Your tastes, abilities, and experience are vastly different from mine. You say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe. We may all have similar descriptions of what inspiration can feel like (see the book FLOW: The Psychology of Optimal Experience), but it takes different things at different times to get us inspired. At one moment, you come home from work and simply want to fall onto the couch with someone you love and be held close. At another moment, you want the challenge of a difficult game: chess, basketball, ultimate fighting, cards, whatever. And at another moment, you simply let your mind drift into the natural beauty of the mountaintop or forest.
Some people don't actually get high on the things I get high on. It's hard for me to understand that, but I know it's true. Some people love stuff that I also can't understand, that I have no feel for. Sometimes I can learn to appreciate what they do but sometimes not. Over the last fourteen years, I've been focused on how people learn to appreciate and what influences meditation can have on how we live. I don't know if meditation can be considered a normal or "natural part of who we are, but it is done in some form in every culture. The simplest way is to just breathe deeply and let your stomach relax. Contemplation and prayer are similar ways of being more intentional and sometimes more self-aware than we tend to be in our daily lives.
My focus has been on what Wilber has called the first- and third-person approaches to spirituality. I have been very curious about meditating and what I can experience within myself or as myself, checking out what it might mean to say that "I" am spiritual. That's the first person approach. The third person approach has included a curiosity concerning evolution, the human body and nervous system, brain states, the influence of different chemicals, etc. For the most part, I have set up a system of understanding that focuses on these first- and third-person perspectives. That has allowed me to sidestep all of the arguments concerning which tradition or culture is best. So rather than speaking in terms of values or preferring one religion over another--since all expressions of religion are deeply rooted in separatist types of cultural traditions (due to historical societies separating themselves from the global university of humanity)--I try to speak about attention.
No society or historical culture has cornered the market on attention. In fact, while many argue over whose God is best or whose values are best, attention is often largely ignored by religious folks. Surprisingly, attention is also only considered secondarily in modern educational systems even though psychiatrists and psychologists are willing to diagnose Attention Deficit Disorder. As far as I can tell, attention is fundamental to learning anything. And yet we don't teach people how to improve their attention directly. Most often, we teach various topic subjects and simply HOPE that kids will improve their attention along the way. When I was in middle school, we joked about some kids just carrying their texts around without opening them as if they thought they might learn something by osmosis. Teachers liked to use that joke. And yet, no teacher that I had directly taught how to improve attention, as if they thought we would simply pick up attentional skills by osmosis.
I had never heard another person use the phrase "attentional abilities" before I started using it with friends and fellow students. It's probably been used somewhere, but it's not commonly used. Even more crazy to me is that I have rarely if ever heard people speak about improving attentional abilities.
Attention is an important idiom, then, because it is not claimed or owned by any particular culture. It's not a "Western" cognitive science concept because it's been used in Asian cultures for millenia. It's not an "Eastern" idea because it has been studied for decades by neuroscientists working in a "Western" scientific paradigm. At least, it was described as "Western" during the postcolonial decades of the latter half of 20th century. As if experimentation and learning in humans did not originate in our common ancestors in Africa. Just as every culture has something to add concerning how to train attentional abilities, every one of us has our own experience of attentional abilities and limitations. In other words, you already know what I'm talking about even if you haven't used these terms and phrases before. You've already felt your attentional abilities, including some of your limitations.
Contrary to the medical-based terminology, there is no such thing as a deficit in attention. Attention is never not happening in some way until you're dead. But it's interesting to think about it. When you dream, you pay attention to dream sequences. People knocked unconscious and in comas even have accurately reported what has happened around them when they were "unconscious". There is even an interesting example of consciousness in deep, dreamless sleep from Advaita Vedanta. In other words, consciousness has different forms or qualities at different times, but since it is always there throughout your life in some way, it cannot accurately be said to be deficient. (Consciousness and attention may be somewhat different, but maybe not. We'll leave that for later.)
Because attention always apprehends something in some way, and because it seems that mind (as a metaphysical category, I suppose) always moves, we can say that our attention is deficient in certain ways, but we are never actually lacking attention itself. It is hardly reasonable to say that students who are uninterested in some topic that they aren't paying attention to are deficient in attentional skills. They are skillfully paying attention to something else, even if that something is only daydreams. The social situation is agreement-deficient in such a case, with teachers assuming (for no good reason I can discern) agreement and then perhaps diagnosing a deficiency in concentration on their chosen subject. Perhaps we could say that the students are deficient in interest or involvement.
Having said that, many people are diminutive in their ability to maintain concentration. Lots of factors can play into this, but we've all had times when we have been unable to concentrate. Some people seem born with an innate strength in concentration, while others are apparently born with relatively weak concentration. If we do not teach and practice concentration, we have little to no grasp on how much of concentration is innate and what can be learned. (So I don't disagree with the actuality of ADD even if I'd call it something else, but we're only beginning to sort out where folks are weak in concentration and where our society is weak in being able to teach concentration. ADD may be largely--certainly not only--a deficiency in social flexibility teaching competence.)
ADD is an excellent example of why I talk about intention, self-awareness, and meditation in terms of attentional abilities. Just as we may have a hard time maintaining our concentration on grammar, most of us have a hard time maintaining our concentration on retaining a certain amount of equanimity in dealing with others, a certain feeling of generosity, or even the avoidance of feeling irritated. MANY adults feel themselves, and sometimes their friends, to be more mature than most other people. Isn't that curious? We often believe that other adults simply do not have the maturity to handle adult-type interactions, and because of their lack, our own lives are made more difficult or less satisfying. This is possible through an interesting trick of the mind that is no more than a simple trick once you see it. We see it in others as they convince themselves of something that isn't true. We might even notice it in ourselves. And it is only possible through a certain deficit in concentration.
So another point about attention is that I don't have to describe someone in ethical terms (as over-proud, self-righteous, etc.) in order to describe their faults in a way that allows progressive change. Because my mind plays the very same trick on me (I remember where I do well and where others don't more often than not), I can actually benefit from people helping me notice when it happens. We can act as if our minds doing this naturally is some form of evil in humanity, or we can be curious and amused by it. And once we recognize anything concerning how we deploy and experience our attention, we can do something about it whereas if we are inherently evil that is harder to address.
I'd say that if adults cannot learn enough concentration to maintain a degree of equanimity within themselves, they have little place to criticize kids (that's the same old mental trick). The functional question in all of this is: how do we do it? Because I've phrased the problem in attentional terms, an attentional solution lends itself to the problem. I've briefly listed what I see as the significant developmentally-outlined attentional abilities here.
Since we cannot "see" our own subconscious clearly, we may not be able to say correctly in which abilities we are most lacking. We may know what we are strong in, though. The interesting thing for me is that, since we are all complex human beings, if we are too deficient in any of these areas, we will not only be somewhat unhappy, but we will also create social problems for ourselves. The unfulfilled desires that lead to unhappiness are the personal or internal signs of unfulfilled potential, and the social problems we are a part of are the social or external signs of that same unfulfilled potential. Why do I say this? Because inspiration is your birthright and creating inspiration is an ability.
In the movie, "Man on Fire", Denzel Washington's character makes the point that there is no such thing as being tough. "There is only trained and untrained." If you haven't felt inspiration to be a significant part of your life, it doesn't mean that you are evil, broken or weak. You are either trained or untrained.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Spiritual Profiling: Respect Between Equals
Chances are, if you preach at me, I won't listen. I'm not looking for a preacher. And since I'm talking about dialogic aspects of communication, when I flip that sentiment around, I can hardly expect someone else to listen if I'm going to be preachy. This fits with Lao Tzu's point in the Tao te Ching that there is no such thing as "moral high ground". Essentially, even if your position is right, but then you feel like you're better than someone else because of a position, you ruin the moral authority in the position by mixing what's right with your own hubris. Same goes for me.
At the same time, you're better than me at a lot of things, I'm sure. I don't even have to know who I'm talking to to know it's true. I may not already know what you're better at than I am, but if we get to know each other, we'll find things. Flip that around, and I can walk with a certain amount of humility-pride because I know I'm probably better at something than everyone I meet. It's not modesty or a put-on show. It's simultaneous pride in myself and in humanity as well as humility in knowing that, as another amazing human being, you must also be better than me at something. So there's no point in hubris but enough pride for everyone. Part of why that's important is that, since I know my own strength, I don't have to try to exploit your weaknesses so as to look comparatively good; I can just find the areas I excel in. Beyond that, if we can agree to communicate like reasonable adults, chances are that we'll actually be able to learn from each other and improve due to our relative strengths (and weaknesses).
