The Way We Think

Some books are just impressive. The Way We Think, by Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, is one of them. Unfortunately--in one sense--it is very much a cognitive psychology production. The implications of the work by these authors are stunning, but it probably takes some unpacking (simplification, examples, and repackaging) for that to stand out to many readers. Nevertheless, sometimes the results justify the work.

In this book, the authors present a unified description for what it is about humans' thinking that makes us a unique species (cognitively at least). This is important because it presents a UNIFIED description in the same way that Darwin's theory of evolution provided a single framework for speciation that can account for the biological developments we are familiar with.

While I'm not interested in oversimplifying their whole presentation (I'll actually be leaving the best part out), they offer a functional set of rules for describing what makes one perspective better than another. Nicely, this set also points the way for improving any perspective. And essentially, this is a big part of what experts in any field of endeavor do cognitively to improve their performance. Remember, good applied psychology seems commonsensical once we see it, so this set may seem obvious, but consider how often you have actually applied all of these rules to improving your understanding of any particular topic or field. These rules also apply to presentations.

Compress what is diffuse.
Obtain global insight.
Strengthen vital relations (between significant parts).
Tell a story.
Go from Many to One.

All of these rules fit together to achieve the overarching goal of the set: achieve human scale. The authors explain what they mean by human scale.

The human scale is the level at which it is natural for us to have the impression that we have a direct, reliable, and comprehensible understanding (p323).

Just as a spellcheck applies to words, these rules apply to conceptual packaging. The fascinating thing about this concept-checking process is that it has a progressive, hermeneutic aspect. In other words, we can run the program to achieve a good fit, run the program again to achieve a better fit, include more information and run the program again, etc.

Marshall McLuhan made the important comment that humans adjust to their media of communication just as we adjust to overall environments. Along with physical media, we adjust to customs and "common" sense. Different societies present different customs as commonsensical. For example, in the interest of tolerance (one such customary perspective), cultural relativism came about. While it has been a valuable step in some ways, its time has passed. Cultural relativism supports not only cultural diversity, which will always be valuable, but also a certain diffuseness. (Compress what is diffuse.) Cultural relativism stymies progress because it suggests the inability to choose one thing as better than another. This gets us directly into denial of reality.

While cultural relativism may seem like a tangent, it provides a real example of how the hermeneutic process can work. At one (less than optimal) level of social functioning, tolerance is better than open conflict. The attitude of tolerance is not what I am arguing against, then. We want to keep tolerance but divest the perspective--and those holding the perspective--of the inherent shortcomings. In order to do so, we want to tell the story of progress. We want to strengthen the vital relation between tolerance and the potential for progress that peace affords but then also move forward. So we can look at why tolerance is valuable, we can see why cultural relativism was part of that perspective historically, and we can look at whether it is best to keep all of the parts.

If it is possible to improve from conflict to tolerance, is it possible to improve from tolerance? To this end, and because everyone I've ever met has wanted things to be better in some way, I'd add a sixth rule: make it better. This motivation is so fundamental to who we are that it often goes unrecognized. This is a motivation that has its roots far below the development of ego, but the possibilities that humans come across through and with egos, far outstrip the humble beginnings of this drive. (Amoebas follow this drive as well, but they have no need of coming up with explicit rules.) One vital relation worth strengthening is that between our imaginings and reality. Is it possible to imagine a relationship or attitude that is better than tolerance? Is there a type of relating that makes sense on a human scale that is "intuitively" and obviously better? Of course. We all want to be appreciated, we want to appreciate where we live and who we live with, and we want to feel inspired.

I propose (and claim no credit for what seems like a commonsensical proposal) that any perspective which does not support appreciation and inspiration is less than what people deserve and can achieve. Less than acceptable. I also propose a method--rather than rejecting whatever we believe in right now--that supports improvement in any perspective. Follow the rules. If it is helpful to see that we have a common conceptual heritage and cultural foundation along with a common biological inheritance, read THE WAY WE THINK. The commonality is already there.

Sex Differences in Brain Functioning

I just came across some info that is hugely important in understanding differences between men and women. HUGE! Stanford neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky has found that women's autonomic nervous system ramps down more slowly than men's (like during/after an argument). Here, we're mostly focused on sympathetic system arousal--the fight/flight/keep-on-arguing response. This is as important, maybe even moreso, concerning miscommunication between genders than the awareness of women getting a shot of oxytocin just from talking to other people. I'm going to also pair this bit of data with John Gottman's finding that two out of three arguments between couples are about topics that simply cannot be solved.

