitude and of universalizations. Science is possible to the extent to which we can discover regularity and permanence in nature and express it formally by means of precise laws and equations. The conclusion which we have reached above about the predictability of future states of humanity explains why the project of Auguste Comte to create the formal and predictive science of social physics has never become a reality and why, all the developments in social sciences notwithstanding, his project has even less chance of realization today than in his time.

Although we cannot create a science of social physics, we can state with certitude that humans become an increasingly important and determining part of the existential system of man. Because of their continuous and increasingly more powerful activity, the system becomes more and more manmade. Humans reproduce, but unlike other animals, humans assure their offsprings ever better chances of survival, development and reproduction. As we have explained in an earlier chapter, knowledge is a life-enhancing factor. Through rational knowledge, the rational animal succeeds not only in perpetuating its species but in increasing its biomass as well. In an effort to build an environment fit for humans, the rational animal produces culture with its hierarchy of values, social systems, laws, customs and artifacts, and in the process, transforms the natural environment. Doing all this, it unintentionally builds up the Existential system of man.

When one looks at the existential system of man it seems to be a logical purposeful creation, but this impression is largely misleading. It is, therefore, important to stress that although particular human activities have been rational, thought out and even planned, the system as a whole was not. Not only have humans not planned the system as a system, they have ignored it and still largely ignore its existence. The existential system of man is manmade not because it was or is the intended aim of human activity. As a system it is an unintended by product of that activity. Humans have known for a long time now the four elements of the existential system of man, but they were largely unaware of their interdependence and the systemic nature of their relationships, i.e., they did not understand that they form a system. Even today the nature of the system is far from comprehensively known. As we have explained earlier in this chapter, the chances of ever acquiring a definitive knowledge of the system are practically nonexistent.

Unable to provide a satisfactory description of the existential system of man, we may talk about some of its aspects with which we are familiar, in particular about the sphere of culture and of its role in the system. A discussion of culture in this context is necessary because, as far as humans are concerned, the most important consequence of the system is its impact on them. The system is the result, though unintended, of the efforts of humans to satisfy their desires, to better their chances of procreation and to improve the conditions of life in general. When sufficiently developed, the system replaces nature as the direct human environment and becomes the everyday habitat of the rational animal. As such, the existential system of man is increasingly more essential for the existence and further development of humans. In particular, the manmade elements of the system, i.e., the knowledge construct and products, become evermore influential factors, making possible increasingly more advanced forms of human life.

It is one thing to state that the existential system of man makes possible the human mode of life and its evolution; it is another thing to understand how this influence works in detail. In the continuously evolving situation which is the mode of existence of the existential system of man, the causal impact which the system exercises on all its component parts is not only complex but changing as well. The impact is a function of the impact of the totality of the system as a totality and of the impacts of its component elements. As we know, each element is of a different nature, produces different effects and evolves at a different pace. This is why the relationships of the four elements to each other and to the system are continually changing. Let us remember that the changes and the resulting growing complexity of the system are mainly unintended results of human rational activity. This fact is sufficiently fundamental and universal in its consequences to be expressed in the form of the following laws:

Law XV: "The size and complexity of the existential system of man are proportional to the level of rational activity."

 

Law XVI: "The impact of the existential system of man on humans is proportional to its nature — size and complexity."

 

Law XVII: "The level and complexity of human life and problems are proportional to the existential system of man."

 

The above-mentioned laws have been grouped together because of their relatedness. They all point to a common factor increasingly influencing human life, namely, knowledge.

As we know, knowledge is a change-inducing factor. It changes knowers themselves and the world around them. Because of rational knowledge the world with humans is different from the world before the appearance of the thinking creature. The Existential system of man is unlike nature in itself as it was before humans or is still outside their physical reach. If nature and its ways may be termed natural, the existential system of man is nonnatural, or, perhaps it would be more proper to say, unusual, because of the difference in the causality exercised by it and by what we consider as infrahuman nature. It is not a product of that nature, and because of the rational factor present in it, it transcends that nature in modes of being and causality. It is and it produces a different type of environment from that provided by nature for animals. It simply cannot be identified with nature without negating the specificity of the rational factor.