All that is pretty simple, but it's also rare to find adults who actually want to interact with each other this way. We get all caught up in comparative status and trying to clutch some little pride that we often miss seeing the ways in which we can grow. When we only want to compete, then pointing out where others slip up is an attack. But if I can actually take any criticism as a chance to grow in some particular way that I need to, then there are no attacks beyond physical violence. We still might compete, debate, challenge one another--but there aren't any attacks per se.
Where I was raised, this was called "being the bigger man". As kids, we often tried to claim that we were bigger men than someone else. But as we came to understand this phrase better, we knew that it involved not acting like we were bigger. Somewhere around there, it started just seeming like being men. Since I also appreciate women who don't try to act like men, we can speak of acting like adults.
I may seem to have gone far afield from spirituality to anyone familiar with my general focus on formlessness and samadhi. Maybe that's a sign that I'm growing up still. I'm becoming more and more interested in the process of moving towards those peaks rather than simply focusing on conquering the mountain, so to speak. There is a riddle or teaching question asked by the Sufis: why does God make his saints to look like everyone else? The proposed answer is: so that you will treat everyone like saints. I've got to admit, I'm not there yet. But getting there fascinates me.
It's also been said that before you can walk, you have to learn to crawl. That seems to fit psychologically and spiritually. Wherever we start from, we first get moments of how we want to actually be, then the effort it takes to stay aware of wanting that, then the discipline of giving up our emotional reactivity in particular moments in order to be mature, and perhaps we eventually gain a certain willingness to roll with the punches without giving up on our aspirations.
Because of how our minds work, aspiration feeds our motivation to overcome adversity. Adversity gives us the psychological and spiritual pressure it takes to gain the strength it takes to be able to hold onto and communicate what we gain. "Only the tested can inspire the fearful." We all benefit from the wisdom and experience of those who have already fought the good fight. Those who made the ultimate sacrifice in their fight, as well as those who have lived to fight another day. Folks who have overcome adversity feed our aspiration. Anyone who has overcome adversity knows something about the strength of intention. Anyone who has faced adversity and temporarily lost could have some aspiration for improvement along with some experience to build from.
The reality of human life is that it all gets jumbled together. We can't separate out the moments we shine from those where we stumble. It's all me, all one. (If you feel otherwise, stick around, Grasshopper.) And yet, I love the Muslim focus on Judgement. Their idea, if I understand correctly, is that everyone will face God on their day of Judgement and every single thing they have ever done will be weighed and measured. All of what they have done correctly will be weighed against every single sin, and their actions, thoughts, and feelings will either lead them to God's grace or punishment.
It's very liberating to say that it's all one. And at the same time, I also know that every time I practice doing what I believe is right, it feeds that sense of rightness within me. Every single time--no matter how small or seemingly inconsequential--I feed my weakness and iniquity, it grows stronger within me. How other people act affects me, but they are judged in their own way. How I respond to them and affect them influences what I feed within myself. Perhaps there is some ultimate judgement on a given day, but I doubt it. It makes more sense to me to believe that this lifetime is my "day of Judgement". I already am punished by feeding the shit within my soul and spreading it around me. I already am rewarded by acting right and knowing when I do. Maybe it all comes to a metaphysical head, but whether it does or not, it's the same to me. (If you don't believe in judgment or karma, have some kids, and see where they are when they reach forty or so.) Because that is the case for myself, I am willing to learn to crawl if I must, but I'll be damned if I'll keep myself from learning to walk.
Being who I am, though, I may need some help along the way. I'm not looking for some guru to be God for me. Just as I'm not writing for those who want to be only beautiful and fragile, I'm also not writing for those who are looking for moral escape. They will get what they get. I'm looking to find others who want to improve and I'm looking to contribute what I can. I'm looking for others who feel the same, who feel equal in that aspiration.
While anyone can claim such a standpoint or motivation, communicating it needs some form, it needs to actually happen. The question I've been asking is: what is a good way for me to share what I know and can do? When I flip that question around, assuming I'll be communicating with spiritual equals, I ask: what is a good way for us to contribute what we can know and do with and for each other? The question takes that somewhat complex form because I will need something different than what anyone else needs. Sure, we all need love and support, food and air, etc., but if we are to recognize and uphold our individual potentials then we will need to find our different tastes of inspiration.
At the same time, you're better than me at a lot of things, I'm sure. I don't even have to know who I'm talking to to know it's true. I may not already know what you're better at than I am, but if we get to know each other, we'll find things. Flip that around, and I can walk with a certain amount of humility-pride because I know I'm probably better at something than everyone I meet. It's not modesty or a put-on show. It's simultaneous pride in myself and in humanity as well as humility in knowing that, as another amazing human being, you must also be better than me at something. So there's no point in hubris but enough pride for everyone. Part of why that's important is that, since I know my own strength, I don't have to try to exploit your weaknesses so as to look comparatively good; I can just find the areas I excel in. Beyond that, if we can agree to communicate like reasonable adults, chances are that we'll actually be able to learn from each other and improve due to our relative strengths (and weaknesses).
All that is pretty simple, but it's also rare to find adults who actually want to interact with each other this way. We get all caught up in comparative status and trying to clutch some little pride that we often miss seeing the ways in which we can grow. When we only want to compete, then pointing out where others slip up is an attack. But if I can actually take any criticism as a chance to grow in some particular way that I need to, then there are no attacks beyond physical violence. We still might compete, debate, challenge one another--but there aren't any attacks per se.
Where I was raised, this was called "being the bigger man". As kids, we often tried to claim that we were bigger men than someone else. But as we came to understand this phrase better, we knew that it involved not acting like we were bigger. Somewhere around there, it started just seeming like being men. Since I also appreciate women who don't try to act like men, we can speak of acting like adults.
I may seem to have gone far afield from spirituality to anyone familiar with my general focus on formlessness and samadhi. Maybe that's a sign that I'm growing up still. I'm becoming more and more interested in the process of moving towards those peaks rather than simply focusing on conquering the mountain, so to speak. There is a riddle or teaching question asked by the Sufis: why does God make his saints to look like everyone else? The proposed answer is: so that you will treat everyone like saints. I've got to admit, I'm not there yet. But getting there fascinates me.
It's also been said that before you can walk, you have to learn to crawl. That seems to fit psychologically and spiritually. Wherever we start from, we first get moments of how we want to actually be, then the effort it takes to stay aware of wanting that, then the discipline of giving up our emotional reactivity in particular moments in order to be mature, and perhaps we eventually gain a certain willingness to roll with the punches without giving up on our aspirations.
Because of how our minds work, aspiration feeds our motivation to overcome adversity. Adversity gives us the psychological and spiritual pressure it takes to gain the strength it takes to be able to hold onto and communicate what we gain. "Only the tested can inspire the fearful." We all benefit from the wisdom and experience of those who have already fought the good fight. Those who made the ultimate sacrifice in their fight, as well as those who have lived to fight another day. Folks who have overcome adversity feed our aspiration. Anyone who has overcome adversity knows something about the strength of intention. Anyone who has faced adversity and temporarily lost could have some aspiration for improvement along with some experience to build from.
The reality of human life is that it all gets jumbled together. We can't separate out the moments we shine from those where we stumble. It's all me, all one. (If you feel otherwise, stick around, Grasshopper.) And yet, I love the Muslim focus on Judgement. Their idea, if I understand correctly, is that everyone will face God on their day of Judgement and every single thing they have ever done will be weighed and measured. All of what they have done correctly will be weighed against every single sin, and their actions, thoughts, and feelings will either lead them to God's grace or punishment.
It's very liberating to say that it's all one. And at the same time, I also know that every time I practice doing what I believe is right, it feeds that sense of rightness within me. Every single time--no matter how small or seemingly inconsequential--I feed my weakness and iniquity, it grows stronger within me. How other people act affects me, but they are judged in their own way. How I respond to them and affect them influences what I feed within myself. Perhaps there is some ultimate judgement on a given day, but I doubt it. It makes more sense to me to believe that this lifetime is my "day of Judgement". I already am punished by feeding the shit within my soul and spreading it around me. I already am rewarded by acting right and knowing when I do. Maybe it all comes to a metaphysical head, but whether it does or not, it's the same to me. (If you don't believe in judgment or karma, have some kids, and see where they are when they reach forty or so.) Because that is the case for myself, I am willing to learn to crawl if I must, but I'll be damned if I'll keep myself from learning to walk.
Being who I am, though, I may need some help along the way. I'm not looking for some guru to be God for me. Just as I'm not writing for those who want to be only beautiful and fragile, I'm also not writing for those who are looking for moral escape. They will get what they get. I'm looking to find others who want to improve and I'm looking to contribute what I can. I'm looking for others who feel the same, who feel equal in that aspiration.