From men's side, in an argument that cannot or simply will not end in agreement, we want the stress to end. We may try to get some distance and allow ourselves to calm down, and this will generally happen if we aren't keeping the argument going in our heads and trying to still win. BUT, if we try what Gottman calls a repair attempt too early, our much-loved partner will still be amped. Or, we may not try anything, but if we show a relative degree of relaxation, that can signal that we don't care about the topic or the relationship as much as our partner. She might even be frustrated and jealous of the relatively quick turnaround (calming down) in us.

Over the long haul, we end up learning certain indelible "truths" about the other sex as well as our own. One is that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned...or ignored...or simply not adequately mirrored in her emotions. ("Yes, I am VERY excited about that new hand-bag you found; it is WUNDERBAR! for so many reasons" [that I don't know].) Another is that it is a woman's prerogative to always change her mind--always. Another is that guys are expected to "be the bigger man" or take "it" like a man even though we supposedly have fragile egos. Clearly some of these truths are contradictory, feeding the battle of the sexes.

We all know that women nag. Ladies, you know it's true. And men blow up when they lose their temper. Or shut down (sometimes due to "nagging"). But what is nagging? Sometimes, the guy is calming down, which is being interpreted as a lack of caring. His gal is still focused on getting somewhere on this topic because she is still amped about it. So she sticks to the point just when he is calming down enough to begin to feel close--or at least nonantagonistic--with/towards her. For women, they are simply trying to further the relationship by gaining closure or progress of some kind. And this attempt, this one more comment, is like a cattle prod applied to the base of the skull just when the guy thought it was safe to let his guard down. Because there is a literal extra unpleasant jolt, which feels treacherously timed, from a behavioral point of view the guy learns not to let his guard down or trust. Or he can blow up or shut down. Or he just has to "take it" because that's how women are.

Alternately, your girl may be looking for emotional reassurance (because she's still amped, but it's leaning towards anxious rather than angry/aggressive this time) while you're still trying to simply relax out of an argument or let it go (since you know things won't go well while you're still pissed). This is compounded by the fact that it takes guys more effort to verbalize. So in general, the demand or even expectation that we verbalize what we're feeling and thinking before we're "re-set" makes a little jolt feel like a cattle prod. (Besides, before we've calmed down, we're thinking and feeling about how we're right, she's wrong, etc. But you can't say that's what you're feeling, oh no.) That exaggeration on our part ("She just jammed me with a cattle prod, and she waited just until I started to calm down in order to catch me by surprise") suggests for an exaggerated reaction from us. BOOM!

From this unenlightened perspective, then, women simultaneously want men to be strong (not pushovers), they want reassurance, they want to be right, and they want the right to be vindictive while being treated as if they have really helped us open into our full potential emotionally. Wow, then there is no right response. And guys are big, petulant children prone to tantrums, uncontrolled aggression, sulking inexpressiveness, and emotional withdrawal.

It impresses me how often and how greatly timing matters.

The Six Points

At each stage of development, there is some sort of center or focus or key reference point for personal effort or intentional attentional deployment. As Kabat-Zinn's definition points out, the reference at the stage of mindful appreciation is present-moment, nonjudgmental, on-purpose attention. That purpose, directly or indirectly involves appreciating life. As we move up the scale to the stage of Clarity, we are moving more beyond appreciation and into straight balance, clarity, and bliss. While bliss results directly from mindfulness meditation, it is more closely linked to meditative periods at the stage of mindful appreciation. By the time we're moving into Clarity, the bliss and inspiration it fits with are less "caused by" the formal meditation and more simply indicative of living well--more "spontaneously" arising.

So how does one's key reference point for progress or actualization change? Mindfulness never loses its value, but a reapportionment of attentional deployment is called for--a growth or a shift. I believe that shift is towards balance for its own sake rather than nonreactive mindfulness more for the sake of greater appreciation and diminished suffering. We're looking to act as an inspired self at this point rather than holding onto a feeling and/or ideal of some idealized self. In other words, rather than noticing repression and reactivity and choosing nonreactivity (which is different from non-action or passivity), we find that the value of repression and reactivity drops off when it is possible to be balanced and unconfined. If we try to move into Clarity without mindfulness practice and appreciation, it's possible to feel less confined, but we'll remain less mature; we'll be more self-spoiled and freewheeling than free.

