The existence and continuous development of knowledge constructs is a necessary factor of the evolution of humanity. This is rather obvious in light of what we have said thus far. Let us now look at the knowledge construct in a broader context of biological evolution. Its most striking aspect in general is its uniqueness. There is nothing like it elsewhere in the realm of living beings and, a fortiori in inanimate nature. From the biological point of view, the appearance of the knowledge construct is a radical novelty or new mode of being. Its existence fundamentally changes the situation of the human species. Giving humans an increasingly greater power to impact on nature, it affects nature as well. Nothing, prior to the appearance of the rational animal, presaged the development of the knowledge construct. There were no early, primitive forms of it in the animal kingdom, no antecedents. We cannot establish a lineage of successive forms of development of the knowledge construct from before, as we can do for the human organism or for knowledge constructs from the primitive to the most advanced.

It is not surprising that at our advanced stage of intellectual development we are aware of the existence of the body of knowledge and study it, or some aspect of it, in a critical manner. The situation was obviously different at the beginning of the human intellectual adventure. Interestingly enough, the newness and the "unnaturalness" of intellectual knowledge has been perceived by humankind since time immemorial. The birth of thought was such an extraordinary event that it found its expression in myth and in basic early religious texts such as the Book of Genesis. Long ago humans understood that knowledge which they acquired was something very special and important, which gave them a unique status and set them apart from other creatures. They were, of course, right. It is easy now to see that knowledge elevates the rational animal above other organisms and transforms him into the most knowledgeable and powerful creature on earth. This is an indubitable fact, but it is far from being the whole story.

All humans think, but all do not think in the same way or have the same attitude towards knowledge and its development. We have said this before, but we find it necessary to repeat it again. Not only have different cultures developed knowledge to a very different degree, they also conceive the use of knowledge differently. In the discussion of the impact of knowledge on humans we must avoid the oversimplification found all too often in reflections about knowledge, namely, of equating the human’s relationship with knowledge with that proper to Western culture. To begin with, only in the most advanced cultures is knowledge thought about and studied, and there is consequently a problem of knowledge. All cultures are concerned with transmitting a body of knowledge from generation to generation, but of their own initiative only a few make, a deliberate and sustained effort to develop knowledge systematically. And there are great differences from culture to culture in the kind or kinds of knowledge developed.

The usefulness of intellectual knowledge is evident. Whether the development of rationality was an unavoidable occurrence is another, and as far as we can tell, remains an open question. Armed with hindsight and accepting evolution as a universal phenomenon, we may, perhaps, say that the appearance of thought made sense and is a logical extension of evolution. Even if we admit this point of view, we must be aware of the fact that there is no apparent necessity in such development. There was no royal road leading to the emergence of thinking, no one predetermined way to develop rational knowledge. The diversity of attitudes towards knowledge found in the world today indicates that there was no explicit or tacit agreement on the attitude to adopt towards rational knowledge. Nor could there have been a consensus about the purpose for which that knowledge would be used. If such an agreement, or something close to it could have existed, there would now be in the world no such differences in the modes and levels of knowledge, all the differences in the material conditions of life notwithstanding.

Rationality is the specific, distinctive property of the human species. It is, therefore, tempting to assume that the relationship between humans and the exercise of their rational powers is univocally determined. This, however, is not the case. The fact of the possession of rationality does not determine the use of it, or the attitude towards the knowledge construct. Thinking creatures can adopt different attitudes towards their powers of reason and towards the existing knowledge. It may sound surprising, but the fact is that the relationship of humans with intellect and with knowledge is not deterministic. One may, perhaps, wonder whether this indetermination is not a temporary phenomenon indicative of a still imperfect level of the intellectual development of humanity. This does not seem to be the case. The more knowledge progresses the more different attitudes we can and do adopt towards our rational powers and towards knowledge. The greatest uniformity in this respect is found in primitive societies and the greatest diversity in the most advanced societies. Seen from the level of advanced knowledge, the noetic uniformity existing in a primitive society is not the result of an a priori agreement, but of an inability to look critically at one’s knowledge.