While anyone can claim such a standpoint or motivation, communicating it needs some form, it needs to actually happen. The question I've been asking is: what is a good way for me to share what I know and can do? When I flip that question around, assuming I'll be communicating with spiritual equals, I ask: what is a good way for us to contribute what we can know and do with and for each other? The question takes that somewhat complex form because I will need something different than what anyone else needs. Sure, we all need love and support, food and air, etc., but if we are to recognize and uphold our individual potentials then we will need to find our different tastes of inspiration.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Spiritual Profiling: The Beast Lives
Nothing that can be said to be spiritual can be inanimate or dead. The beast lives. And just as spirit may not be limited to any form, still, for us to feel "spirit" or "spiritual" there must be some touch, some tangibility, and therefore some form. To that end, it can be helpful to share some common assumptions. Also to that end, it helps to not see any of us as limited to those assumptions. Not only, then, does my understanding of the process need to move forward, but the dialogue must as well. Just as those who saw the Great Depression moved beyond the Great Depression, we will move our dialogue beyond those basic assumptions and yet remain somewhat shaped by those assumptions.
This is very important. If we include the expectation of change right from the very beginning, then it may turn out that the followers are actually leading and vice versa. It may be that we'll find that a beloved basic assumption becomes the greatest obstacle to further progress. In other words, everything is up for grabs. When that is the sort of situation we face, how can we know we aren't just flapping around like a fish out of water? How do we know we aren't flopping further and further from our stream the harder we try?
When there is no way to be sure that up isn't down and left isn't right, when quantities may turn out to be the opposites of what they first seemed, we might still be able to rely on qualities. I may not know where I'm going, but I might know if I'm moving fast. I may not know if I'm fast or slow, but I can say whether it feels right. This is a different way of seeing things and making decisions. It can seem so complicated as to be impossible or so vague as to be ineffectual. In other words, it still needs a foundation, or we could say a vehicle. So I'll give a comparison or two.
The guru traditions basically send the message that you must give up everything you used to know (the sky is blue, grass is green) so that the divine wisdom of the guru can set you straight (the sky is you, the grass is grass). In other words, we give up our normal way of knowing things and simply replace it with someone else's. Wouldn't that be nice? But until Jesus obviously returns, I still havent' found that enlightened of a guru. Or maybe I'm just a skeptic. Other "expert"-type paradigms abound. "Listen to the physicist who knows physics more than you, follow your President, eat your peas", etc. All of these sorts of approaches are of one paradigm: something outside of you knows better--at least for now--than you do.
I'm willing to admit that physics experts know more than me, but most physics experts--while they may be somewhat arrogant about their intelligence and learning--don't claim that I should give up all of my worldly possessions and follow them because they are my moral superior (so they're different from gurus, better in a way). I appreciate that about anyone who does not equate power with betterness. More power means more potential for damage or corruption, so rather than looking at quantities as my reference point (more/less), I tend to look at the qualities of application. If you use your small amount of power well, I congratulate you. If you use a large amount of power poorly, I won't resent you--I'll criticize. Now, it has been somewhat unpopular under the aegis of white guilt and post-colonial relativism to NOT criticize those with little power. I am either part of a backlash against that sort of spineless apologetics or a step in a better direction. Personally, I don't care whether you like my position. Between emotional adults, positions should not be addressed the way teenagers talk about someone else's clothes or tastes in music. So I also don't care if you like my position. Both of those opinions are worthless to me. But if you go a step further with your opinions (or, let's say that you have a position, and I have to do better than simply say "cool" or "sucks"), you bring detail. You tell me something I don't already know about my position, you point out what I can't see ("Yes, your ass does look fat in that, Todd.")
My response will not be: you shouldn't pick on me because I don't have much social power. My response is simple, usual for me. "So what?" Only, this is not a rhetorical "so what?". I mean it. Why do you say what you say? What are you looking for? How do you want that to affect me? Most of us, when we speak, we speak because we feel an internal impulse more than because we say something that we think will have certain affects on those we speak to. I cheer, "Go Eagles!" because I want to feel excited and support my football team, not as a measured way of convincing Cowboy fans to convert. (I have another sort of message for Cowboys and their fans.) That type of communication is appropriate at the stadium, and much beyond that was normal at Veteran's Stadium. It just doesn't do much more than show us whether we're on the same side or not, whether we're headed for the same party or not--after the game or after school.
I wonder whether your comment is higher quality than mine. And I'll be honest; I want to be the best. But the best what? I don't want to be the loudest asshole. And being the loudest doesn't seem to fit with being expert. Einstein wasn't great because he could shout, but in the stadium, noise matters. I want to yell so loud that Tony Romo can't even be heard by the center right in front of him. I want the Cowboys to go down...in flames, if possible. But Einstein in that crowd is just one more person either yelling or not.
It goes without saying that I'm no Einstein. I'm not being modest. The folks who know me well know I'm not modest. But that's how it is. Einstein was no quantum mechanist, either, but he did all right for himself. Probably no one else is going to care as much as I do about my purpose. Probably. (I'll save that caveat for later.) But I'd like to work it out. If I can be happiest as an Eagles fan, then maybe that is what I want to stick to. Maybe that is where I want to deploy as much of my attention as possible. But maybe there's more. Maybe I can be an Eagles fan AND something else besides. I don't know if Einstein had a favorite team, but tons of people are sports fans and more. Do you love the game? Is the noise you make moved by that love, by passion? Besides expertise, passion counts. Passion makes qualities tangible. If I can't feel an interest in, say, psychology more than the 700-level fans feel for Donovan McNabb (our quarterback), their passion may say something my intellectual expertise does not. For me, if I am a passionate football fan and only care in a half-assed way about psychology, then I may be a great fan and a mediocre (if fairly intelligent) psychologist. Most of the folks in my stadium section would tell me that they wouldn't want to see me as a therapist if I didn't care about them.
Sorry for the sports analogy, but sometimes it helps to talk about meatheads. I still care almost as much about my high school football practices as I do about getting a master's degree. I'd like to think that I care more about the future of our planet than I do about whether I played with honor, but that's not always the case. "So what?" It almost always a relevant question. If Einstein told me about relativity before it became a big thing, I'd have asked him that question. And maybe he'd have clued me in. Is my point starting to come across? An expert who's an asshole isn't less of an asshole for being an expert? And, he's no less of an expert for being an asshole. On both counts, quality matters. We just usually make exceptions. If you can find a good mechanic, that's where you take your car, even if he's an asshole--as long as he doesn't overcharge.
I've got a couple of points coming together here. Because we're all connected to some extent, you may put up with an honest, expert mechanic who's an asshole. It's just business, and good business if his prices are reasonable. But you might invite a deacon you like to your Christmas party and leave your mechanic uninvited, alone on Christmas Eve--except for his good friends Johnny and Bud. Quality means different things in different situations. You become a lower-quality host at your party if you invite too many assholes (or too many deacons, probably).
So the fact that qualities change in different situations doesn't faze us in the least. You don't want some nice deacon with the best of intentions checking your car--you want an expert mechanic who isn't trying to pull the wool over your eyes. You don't want some honest asshole at your parties, you want decent people who want to have fun. Quantities pretty much are what they are, but the importance of qualities changes depending on where we are. We are so used to dealing with this that we often don't even notice. My basic point is that assholes can loosen up or straighten out and party animals who always show up straight-laced on Sunday mornings may be more fun than rock stars. Everything changes, but many, many of us get stuck as caulking--as if we don't want change to happen. Because the world is what it is, we can't fear the wrong types of change; we have to be the right kinds of change. And in order to work on what the "right types of change" are, we have to find some way to get together on it that doesn't take away how you bring something different--sometimes better, sometimes worse--than what I bring. Every form changes, but there is something beyond and within form.
This is very important. If we include the expectation of change right from the very beginning, then it may turn out that the followers are actually leading and vice versa. It may be that we'll find that a beloved basic assumption becomes the greatest obstacle to further progress. In other words, everything is up for grabs. When that is the sort of situation we face, how can we know we aren't just flapping around like a fish out of water? How do we know we aren't flopping further and further from our stream the harder we try?
When there is no way to be sure that up isn't down and left isn't right, when quantities may turn out to be the opposites of what they first seemed, we might still be able to rely on qualities. I may not know where I'm going, but I might know if I'm moving fast. I may not know if I'm fast or slow, but I can say whether it feels right. This is a different way of seeing things and making decisions. It can seem so complicated as to be impossible or so vague as to be ineffectual. In other words, it still needs a foundation, or we could say a vehicle. So I'll give a comparison or two.