Let me describe balance at this point, then. Balance is referenced to three continuums, each with two poles. You can think of an x axis and a y access crossed by a z axis, making our imaginary grid 3D. The center is an imaginary point in the same way that we speak of a physical "center" of gravity. The center is always there, but it is always shifting. Even the act of thinking shifts molecules within our minds that shift that centerpoint of gravity. So there is, one sense, no single point on our physical bodies that is the center (like--my nose is here and always in a similar relation to my ears), but there also is a predictable center (at least in geometrical space) which depends on how gravity works.

One of the axes is like left to right. Between (in a metaphysical way) tamas and rajas is sattva. If we're neither too aggressive nor too lazy, we're sattvic. There is a certain equilibrium and proportion. This will also be experienced in relation to other people around us as sometimes being too dominant or too passive. All three positions--one-up, one-down, and as equals--are called for in different situations.

Another axis is like forward to backward lean. This is like trying to go too fast or too slow concerning psychological development. Although this has aspects that feel like tamas and rajas, rather than that sort of aggressive to passive quality, this has more to do with a sense of speed. Again, just as there is a time for different positions, there is a time and place for different speeds.

And then lastly, we decide how subtle or obvious our actions should be. This is like an up/down axis. At some points, transcendental or blissful sorts of actions are fitting, but at other times, play or hard work or study is called for.

Without mindfulness practice, it will be difficult to maintain, perhaps even to recognize, psychological balance. This is why consistency in mindfulness as well as appreciation is important. If we don't come to know our own vasanas, habits, or gross-level psyche, it will always be in the driver's seat whether we ignore/deny that fact or not. Just as mindfulness practice is a cultural technology and not naturally occurring as practice, this sort of psychological balance is not the same as physical homeostasis and cannot happen without awareness that it is possible as well as the preparation, intention, and consistency that is called for.

At the stage of mindful appreciation, we are noticing and being nonreactive to (vigilant against) our very own personality disordering, emotional reactivity, and personal limitations. (Emotional reactivity actually keeps us from being emotionally spontaneous, so I am not speaking against emotions here.) This vigilant practice both highlights and supports awareness of the moments when we're being appreciative. At the next stage, there is a shift from the important reference point of mindfulness practice as a vigilant practice to balance or clarity as a simpler thing in and of itself. Rather than doing the work of taking off our clothes, it is more like enjoying the fact of nakedness and a slight breeze or warm sun on our skin. The mindfulness is connected to the bliss and balance and clarity, while the balance and bliss and clarity stand forth due to the mindful appreciation.

Psychological Balance: 6 Points

Working through these more basic analogies allows a more abstract range of analogies as well. In the last post, I began talking about psychological balance, using physical balance as a comparison. And while I knew I was getting at something in talking about differences in how an Olympic lifter, a basketball player, and a ballerina would balance, I hadn't really formulated a clear sense of what I meant by those differences. (Sometimes these things are too obvious/"intuitive"/nonconscious/fundamental to put into words or clear concepts.)

Of course, these different athletes will have different body maps and muscle memories due to different body types and training. I'm currently working on a fascinating book: THE BODY HAS A MIND OF ITS OWN.

Alright, so if we look at what influence mindfulness has on one's psychological self-image, we get some amazing possibilities. Jon Kabat-Zinn's proposed definition of mindfulness is--paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment and non-judgmentally. The interesting thing is that mindful purpose is based in physical awareness. This is a significant point, so if there is disagreement, I'd suggest reading the body map book.

If, in the course of one's meditation, one maintains awareness but allows purpose to drop out, strange things can happen. If one meditates without an intentional purpose, there is a really fascinating opening. In the same way that humans have the fascinating ability to conceive of psyches or souls that are not body-bound, we can further experience awareness that is not psyche-bound or tied directly and obviously to our sense of self, psyche, soul, etc. If I define mindfulness as, "Individual or localized awareness that is neither grasping nor aversive," that gives a stripped-down version in comparison to Kabat-Zinn's. (And we can use a different word for this if folks like Jon's definition for "mindfulness".)