The relationship: humans ? knowledge is a two-way relationship: humans ? knowledge and knowledge ? humans.

 

An indication of the indetermination of the relation between humans and knowledge is reflected in the impact of knowledge on humans. The causality of knowledge is multiform and multilevel. The complexity of its impact is due to the fact that the knowledge construct is an element of the evolutionary system of humankind. Its impact takes place in a process of active existence, highly diversified in time and in space. This process is anything but uniform and the relations between factors contributing to it are also anything but uniform and simple. We in Western culture, are accustomed to view precision, logical coherence and clarity as highly desirable properties of knowledge. One is, therefore, allowed to wonder what is the meaning of the indeterminate nature of the relationship humans-knowledge. Is there a purpose, a value to it, or not? The relationship is, as we have indicated, an element of the evolutionary process, and it is in the context and in light of this process that the meaning of the indetermination of this relationship has to be evaluated.

A certain degree of indetermination of factors and relationships is a necessary condition of evolution. In this sense, indetermination plays a positive role in this process, up to a point. And so it is with indetermination in the noetic relationship. The indeterminateness existing in this relationship is a necessary condition of the evolution of knowledge and of humankind. Equally necessary from the point of view of evolution is the multiplicity and variety of the effects of knowledge and of its development. The indetermination, the plurality and the diversity are necessary conditions for the process of trial and error underlying evolution, and for the emergence of more advanced forms of existence.

There is no animal life without sense knowledge and there is no human life without a degree of intellectual knowledge. Although the relationship, humans-knowledge, is indeterministic, its consequences vary from case to case, but there always are concrete consequences. In order to fully understand the nature and the role of this relationship, it is essential to grasp the extent of the interdependence existing between knowers and knowledge. As we have already said, humans and knowledge are complementary elements of the knowledge system. The fact that it is a system is important because of its evolutionary potential and consequences for humanity. It is also important for methodological reasons. Since knowers and the body of existing knowledge are parts of a system, the system, like any other system is: (a) bigger than either of the parts, (b) different from them. It is easy to affirm the existence of the knowledge system, once one accepts the notion of the knowledge construct as an entity distinct from knowers. But it is much more difficult to understand the nature and the consequences of this system. The system affects its elements and the outside world. Therefore, the consequences are of two sorts, namely, those found within the system itself and those outside of the system.

Knowledge belongs to the realm of life. It is at the same time a manifestation, a means and a product of the life process. One of the most important facts about the knowledge system is its dynamic nature. As we already know, the elements of this system are bound by a feed relationship. Because of the nature of this relationship the system is never static and never exactly the same. The active element of the system is, of course, the knower, while the body of knowledge may be considered as a passive element. The passivity of the knowledge construct does not prevent it from exercising its causality. The causality of knowledge is subtle, and yet, powerful, though difficult to measure, because material yardsticks cannot be applied to it. The knower thinks and acts in the light of existing knowledge. The body of existing knowledge plays a complex role. Without pretending to know all its aspects, let us mention three which are more or less evident. The knowledge construct serves as a ready-made guide and pattern for coping with everyday problems and situations. Moreover, it is a point of departure for further intellectual explorations, i.e., for the advancement of knowledge. It plays also the role of a common denominator unifying individuals sharing the same one. This latter function is an essential factor transforming individuals into an organized and stable society. In either of these roles, it acts as a formal cause, in the Aristotelian sense of the word.

It is rather obvious that humans would be utterly lost, powerless and incapable of surviving without knowledge. The existential role of knowledge accounts for the constant importance of its causal impact on knowers. Knowers are visible and obvious; knowledge is not of the same category. This is why it is easy to overlook the dependence of knowers on knowledge. Active as they may be, and they become evermore active under the influence of the growing knowledge construct, knowers are not independent agents with regard to it. As we have just seen, they are not the only factor exercising causality in the knowledge system. This fact is essential for understanding of the knower-knowledge relationship. Moreover, the dependence of humans on knowledge has far-reaching consequences, both theoretical and practical. A study of the ecology of knowledge would be incomplete without a discussion of these consequences. Such a discussion is also important for the understanding of human evolution.