The guru traditions basically send the message that you must give up everything you used to know (the sky is blue, grass is green) so that the divine wisdom of the guru can set you straight (the sky is you, the grass is grass). In other words, we give up our normal way of knowing things and simply replace it with someone else's. Wouldn't that be nice? But until Jesus obviously returns, I still havent' found that enlightened of a guru. Or maybe I'm just a skeptic. Other "expert"-type paradigms abound. "Listen to the physicist who knows physics more than you, follow your President, eat your peas", etc. All of these sorts of approaches are of one paradigm: something outside of you knows better--at least for now--than you do.
I'm willing to admit that physics experts know more than me, but most physics experts--while they may be somewhat arrogant about their intelligence and learning--don't claim that I should give up all of my worldly possessions and follow them because they are my moral superior (so they're different from gurus, better in a way). I appreciate that about anyone who does not equate power with betterness. More power means more potential for damage or corruption, so rather than looking at quantities as my reference point (more/less), I tend to look at the qualities of application. If you use your small amount of power well, I congratulate you. If you use a large amount of power poorly, I won't resent you--I'll criticize. Now, it has been somewhat unpopular under the aegis of white guilt and post-colonial relativism to NOT criticize those with little power. I am either part of a backlash against that sort of spineless apologetics or a step in a better direction. Personally, I don't care whether you like my position. Between emotional adults, positions should not be addressed the way teenagers talk about someone else's clothes or tastes in music. So I also don't care if you like my position. Both of those opinions are worthless to me. But if you go a step further with your opinions (or, let's say that you have a position, and I have to do better than simply say "cool" or "sucks"), you bring detail. You tell me something I don't already know about my position, you point out what I can't see ("Yes, your ass does look fat in that, Todd.")
My response will not be: you shouldn't pick on me because I don't have much social power. My response is simple, usual for me. "So what?" Only, this is not a rhetorical "so what?". I mean it. Why do you say what you say? What are you looking for? How do you want that to affect me? Most of us, when we speak, we speak because we feel an internal impulse more than because we say something that we think will have certain affects on those we speak to. I cheer, "Go Eagles!" because I want to feel excited and support my football team, not as a measured way of convincing Cowboy fans to convert. (I have another sort of message for Cowboys and their fans.) That type of communication is appropriate at the stadium, and much beyond that was normal at Veteran's Stadium. It just doesn't do much more than show us whether we're on the same side or not, whether we're headed for the same party or not--after the game or after school.
I wonder whether your comment is higher quality than mine. And I'll be honest; I want to be the best. But the best what? I don't want to be the loudest asshole. And being the loudest doesn't seem to fit with being expert. Einstein wasn't great because he could shout, but in the stadium, noise matters. I want to yell so loud that Tony Romo can't even be heard by the center right in front of him. I want the Cowboys to go down...in flames, if possible. But Einstein in that crowd is just one more person either yelling or not.
It goes without saying that I'm no Einstein. I'm not being modest. The folks who know me well know I'm not modest. But that's how it is. Einstein was no quantum mechanist, either, but he did all right for himself. Probably no one else is going to care as much as I do about my purpose. Probably. (I'll save that caveat for later.) But I'd like to work it out. If I can be happiest as an Eagles fan, then maybe that is what I want to stick to. Maybe that is where I want to deploy as much of my attention as possible. But maybe there's more. Maybe I can be an Eagles fan AND something else besides. I don't know if Einstein had a favorite team, but tons of people are sports fans and more. Do you love the game? Is the noise you make moved by that love, by passion? Besides expertise, passion counts. Passion makes qualities tangible. If I can't feel an interest in, say, psychology more than the 700-level fans feel for Donovan McNabb (our quarterback), their passion may say something my intellectual expertise does not. For me, if I am a passionate football fan and only care in a half-assed way about psychology, then I may be a great fan and a mediocre (if fairly intelligent) psychologist. Most of the folks in my stadium section would tell me that they wouldn't want to see me as a therapist if I didn't care about them.
Sorry for the sports analogy, but sometimes it helps to talk about meatheads. I still care almost as much about my high school football practices as I do about getting a master's degree. I'd like to think that I care more about the future of our planet than I do about whether I played with honor, but that's not always the case. "So what?" It almost always a relevant question. If Einstein told me about relativity before it became a big thing, I'd have asked him that question. And maybe he'd have clued me in. Is my point starting to come across? An expert who's an asshole isn't less of an asshole for being an expert? And, he's no less of an expert for being an asshole. On both counts, quality matters. We just usually make exceptions. If you can find a good mechanic, that's where you take your car, even if he's an asshole--as long as he doesn't overcharge.
I've got a couple of points coming together here. Because we're all connected to some extent, you may put up with an honest, expert mechanic who's an asshole. It's just business, and good business if his prices are reasonable. But you might invite a deacon you like to your Christmas party and leave your mechanic uninvited, alone on Christmas Eve--except for his good friends Johnny and Bud. Quality means different things in different situations. You become a lower-quality host at your party if you invite too many assholes (or too many deacons, probably).
So the fact that qualities change in different situations doesn't faze us in the least. You don't want some nice deacon with the best of intentions checking your car--you want an expert mechanic who isn't trying to pull the wool over your eyes. You don't want some honest asshole at your parties, you want decent people who want to have fun. Quantities pretty much are what they are, but the importance of qualities changes depending on where we are. We are so used to dealing with this that we often don't even notice. My basic point is that assholes can loosen up or straighten out and party animals who always show up straight-laced on Sunday mornings may be more fun than rock stars. Everything changes, but many, many of us get stuck as caulking--as if we don't want change to happen. Because the world is what it is, we can't fear the wrong types of change; we have to be the right kinds of change. And in order to work on what the "right types of change" are, we have to find some way to get together on it that doesn't take away how you bring something different--sometimes better, sometimes worse--than what I bring. Every form changes, but there is something beyond and within form.
Spiritual Profiling: The Background
To the same extent that psychologists and law enforcement personnel can improve their performance by profiling patients and alleged criminals, people can improve their own developing sense of spirituality by utilizing the idea of a spiritual profile--if this is done in an adequate way within an adequate understanding.
There are differences between psychological profiling and spiritual profiling that have to do with intention and the unconscious. The most basic components of our personalities are genetic--which I will call temperament. We all have a physically-based genetic platform for experience called temperament. Most psychologists do not simply measure temperament. When most profiling is done, it includes the nurture/experience aspects of our personality as well as what nature has already given us. The basic direction that the nurture influences move in means that, given a healthy family and challenges that do not overwhelm us in tragic or horrifying ways, we can grow up to be healthier individuals than if we are traumatized from early on. (This is a generally accurate rule, but there are always those resilient, heroic types that flourish in exceedingly difficult situations; they are the exceptions that prove the rule.)
So we have what many people recognize as "second nature"--anything we have learned young enough or practiced completely enough that we can do it, think it, or feel it without really putting too much effort in. This involves most of our personality habits, including personality disorders. While a genetic weakness may predispose us towards addictions or antisocial behavior, that aspect of temperament is different from the eventual behavior. So far, then, we have spoken of the two most basic aspects of personality and experience.
Beyond what we have done habitually or somewhat unconsciously, we all at least have moments where we feel it is possible to be more self-aware and more intentional in our actions. While I have not met anyone whose self-awareness is complete, we all know something about being self-aware. There is a crucial difference between being aware of our personality habits and being aware of our intention. I might know that I have a tendency to drink too much without having the intention to change my behavior. This recognition of conscious intention allows for a third level of personality--intention. Even for many people who are very clear regarding their intentions, many do not have the will and/or creativity to achieve their particular aims. My focus on spiritual profiling is all about increasing emotional resilience, clarity of intention, force of will, creativity, and the ability to draw on social resources in order to achieve particular aims including spiritual aims.
While a lack of self-awareness or lack of willpower has sometimes in the past been used to castigate those found lacking, this sort of negative social stigma and/or shame is an inefficient application of social power. It may be "right" in a certain way to put people down for their weaknesses, but it is also stupid to the extent that it applies social potential to an end that cannot be held as valuable (that of demeaning others). Castigating others is most often a strange form of beating one's hairy chest while castigating oneself directs attention from being able to address one's situation--actively--towards a sense of helplessness, shame, and depression. (While there must be a place for chest-thumping and shame, those two are usually over-indulged.)
Can't we all just get along? No, certainly not. I doubt that will ever happen. But we can learn as much from critics and enemies as from loved ones and friends. Personally, I find enemies to be as much of a waste of time as the demand--in some groups--that we all agree or none of us can move. I'm neither a hater nor a communist.