Here's the jump. Kids who are about 2-5 years old correctly make a distinction between walkers and "babies". Walkers know themselves as "big kids" even if they toddle rather than moving smoothly. From the perspective of crawlers, walking would be pretty impressive if the crawlers could conceptually formulate that thought. And maybe they can--not my area of expertise. But imagine that first time when you're taking first steps--no longer bound by your whole body to the floor. Imagine how much more you could see--like being twelve feet tall or able to fly! Of course, it will take time to learn how to utilize your newfound ability to balance and move like this, but it is a wonderful process involving many spills along the way.

Psychologically, there is a similarly HUGE transition from how we normally identify--from normal self identity--when we take the perspective of individual or localized awareness that is neither grasping nor aversive. In the same way that our bodies are constantly adjusting physical balance (maintaining our normal routine of physical balance), our psyches or psychological habits are doing the same with our self identity. Once this neither grasping nor aversive perspective (and it is a limited perspective, but a less habitually limited perspective) becomes familiar, we can still "crawl", but we are unable to go back to the blissful ignorance of being "babies". At this point, being bound to the ground--in this case, habitual personalities--becomes a frustration unless we are playing at it. And for all the newfound glory in being "big", the frustration is like psychological toddling--we haven't really developed much grace with our new perspective, so there is much farther to go.

A very obvious example of this is provided in the 2005 movie "Revolver", with Jason Statham. As long as there is an identification as a persona or personality, there is a Shadow. When the identification doesn't occur, all the same physical and psychological tendencies remain (vasanas, habits, training), but there is possibility of a new sense of balance.

The Goonies: Sattva

I'm taking this quote from Sankhya philosophy, but it seems to hold for a number of presentations I have seen:

Sattva is equilibrium. When Sattva prevails, there is peace or tranquillity. Rajas is activity which is expressed as Raga-Dvesha, likes or dislikes, love or hatred, attraction or repulsion. Tamas is that binding force with a tendency to lethargy, sloth and foolish actions. It causes delusion or non-discrimination.

This sort of idea seems to put a finishing touch on the understanding I've been working on. Essentially, a fairly thorough understanding of the goonies describes and prescribes balance as one moves through the stages of actualization. Because our attentional abilities become more complex as we develop (adding more advanced abilities and perhaps improving lower abilities while also tracing an increasingly unique life-path) as well as potentially more subtle, "balance" will have a different look and feel at different times throughout any given life. Or we could say that an Olympic weightlifter will adjust his/her balance differently than a basketball player or a ballerina. But balance is still balance whether our bodies or our consciousness is relatively "heavy" (obvious or gross or undeveloped) or relatively subtle. Balance is important to all of them/us.

I've been talking about intentional deployment of attention or attention as an economy. A working understanding of both balance and stages of actualization provides a rubric for how to deploy attention so that one profits from this type of investment or deployment. Smart or wise investment involves a good proportional mix of the gunas depending on one's situations, temperament, and abilities. It also involves recognizing that there may be a progressive development and how much energy to put into development as opposed to balance.

It is very important to understand that I am speaking of general, orienting heuristics rather than precise instructions. While we can improve our knowledge of various fields by following instructions, we develop resilience and wisdom in those fields by applying our own strength, flexibility, balance, and concentration. As opposed to very precise instructions, this is like taking off the training wheels.

By utilizing the gunas for a rough description of balance/proportion, we can distinguish psychological balance from wisdom without needing very subtle descriptions or experience. We can think of balance as involving not too much tamas or rajas and not too much or too little progress. Wisdom, then, is the understanding and application that comes from such a perspective--a perspective centered within one's ability to notice and remain engaged in a balanced manner. We can see, then, that wisdom is much more about knowing what I know rather than being intelligent, experienced, or subtle.

While I have discussed much of this in terms of the individual, since we include speech, emotions, and relationships, it is not possible to work on this stuff without including others. Actualization, then, can be described as balanced continuation of wellbeing in body, speech, and mind. And because we are human, that continuation means a homeodynamic progress rather than more of just a homeostatic maintenance.