Humans produce knowledge, and knowledge in turn shapes them. We already know this general relationship; let us now analyze it in some detail. What is of particular interest, as far as the growth of knowledge is concerned, is the fact that, as we have intimated above, the existing knowledge influences further acts of knowledge. The more knowledge there is, the more coherent is the body of knowledge, because it is more systematically developed, and the more complex, the more formative is its influence. Consequently, the development of knowledge is, among other things, a function of existing knowledge. In other words, the greater the knowledge construct, the greater the possibility to guide the development of knowledge. It is not difficult to observe that the possibility translates into a desire and an active process of directing the development of knowledge in a predetermined and selective manner. This is done in light of the hierarchy of values of those who make the choices, and it either may or may not reflect those of the society.

The deliberate guidance of the development of knowledge is best seen in advanced societies spending a considerable portion of their GNP on research and development. They do it as a necessary means of furthering their economic well-being and standing in the world community. What interests us here is not the obvious preoccupation of states with knowledge, but the consequences of the influence of the knowledge construct on the development of knowledge. The question is what is the value of this influence, what are its consequences. Surprisingly, the situation is more complex than intuitively it may seem to be, and the answer cannot be a simple positive or negative value judgment. The reason for this situation is to be found in the fact that the influence of the knowledge construct on the direction of research, necessary as it is, is a mixed blessing. This is true even in the case of the most theoretical and disinterested research. This affirmation is sufficiently surprising to call for an explanation.

If the impact of the knowledge construct on the direction of the development of knowledge is a mixed blessing this is because of the very nature of the knowledge construct. It is meant, at least in its basic outline, to represent extramental reality. The existential efficiency of knowledge indicates that this is the case, at least to a certain degree. However, we are also aware of the fact that all conceptual structures are not equally true. Approximate, vague or simply false judgments and reasonings are every day occurrences. This means that the knowledge construct is neither identical with what it is supposed to represent, nor is it a perfect mirror image of the outside world. Reality is always greater than our knowledge of it. This is why knowledge can develop and why it is necessary that it develop. This is also why as an unavoidably a partial and imperfect conceptualization of the world, it cannot give us an adequate idea of the best direction to take in the development of knowledge. The plain fact is that we do not know what a more advanced knowledge should and would be like. One thing which is certain, and very disturbing for our self-esteem, is that the more advanced knowledge will not be like our present knowledge. It will differ from present knowledge not only quantitatively but also qualitatively, just as modern science differs both in size and in nature from earlier types of knowledge. The objections which this statement is bound to raise, especially among scientifically minded readers, is the best indication of the ambivalent value of the knowledge construct in furthering the development of knowledge.

It is an assemblage of true, verifiable statements and others which are not so. Considering the importance which we attach to truth, objectivity and verifiability, we may wonder what effect this has on the impact of the knowledge construct on knowers. Does it diminish the influence or not? Surprisingly, it does not. It is important to realize that its causality is not univocal for all knowers. Different individuals are affected by different elements of the knowledge construct, and the same element may have very different impact on different knowers. Its causality is not bound univocally to its verifiability. This is clearly demonstrated by the sway which ideologies, unverified theories or myths hold over peoples minds. Besides, verifiability, as it is understood in experimental science, is a precise but narrow notion. It is a limiting factor, delineating the subject matter of verifiable knowledge and the very mode of knowledge to which the principle of verifiability applies. The scientific principle of verifiability is applicable properly only to quantifiable aspects of reality. Consequently, it excludes the non quantitative aspects of the world, especially the vast and rich knowledge of values, crucially important for human life. This is why the criterion of verifiability, important as it is, is not a sufficient yardstick for evaluating the importance and the past, present or future impact of the knowledge construct.