While we can conduct personality profiling on those we deem dangerous to our interests, because spiritual profiling involves a move to incorporate intention and willpower, it is necessarily dialogic. It can not be done to anyone; it is always done with someone. (It may be possible to become an arhant or developed meditator without a great deal of interactions with others--meditating on one's own--but it is impossible to see one's own unconscious. That is part of why I think spiritual development may be possible without a great deal of dialogue, but that development will be thin, lacking in areas.) While we might become more self-aware by ourselves, spiritual profiling is dialogic, conversational, open to the public as it were.
Clearly, I am aligning myself with a certain social-liberal type of worldview where diversity is good. I am also aligning myself with a certain application of hierarchy that allows large organizations to move effectively. Unlike many liberal apologists, I am not opposed to crushing resistance from small, viral types of organizations like Al-Qaeda. I'm all for presenting the invitation to dialogue as much in "enlightened" self-interest as in goodwill for all living beings. If you/I have nothing to offer the larger group, or if we are simply restricted to such an extent in our current situation that communication can't occur well, sometimes it makes sense for the group to move on anyway--sometimes in many directions at once.
My basic understanding in dealing with people is that intention and self-awareness are good--almost in and of themselves. Anyone who takes this position must be able to answer the question, "What about serial killers who are very aware of their intentions to continue their macabre vocation?" Simple. They are clear on their intentions but not so much aware of their vast potential as human beings. Just as individual meditators may be somewhat thin in their development, serial killers are thin in their intentions if they are not able to notice the moments within themselves when they wish for more. The same is true of politically-motivated terrorists, idealists, religious fanatics, junkies, etc. We are all missing something, but fanatics rarely want to admit WHAT they are missing in public. Junkies are ore likely to admit, but not necessarily more likely to change without help, etc. Intention alone, then, may not be so great, but intention and self-awareness together are potent and good. (I think that pretty much covers the basic assumptions.)
Self-awareness involves history--that second level of personality, the nurture and experience part. This means that our personality always changes somewhat. Think of the generation that faced the Great Depression and WWII. They were shaped in their habits and choices by living through such times. Furthermore, they continued to learn and adjust, often living into and through the 50s-70s which were much different socially and economically from the 30s. My point here is that even the nonconscious aspects of our personality change throughout time; just getting older makes many people less fanatic and more relaxed. My generation grew up without cell phones, but now it seems impossible to live without one. Cell phones change the way we communicate, which necessarily affects how we connect and how we feel about one another. So that second level of personality changes. Perhaps in my lifetime, scientists will have figured out not only how to replicate genetic material but also how to manipulate it in living beings. If this is done on a widespread scale within an individual body, we might even change genetic endowment (temperament)--the first and most fundamental aspects of personality.
Next point. Most of us have unhealthy habits, perhaps low self-esteem or narcissism, a sense of entitlement, biases and bigotry, an inability to communicate well with the other sex (or our own), etc. Most of us lack in something. What's more, when we feel that lack, it usually involves also feeling a desire. While we can nonconsciously feel this desire as the desire to be different than we are, we can intentionally decide that this is a desire to change or improve who we are; there is a difference in whether that points to a passive response ("this is just who I am") or an active response ("this feeling means I want to change if that's possible"). Now, some people take self-improvement too far and act as if everything about you has to do with what you want and decide. It may be good for us as a global group that this fanatic fringe is out there, but I am glad I'm not part of that fringe.
It takes time to grow physically, psychologically, and spiritually. (I'll address instant enlightenment individually for those who want to raise that objection, but I can debate that idea by simply saying, "Show me.") What's more, time alone is not enough. We need healthy types of food to grow--physical food, social and psychological food, and spiritual food. (Many may recognize that the majority of these ideas either are Ken Wilber's or are parallel with Wilber's progression. I'll get to my own additions later; Ken's ideas are amazing even if I haven't purchased an ILP packet from his company.) Just as we need a certain amount of gravity and exercise--forces pushing against us--in order to grow strong bones and muscles, besides foods, we absolutely need adversity (force opposing our intention) to grow psychologically and spiritually. Without adversity, we may be beautiful but weak or fragile. I'm not writing for those who want to be beautiful and weak or fragile. The psychological equivalent of bone strength and muscle tension is "resilience". I like having delicate emotions, but I have also needed emotional resilience in my life. We can be delicate and subtle without being fragile or weak.
Food, time, and pressures. There are different types of psychological pressure as well as different amounts. Social pressures are huge in our lives. And we can all recognize malicious influences in ourselves and others. Malice is a pressure, but it is not necessarily a good food. Just as we decide to not eat just anything a cow would, for example, we psychologically have to decide what not to internalize. If we do not have the psychological strength to refuse to internalize certain influences like malice, then we must eventually face those toxins within our psyches. This is another part of why resilience is unavoidable. And just as our bodies have immune systems, we can recognize that our minds and hearts do as well.
Too much pressure or too much toxicity is bad for anyone. Too little pressure may not look like a problem on the surface, but it lends to weakness, slackness, a lack of healthy (psychological) "muscular" tension. And, if we do not face any negative emotions in our social groups, we will have little empathy for those who have had to face toxicity. This results in situations where the toxicity is retained and repeated--such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At some point, the situation is so toxic, that one identifies as much with one's hatred of the enemy as with one's love of self and family. This sort of identification is large-scale suicide. In Israel and Palestine, there are many people who are willing to kill their own if it means bloodying their enemies. When you want to kill your own, you get what you get. I can understand but not support such an emotional position. If my own family had been dealt what some Israelis and Palestinians have been dealt, it is possible that my own psyche would be that toxic. But it is what it is--toxicity. It is impossible to claim psychological toxicity as spiritual purity. When your heart sees enemies, it is not full of God. Too much toxicity is bad for anyone. Being force-fed toxicity is not the same as being intentionally evil.
On the global scale, then, progress is not so far from what happens on an individual scale. It is still human decisions backed by human emotions supported by human intentions. How, then, can we deal with personal and political differences that are not nice, those that are not going to be covered during a pleasant conversation over a game of chess and a cup of coffee? Well, I don't need to tell you since you already know. Every culture I've looked at has stated that one must consider oneself and also face the world. When we have toxic personalities, we often avoid considering ourselves in the light of full self-awareness. We identify the toxicity as us (our own limited self-image) and/or the world, but the toxicity remains as the unavoidable basis, the "facts of life". THAT position DOES involve a lack of willpower, creativity, consciousness, and purpose. I don't denigrate anyone who takes that position, but I simply cannot know what I know of myself and others and believe in that position whatsoever. That position is blind and stupid, a result of too much toxicity and not enough of the right foods and forces.
There are differences between psychological profiling and spiritual profiling that have to do with intention and the unconscious. The most basic components of our personalities are genetic--which I will call temperament. We all have a physically-based genetic platform for experience called temperament. Most psychologists do not simply measure temperament. When most profiling is done, it includes the nurture/experience aspects of our personality as well as what nature has already given us. The basic direction that the nurture influences move in means that, given a healthy family and challenges that do not overwhelm us in tragic or horrifying ways, we can grow up to be healthier individuals than if we are traumatized from early on. (This is a generally accurate rule, but there are always those resilient, heroic types that flourish in exceedingly difficult situations; they are the exceptions that prove the rule.)
So we have what many people recognize as "second nature"--anything we have learned young enough or practiced completely enough that we can do it, think it, or feel it without really putting too much effort in. This involves most of our personality habits, including personality disorders. While a genetic weakness may predispose us towards addictions or antisocial behavior, that aspect of temperament is different from the eventual behavior. So far, then, we have spoken of the two most basic aspects of personality and experience.
Beyond what we have done habitually or somewhat unconsciously, we all at least have moments where we feel it is possible to be more self-aware and more intentional in our actions. While I have not met anyone whose self-awareness is complete, we all know something about being self-aware. There is a crucial difference between being aware of our personality habits and being aware of our intention. I might know that I have a tendency to drink too much without having the intention to change my behavior. This recognition of conscious intention allows for a third level of personality--intention. Even for many people who are very clear regarding their intentions, many do not have the will and/or creativity to achieve their particular aims. My focus on spiritual profiling is all about increasing emotional resilience, clarity of intention, force of will, creativity, and the ability to draw on social resources in order to achieve particular aims including spiritual aims.
While a lack of self-awareness or lack of willpower has sometimes in the past been used to castigate those found lacking, this sort of negative social stigma and/or shame is an inefficient application of social power. It may be "right" in a certain way to put people down for their weaknesses, but it is also stupid to the extent that it applies social potential to an end that cannot be held as valuable (that of demeaning others). Castigating others is most often a strange form of beating one's hairy chest while castigating oneself directs attention from being able to address one's situation--actively--towards a sense of helplessness, shame, and depression. (While there must be a place for chest-thumping and shame, those two are usually over-indulged.)