Rest and Digest vs. Fight or Flight: the Goonies

I was very happy to review the three gunas with a set of videos with James Swartz recently. Most of what I'd heard about gunas--referenced to yoga here--struck me as very strange and unworkable. Swartz's presentation seemed very sensible to me, and I think it fits easily with most modern science. I've been trying to decide how to present a hierarchy of development in a straightforward and understandable manner for some time now, and one of my remaining challenges had been to find an applicable and understandable way to talk about qualities rather than quantities. This gets into the same murky areas where the psychological "catfish" like to spend time--talking about "process" in a muddy way if they aren't into some particular sort of esotericism.

Now, although not all of my connections hold up incredibly well, there is a really solid and simple addition to be made regarding the goonies--tamas, rajas, and sattva. In a rough sense, tamas is like the parasympathetic functioning (rest-and-digest) and rajas is like sympathetic functioning (fight-or-flight). Too much of a tamasic influence will lead to sloth and perhaps depression. Too much rajasic influence leads to overactivation/overstimulation: anger, lust, greed, anxiety, fear, envy, etc. And we can see how many people use something like caffeine (stimulating, rajas) in the morning to wake up and then balance that with alcohol or valium or sleeping pills (depressant, tamas) to calm down. Relying on these two influences to get things right is crazy-making because going from one to the other is like being on a merry-go-round. The more important it becomes to change from one to the other, the faster it spins. In Hinduism and Buddhism, this is described as a whirlpool--samsara. And believing that the whirlpool can be solved by spinning either faster or slower is believing in illusion--maya.

Just as many concepts don't translate perfectly and directly between Hindu and Buddhist usages, the goonies also don't translate perfectly into modern scientific language. But it's a workable fit in most instances in the same way that most of us can get through our lives perfectly well by following Newton's rules and not fully grasping quantum mechanics. While it is somewhat rough, it also is a fit.

Why is this important? Well, when most of us want things to improve, we either try too hard or quit too early. Or, we might advance and retreat--one step forwards, two steps back. The same is true when we are talking about personal actualization. In meditation, there is a really important aspect of awareness that often goes unrecognized or creates unnecessary confusion. This is like mindfulness' twin. I think of it in terms of "vigilance". Mindfulness could be described as a balanced and precise awareness that neither grasps nor rejects. Most of us have at least heard of mindfulness practices. One question that arises with experienced meditators is: when do I shift from mindfulness to something else? something deeper or better? While there are all kinds of doctrinal answers and wonderful teachers, since they're not me, I'll offer what I've got.

If mindfulness is the balanced or precise and focused awareness, vigilance is that bit of attention we deploy to recognizing when we slip off that mindful point of focus. Vigilance reminds us to return to mindfulness. (This is coming directly from MAHAMUDRA: THE MOONLIGHT--QUINTESSENCE OF MIND AND MEDITATION, a fantastic presentation if you're ready for it. Yes, this note is getting into two fairly different applications. I'm giving one fairly high-level example, and I'll give another example that is more applicable to beginners.) Basically, as long as we still need to allocate some attention to vigilance, it is impossible to intentionally choose a state of oneness. Although this is subtle stuff, it is the same principle that athletes are familiar with when they talk about the difference between playing to not lose and playing to win. Some things are difficult enough that we cannot simultaneously try to succeed and also try to not fail. Although we may not be guaranteed success if we go all out, we are guaranteed failure if we lose focus or don't commit 100%. Intentionally entering states of oneness is basically like that.

So, in the beginning, we need to practice vigilance. And later down the road, if we hit rough patches, we may need to be willing to bring vigilance in again. But one goal is to become good enough with mindful concentration that it is possible to have certain moments where we can trust ourselves and our ability and situation enough to go "all in"--to let go of deploying vigilance along with mindfulness.

Lower down the developmental scale, we can also check ourselves by the quality or feeling of where we are at any given moment. For example, if you're angry, you don't want to drink so much that you become morose and depressed. That doesn't balance things out. That's more like flipping the same coin to its other ugly side. Or, if you're depressed, drinking coffee will give you a little pick-me-up, but after that rajasic up moment, it will also give you a little extra drop-me-down afterwards. That sets up the merry-go-round or toggle. Back, forth, back, forth. If that is happening, you're probably out of balance between your rajas (stimulation) and tamas (heaviness, groundedness, rest). Too anxious/aggressive or too lazy.depressed. In other words, you can't fix having too much sympathetic arousal by overstimulating your parasympathetic system; you can't caffeinate your way out of depression or booze your way out of anger.

More to come on sattva.