The existential system of man is not only more complex than the environment of animals, more heterogeneous and faster changing. It also is more demanding on their brains, forcing humans to adjust evermore rapidly to new situations and producing obsolescence in the intellectual sphere and modes of life and activity. Many interesting consequences follow from this. In the first place, the existential system of man elevates humans above nature. Somebody may, perhaps, object that this is not what lifts them to a higher level of life, but their rationality. The objection is partly true and partly false. It is rather evident that without rationality, humans would be but another animal species. However, rational capacity by itself is not sufficient to produce the human mode of life as we know it today. As we shall explain in more detail in the next chapter, it requires a group effort extended in space and in time aided by more and more sophisticated means and a propitious environment. In other words, the creation of the specifically human mode of life necessitates a properly developed existential system of man.

It is interesting to compare this to an animal habitat. Animals develop in response to challenges of the environment and are determined by them. With the exception of social insects such as termites or bees, they do not form environments of their own. They simply fit into the existing conditions, their mode of life being the result of environmental challenges and opportunities. Because of natural selection animal species have specific ecological niches of their own. In contradistinction to animals humans do not have a natural niche of their own. They have to produce one and contrary to those of animals, it never has one definitive form. The truly surprising fact about the existential system of man is its state of incompleteness and its inability to satisfy all human desires. Contrary to what one would expect, the more humans know and the more they can do, the more they find the existing state of the Existential system of man unsatisfactory and the more and the faster they want to improve it. This important fact may be expressed in the form of a law:

Law XVIII: "The satisfaction with the existential system of man is inversely proportional to the capacity to change it."

 

The interesting question is whether the building up of the existential system of man will continually involve the transformation of the natural environment, and to what extent nature can accept the demiurgic activity of humans and continue to provide the necessary support for the existence of the human species.

In the case of animals, nature assures the overall stability of the conditions of life and provides the parameters of their behavior. Due to their rationality humans cannot content themselves with the environment provided by nature. Whatever was the situation at the beginning of the human adventure, nature is no more the proper habitat of humans. It is unable to satisfy all their needs. Humans are not governed by nature in the same way as animals. Consequently, they have to provide their own guidance in the light of reason and with the help of existing knowledge. The more there is knowledge, the more enlightened and sophisticated can be the guidance, and the less it becomes instinctive. The problem is that the intellect transcends nature both in its reach — being able to conceive nonmaterial entities, and in its products — creating a world of its own, namely, the sphere of rational conceptual structures, the knowledge construct.

This is not only made of entities different from those composing nature, it is also governed by different laws. Its relationship to nature is neither simple nor automatic. It neither belongs to the order of nature, nor is it a mirror image of nature. For these reasons, whatever its level of development, the knowledge construct does not automatically provide its users with adequate guidance in their dealings with nature. This conclusion seems to be contradicted by the growing awareness of ecological problems and better knowledge of nature, its laws and constraints which it imposes on human activity. We must remember, however, that our knowledge of nature is far from definitive, while our ability to act increases continuously. The more we can do things, the more we impact on nature and even our best intentioned activities such as, for instance, the cleaning up of the environment may produce unforeseen and unintended adverse effects. Better knowledge of nature is not a foolproof insurance against errors.

Unpleasant as the above affirmation may sound, it illustrates the complexity of the relationship existing between humans and the existential system of man. Generally speaking, it has two seemingly contradictory effects on humans: one obviously positive, the other apparently negative. On the one hand, the system acts as a life protector and facilitator. The more it is developed, the more efficient is its positive causality. It makes possible the growth of the human biomass, it makes human life easier and richer and it stimulates the growth of the human potential: biological and intellectual. On the other hand, the system engenders increasingly more complex situations and problems, increases the rate of obsolescence of world views, models and forms of life. Among others, it generates and preserves inequalities among humans, allowing exploitation and social injustice in a manner unknown in infrahuman nature. In both its positive and negative causality, the existential system of man challenges our human will and ingenuity to a continuous effort. It forces humans to adjust to ever new situations and to reach beyond known horizons. This challenge is of fundamental importance for the evolution of humanity. It throws interesting light on the knower-knowledge relationship. We will analyze it in greater detail further in this book.