Can't we all just get along? No, certainly not. I doubt that will ever happen. But we can learn as much from critics and enemies as from loved ones and friends. Personally, I find enemies to be as much of a waste of time as the demand--in some groups--that we all agree or none of us can move. I'm neither a hater nor a communist.
While we can conduct personality profiling on those we deem dangerous to our interests, because spiritual profiling involves a move to incorporate intention and willpower, it is necessarily dialogic. It can not be done to anyone; it is always done with someone. (It may be possible to become an arhant or developed meditator without a great deal of interactions with others--meditating on one's own--but it is impossible to see one's own unconscious. That is part of why I think spiritual development may be possible without a great deal of dialogue, but that development will be thin, lacking in areas.) While we might become more self-aware by ourselves, spiritual profiling is dialogic, conversational, open to the public as it were.
Clearly, I am aligning myself with a certain social-liberal type of worldview where diversity is good. I am also aligning myself with a certain application of hierarchy that allows large organizations to move effectively. Unlike many liberal apologists, I am not opposed to crushing resistance from small, viral types of organizations like Al-Qaeda. I'm all for presenting the invitation to dialogue as much in "enlightened" self-interest as in goodwill for all living beings. If you/I have nothing to offer the larger group, or if we are simply restricted to such an extent in our current situation that communication can't occur well, sometimes it makes sense for the group to move on anyway--sometimes in many directions at once.
My basic understanding in dealing with people is that intention and self-awareness are good--almost in and of themselves. Anyone who takes this position must be able to answer the question, "What about serial killers who are very aware of their intentions to continue their macabre vocation?" Simple. They are clear on their intentions but not so much aware of their vast potential as human beings. Just as individual meditators may be somewhat thin in their development, serial killers are thin in their intentions if they are not able to notice the moments within themselves when they wish for more. The same is true of politically-motivated terrorists, idealists, religious fanatics, junkies, etc. We are all missing something, but fanatics rarely want to admit WHAT they are missing in public. Junkies are ore likely to admit, but not necessarily more likely to change without help, etc. Intention alone, then, may not be so great, but intention and self-awareness together are potent and good. (I think that pretty much covers the basic assumptions.)
Self-awareness involves history--that second level of personality, the nurture and experience part. This means that our personality always changes somewhat. Think of the generation that faced the Great Depression and WWII. They were shaped in their habits and choices by living through such times. Furthermore, they continued to learn and adjust, often living into and through the 50s-70s which were much different socially and economically from the 30s. My point here is that even the nonconscious aspects of our personality change throughout time; just getting older makes many people less fanatic and more relaxed. My generation grew up without cell phones, but now it seems impossible to live without one. Cell phones change the way we communicate, which necessarily affects how we connect and how we feel about one another. So that second level of personality changes. Perhaps in my lifetime, scientists will have figured out not only how to replicate genetic material but also how to manipulate it in living beings. If this is done on a widespread scale within an individual body, we might even change genetic endowment (temperament)--the first and most fundamental aspects of personality.
Next point. Most of us have unhealthy habits, perhaps low self-esteem or narcissism, a sense of entitlement, biases and bigotry, an inability to communicate well with the other sex (or our own), etc. Most of us lack in something. What's more, when we feel that lack, it usually involves also feeling a desire. While we can nonconsciously feel this desire as the desire to be different than we are, we can intentionally decide that this is a desire to change or improve who we are; there is a difference in whether that points to a passive response ("this is just who I am") or an active response ("this feeling means I want to change if that's possible"). Now, some people take self-improvement too far and act as if everything about you has to do with what you want and decide. It may be good for us as a global group that this fanatic fringe is out there, but I am glad I'm not part of that fringe.
It takes time to grow physically, psychologically, and spiritually. (I'll address instant enlightenment individually for those who want to raise that objection, but I can debate that idea by simply saying, "Show me.") What's more, time alone is not enough. We need healthy types of food to grow--physical food, social and psychological food, and spiritual food. (Many may recognize that the majority of these ideas either are Ken Wilber's or are parallel with Wilber's progression. I'll get to my own additions later; Ken's ideas are amazing even if I haven't purchased an ILP packet from his company.) Just as we need a certain amount of gravity and exercise--forces pushing against us--in order to grow strong bones and muscles, besides foods, we absolutely need adversity (force opposing our intention) to grow psychologically and spiritually. Without adversity, we may be beautiful but weak or fragile. I'm not writing for those who want to be beautiful and weak or fragile. The psychological equivalent of bone strength and muscle tension is "resilience". I like having delicate emotions, but I have also needed emotional resilience in my life. We can be delicate and subtle without being fragile or weak.
Food, time, and pressures. There are different types of psychological pressure as well as different amounts. Social pressures are huge in our lives. And we can all recognize malicious influences in ourselves and others. Malice is a pressure, but it is not necessarily a good food. Just as we decide to not eat just anything a cow would, for example, we psychologically have to decide what not to internalize. If we do not have the psychological strength to refuse to internalize certain influences like malice, then we must eventually face those toxins within our psyches. This is another part of why resilience is unavoidable. And just as our bodies have immune systems, we can recognize that our minds and hearts do as well.
Too much pressure or too much toxicity is bad for anyone. Too little pressure may not look like a problem on the surface, but it lends to weakness, slackness, a lack of healthy (psychological) "muscular" tension. And, if we do not face any negative emotions in our social groups, we will have little empathy for those who have had to face toxicity. This results in situations where the toxicity is retained and repeated--such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At some point, the situation is so toxic, that one identifies as much with one's hatred of the enemy as with one's love of self and family. This sort of identification is large-scale suicide. In Israel and Palestine, there are many people who are willing to kill their own if it means bloodying their enemies. When you want to kill your own, you get what you get. I can understand but not support such an emotional position. If my own family had been dealt what some Israelis and Palestinians have been dealt, it is possible that my own psyche would be that toxic. But it is what it is--toxicity. It is impossible to claim psychological toxicity as spiritual purity. When your heart sees enemies, it is not full of God. Too much toxicity is bad for anyone. Being force-fed toxicity is not the same as being intentionally evil.
On the global scale, then, progress is not so far from what happens on an individual scale. It is still human decisions backed by human emotions supported by human intentions. How, then, can we deal with personal and political differences that are not nice, those that are not going to be covered during a pleasant conversation over a game of chess and a cup of coffee? Well, I don't need to tell you since you already know. Every culture I've looked at has stated that one must consider oneself and also face the world. When we have toxic personalities, we often avoid considering ourselves in the light of full self-awareness. We identify the toxicity as us (our own limited self-image) and/or the world, but the toxicity remains as the unavoidable basis, the "facts of life". THAT position DOES involve a lack of willpower, creativity, consciousness, and purpose. I don't denigrate anyone who takes that position, but I simply cannot know what I know of myself and others and believe in that position whatsoever. That position is blind and stupid, a result of too much toxicity and not enough of the right foods and forces.
Monday, July 28, 2008
*
I've come back to Herbert Benson's book THE BREAKOUT PRINCIPLE--also coming back to the relative importance of peak experiences. I think I got this generally right when I placed the stage of Clarity (inspiration) just beyond Appreciation (and mindfulness). I'm starting to really mentally GRASP how that relates to Nonconceptuality and why it is difficult to understand the vast qualitative differences between Clarity and Nonconceptuality.
There are two general critiques within the meditative community as a whole, concerning technique (if you're willing to look at things this way). The first is too passive and the second is too active. We see this clearly in the differences between Soto and Rinzai Zen. More recently, Soto has taken on many Rinzai techniques (like koans) and become more effective, more complete.
One premise I'm working with here is that ultimate truth (or THE ultimate Truth) is not meaningful. Meaning comes from relating. In Tibetan Buddhism, they speak of ultimate truth and conventional truth, which Wilber has called "the two truths doctrine". I have always had a problem with acting/speaking as if these are separate. But ultimate truth is not relative, which means not meaningful, which means, not packageable (in words). It is impossible to communicate because, in a sense, it doesn't move, it's already everywhere, so you can't bring it to someone. But you can help them break out of a conventional mindset or ignorance.
So I've been talking about the difference between freedom and liberation. We can liberate ourselves and help others liberate themselves. But freedom simply is. That simple being (Abiding) is easy, effortless. But getting to Abiding takes effort. Some traditions have emphasized the goal (peace, Abiding...) and others have emphasized the path (and its effort).
Early on, it is most effective to emphasize activity. Learn to concentrate, learn to intentionally relax, and learn meditation. Those skills are the base for peaks, inspiration, and mental-emotional clarity. To sustain a sense of mental-emotional clarity, we need consistently repeated or revisited moments of inspiration. As we experience these, the sense of clarity itself (rather than the ecstatic energy of the "psychic" levels) stands out as important (to anyone who continues on further). Many people don't experience consistent enough inspiration, and they remain with the amusement-park quality of the ecstasy rather than moving onto a predominance of clarity and its subtler bliss. Drugs encourage that stuckness as well as fragmentation of self-identity rather than a liberted self-identity.
DIfferent types of peaks must be actively sought. Benson lists different types. Because many people have taken inspiration to be ultimate in some way (just because it is exciting and liberating), many experienced meditators are rightly (to an extent) against listing types of peaks or focusing on actively seaking peaks. Partially, this is the case because many flashy gurus have only emphasized the ecstasy. Benson's list includes the peaks of: self-awareness, creativity, productivity, athleticism, rejuvenation, and transcendence. In the same way that I have emphasized different degrees of competence at early levels and a qualitative difference between early levels, Benson focuses here on experiences of high competence at those levels. Peaks of Creativity fit my first level (creativity/play/exposure). Peaks of Productivity and Athleticism fit my second level of Purpose. Peaks of Rejuvenation fit Relaxation. Self-awareness fits with mindful appreciation and flow/clarity. And peaks of transcendence actually fit with Nonconceptuality.
If we see this whole mess clearly, we can see that it is worth chasing peaks--not for the ecstasy, but--as moments of high competence at each level. As we become more competent at each level, we work more smoothly, freeing energy up for the subtler focus on higher levels while also practicing increasing subtlety. Pursuing peaks without a comprehensive grasp of how they fit in and what they mean means that we will tend to over-interpret their importance and under-interpret their applicability. We will act as if they are more important than they are but also get less out of them. Essentially, most peaks are not important by themselves, but they can become important when they are fed into the overall process towards increasing liberation and a clearer, more consistent experience of Abiding.
There need be nothing esoteric about describing this process. But there is a significant shift from Clarity to Nonconceptuality. As we de-emphasize inspiration and stick more with subtle bliss and the feeling of liberation, we increase the sense that we are all already liberated. But without a comprehensive and accurate understanding, we may get confused and caught up in wondering why people don't always act and feel already liberated. All the explanatory systems (karma, God, etc.) are more relative/less ultimate than the actual ultimate truth. So the explanations create certain problems, but we need an Understanding so we can allow for suffering, old age, and death in our life and the lives of others.
By relying on any explanation that includes suffering as an important motivator towards Nonconceptuality, we take suffering with us into Nonconceptuality. If we do not conceptually interrogate the idea of suffering as important, though, it becomes nearly impossible to dislodge suffering in toto without being somewhat avoidant, without retreating into transcendence to some extent. Or, if we acknowledge suffering in a different way, we get stuck at the level of bodhisattvas (Nonconceptuality) because we feel it would be unethical to become (Abiding) buddhas while others still suffer. By not becoming buddha, we existentially insist on retaining (attaching to and thereby maintaining) suffering. When this is the case, our best ideal can only be either an avoidant sort of nirvana or an unenlightened (bodhisattva-not-buddha) sort of compassion. We cannot actualize enlightenment without allowing the full suffering in and of the universe as it is. Besides the doctrinal misunderstangings of not being too active or too passive with one's meditation, this final message is one that bodhisattvas--in their unending but not infinite compassion--resist. The compassion fo buddhas, based in ultimate truth and experience and freedom is beyond Understanding but it is also beyond meaning itself. It cannot be understood or known as something other than me-everything. It cannot be said to be more subjective or objective in the least. And we cannot have faith in this ultimate state-stage-Way-BEING because we already always are this/that. We must finally give up faith to be who we are.
There are two general critiques within the meditative community as a whole, concerning technique (if you're willing to look at things this way). The first is too passive and the second is too active. We see this clearly in the differences between Soto and Rinzai Zen. More recently, Soto has taken on many Rinzai techniques (like koans) and become more effective, more complete.
One premise I'm working with here is that ultimate truth (or THE ultimate Truth) is not meaningful. Meaning comes from relating. In Tibetan Buddhism, they speak of ultimate truth and conventional truth, which Wilber has called "the two truths doctrine". I have always had a problem with acting/speaking as if these are separate. But ultimate truth is not relative, which means not meaningful, which means, not packageable (in words). It is impossible to communicate because, in a sense, it doesn't move, it's already everywhere, so you can't bring it to someone. But you can help them break out of a conventional mindset or ignorance.
So I've been talking about the difference between freedom and liberation. We can liberate ourselves and help others liberate themselves. But freedom simply is. That simple being (Abiding) is easy, effortless. But getting to Abiding takes effort. Some traditions have emphasized the goal (peace, Abiding...) and others have emphasized the path (and its effort).
Early on, it is most effective to emphasize activity. Learn to concentrate, learn to intentionally relax, and learn meditation. Those skills are the base for peaks, inspiration, and mental-emotional clarity. To sustain a sense of mental-emotional clarity, we need consistently repeated or revisited moments of inspiration. As we experience these, the sense of clarity itself (rather than the ecstatic energy of the "psychic" levels) stands out as important (to anyone who continues on further). Many people don't experience consistent enough inspiration, and they remain with the amusement-park quality of the ecstasy rather than moving onto a predominance of clarity and its subtler bliss. Drugs encourage that stuckness as well as fragmentation of self-identity rather than a liberted self-identity.
DIfferent types of peaks must be actively sought. Benson lists different types. Because many people have taken inspiration to be ultimate in some way (just because it is exciting and liberating), many experienced meditators are rightly (to an extent) against listing types of peaks or focusing on actively seaking peaks. Partially, this is the case because many flashy gurus have only emphasized the ecstasy. Benson's list includes the peaks of: self-awareness, creativity, productivity, athleticism, rejuvenation, and transcendence. In the same way that I have emphasized different degrees of competence at early levels and a qualitative difference between early levels, Benson focuses here on experiences of high competence at those levels. Peaks of Creativity fit my first level (creativity/play/exposure). Peaks of Productivity and Athleticism fit my second level of Purpose. Peaks of Rejuvenation fit Relaxation. Self-awareness fits with mindful appreciation and flow/clarity. And peaks of transcendence actually fit with Nonconceptuality.
If we see this whole mess clearly, we can see that it is worth chasing peaks--not for the ecstasy, but--as moments of high competence at each level. As we become more competent at each level, we work more smoothly, freeing energy up for the subtler focus on higher levels while also practicing increasing subtlety. Pursuing peaks without a comprehensive grasp of how they fit in and what they mean means that we will tend to over-interpret their importance and under-interpret their applicability. We will act as if they are more important than they are but also get less out of them. Essentially, most peaks are not important by themselves, but they can become important when they are fed into the overall process towards increasing liberation and a clearer, more consistent experience of Abiding.
There need be nothing esoteric about describing this process. But there is a significant shift from Clarity to Nonconceptuality. As we de-emphasize inspiration and stick more with subtle bliss and the feeling of liberation, we increase the sense that we are all already liberated. But without a comprehensive and accurate understanding, we may get confused and caught up in wondering why people don't always act and feel already liberated. All the explanatory systems (karma, God, etc.) are more relative/less ultimate than the actual ultimate truth. So the explanations create certain problems, but we need an Understanding so we can allow for suffering, old age, and death in our life and the lives of others.
By relying on any explanation that includes suffering as an important motivator towards Nonconceptuality, we take suffering with us into Nonconceptuality. If we do not conceptually interrogate the idea of suffering as important, though, it becomes nearly impossible to dislodge suffering in toto without being somewhat avoidant, without retreating into transcendence to some extent. Or, if we acknowledge suffering in a different way, we get stuck at the level of bodhisattvas (Nonconceptuality) because we feel it would be unethical to become (Abiding) buddhas while others still suffer. By not becoming buddha, we existentially insist on retaining (attaching to and thereby maintaining) suffering. When this is the case, our best ideal can only be either an avoidant sort of nirvana or an unenlightened (bodhisattva-not-buddha) sort of compassion. We cannot actualize enlightenment without allowing the full suffering in and of the universe as it is. Besides the doctrinal misunderstangings of not being too active or too passive with one's meditation, this final message is one that bodhisattvas--in their unending but not infinite compassion--resist. The compassion fo buddhas, based in ultimate truth and experience and freedom is beyond Understanding but it is also beyond meaning itself. It cannot be understood or known as something other than me-everything. It cannot be said to be more subjective or objective in the least. And we cannot have faith in this ultimate state-stage-Way-BEING because we already always are this/that. We must finally give up faith to be who we are.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Joriki Revisited II
I've been mentally revolving around this issue of the difference between freedom and liberation. To me, liberation is the noun form of a verb--to liberate, to free. Besides the sense of motion here--that freedom may be still or always existent while liberation happens--there seems to be a difference concerning ineffability and intangibility. You can access this conundrum by asking, "If my meditation-mind is always present, why do I not feel it always?"
From a perspective that sees that not-always-feeling-free as wrong, there are many reasons. It's like asking why you got skin cancer. There's over-exposure, genetic predispositions, free radicals, immune malfunction, etc., etc. But compare those reasons to the feeling of being warmed by the sun, ahhhh. The sun isn't so much good or bad, just as cancer is not so much good or bad. But I'm not so far gone into my sense of peace that I'd say it's fine to have cancer. Given a choice, I'll pass. Given cancer, I'll try to handle it well (and get rid of it if I can). I've never been satisfied with the instruction in some spiritual traditions to just passively accept anything and everything. I'd rather be dissatisfied in many situations--especially the ones I can change for the better.
But is not-always-feeling-free wrong? It certainly seems natural enough; it's quite common at least. I'm dissatisfied with the explanations about how we're motivated by powerful subconscious forces or that we're originally sinful or that we simply have not achieved a high enough consciousness. Bullshit to that. Those explanations usually have something to add, but they tend to over-complicate the picture. The people who offer those explanations, then, present themselves as the ones to uncomplicate it, and they feel they can do so because they are motivated by conscious forces, they are "saved", they have achieved a higher consciousness, etc. It's circular, emotional reasoning at its best. Unconvincing to me.
Freedom is simply there. Like space. Like love. Like the sun warms your skin. But liberation has as many feelings as there are individuals and moments. The feeling of liberation depends somewhat on the previous moment of awareness. Sunlight liberates me from chilliness. Love liberates me from isolation and anger, etc. Awareness of freedom does not liberate me from a lack of awareness. That's impossible. Awareness of freedom liberates me from awareness of something else, like awareness of injustice.
Freedom does not dominate anything. It does not trump not-always-feeling-free like some people speak of "higher consciousness" trumping "monkey mind" or "ego". Freedom is free because it isn't in that game. Lao Tzu talked about water in this way, saying that water is the most powerful because it is humblest. It goes to the lowest spot, and nothing comes to fight against it for that spot. Freedom is simple, like space. Space does not change whether it is full of one type of particles, another type of particles, or very few particles. The space in your living room is not conquered when you put a sofa in it. There is simply a sofa within that space. Freedom is similar. Awareness is similar.
Liberation is different.
Liberation needs an object, an experiencer, someone to feel liberated. Without someone to say what liberation is, there is no liberation. Liberation is a movement, a process, an experience. Freedom just seems to be, but we feel liberation. It's possible (from what i hear) to experience formless freedom, but we usually first feel liberation. So I can feel liberated from the job (or "should") of clenching onto a pencil in my fist. I can also feel liberated from the clenching itself. If I don't mind tensing my muscles, I can even keep gripping the pencil without feeling any psychological distress or strain from continuing to flex.
While freedom may either be ineffable or be something one must be enlightened to speak about well, we all have something to add to the conversation and experience of liberation. I find that to be at least as interesting as nirvana. So this nonattachment comes around again. I can nonattach from gripping a pencil, nonattach from feeling I should be holding it or that I should be letting it go, I can nonattach from "letting go" and from "holding on", and whatever else I am capable of noticing.
Joriki, concentration-power, is simply the act of noticing. It takes joriki to notice something I should be doing and it also takes joriki to notice letting go. The more we are aware of joriki and what we are doing with it, the more able we become at apprehending and releasing things in our consciousness, the more aware and able we become with liberation, and the more likely we seem to develop more consistent awareness of freedom. Sometimes I find this to be very interesting, and at other times, I don't pay any attention to it at all.
From a perspective that sees that not-always-feeling-free as wrong, there are many reasons. It's like asking why you got skin cancer. There's over-exposure, genetic predispositions, free radicals, immune malfunction, etc., etc. But compare those reasons to the feeling of being warmed by the sun, ahhhh. The sun isn't so much good or bad, just as cancer is not so much good or bad. But I'm not so far gone into my sense of peace that I'd say it's fine to have cancer. Given a choice, I'll pass. Given cancer, I'll try to handle it well (and get rid of it if I can). I've never been satisfied with the instruction in some spiritual traditions to just passively accept anything and everything. I'd rather be dissatisfied in many situations--especially the ones I can change for the better.
But is not-always-feeling-free wrong? It certainly seems natural enough; it's quite common at least. I'm dissatisfied with the explanations about how we're motivated by powerful subconscious forces or that we're originally sinful or that we simply have not achieved a high enough consciousness. Bullshit to that. Those explanations usually have something to add, but they tend to over-complicate the picture. The people who offer those explanations, then, present themselves as the ones to uncomplicate it, and they feel they can do so because they are motivated by conscious forces, they are "saved", they have achieved a higher consciousness, etc. It's circular, emotional reasoning at its best. Unconvincing to me.
Freedom is simply there. Like space. Like love. Like the sun warms your skin. But liberation has as many feelings as there are individuals and moments. The feeling of liberation depends somewhat on the previous moment of awareness. Sunlight liberates me from chilliness. Love liberates me from isolation and anger, etc. Awareness of freedom does not liberate me from a lack of awareness. That's impossible. Awareness of freedom liberates me from awareness of something else, like awareness of injustice.
Freedom does not dominate anything. It does not trump not-always-feeling-free like some people speak of "higher consciousness" trumping "monkey mind" or "ego". Freedom is free because it isn't in that game. Lao Tzu talked about water in this way, saying that water is the most powerful because it is humblest. It goes to the lowest spot, and nothing comes to fight against it for that spot. Freedom is simple, like space. Space does not change whether it is full of one type of particles, another type of particles, or very few particles. The space in your living room is not conquered when you put a sofa in it. There is simply a sofa within that space. Freedom is similar. Awareness is similar.
Liberation is different.
Liberation needs an object, an experiencer, someone to feel liberated. Without someone to say what liberation is, there is no liberation. Liberation is a movement, a process, an experience. Freedom just seems to be, but we feel liberation. It's possible (from what i hear) to experience formless freedom, but we usually first feel liberation. So I can feel liberated from the job (or "should") of clenching onto a pencil in my fist. I can also feel liberated from the clenching itself. If I don't mind tensing my muscles, I can even keep gripping the pencil without feeling any psychological distress or strain from continuing to flex.
While freedom may either be ineffable or be something one must be enlightened to speak about well, we all have something to add to the conversation and experience of liberation. I find that to be at least as interesting as nirvana. So this nonattachment comes around again. I can nonattach from gripping a pencil, nonattach from feeling I should be holding it or that I should be letting it go, I can nonattach from "letting go" and from "holding on", and whatever else I am capable of noticing.
Joriki, concentration-power, is simply the act of noticing. It takes joriki to notice something I should be doing and it also takes joriki to notice letting go. The more we are aware of joriki and what we are doing with it, the more able we become at apprehending and releasing things in our consciousness, the more aware and able we become with liberation, and the more likely we seem to develop more consistent awareness of freedom. Sometimes I find this to be very interesting, and at other times, I don't pay any attention to it at all.
Joriki Revisited I
I've been thinking about the limited application of meditation to daily life for most people--the limitations in how it is presented, the limitations in how it is applied, and the physical-emotional and time constraints as well. While there may never be a moment when every sort of "meditation" in inapplicable, there has probably been no single lifetime where meditation is always applied in each moment. So the question of how meditation can be both accessible and felt to be valuable has stuck with me since I'd had the feeling of figuring out what meditation is--to a personally satisfactory extent rather than to a conclusive extent.
As a trained therapist, motivation stands out as central to the practice of meditation. Certainly, the groups we are in make a huge difference in our focus and motivation, but if we set culture and communication aside for a moment, attention and emotion in the individual seem to go hand in hand. Since emotions constantly shift, maintaining one's emotional investment in an activity entails maintaining one's sense of benefit/value or returning repeatedly to one's sense of benefit/value in said activity.
In many meditative traditions, though, we are told that we do not actively "do" meditation and that in fact trying to do can disrupt meditation. This places a nearly universal emotional fact of life (emotional shifting and the need for motivation) against meditation (as non-doing). And while this non-doing may make enough sense from an experienced meditator's standpoint (to say nothing whatsoever of enlightened meditator's), those without a certain amount of experience and familiarity still look for some motivation to continue. (At times, most experienced meditator's also end up looking for a specific feeling of motivation.)
While the benefits of any particular type of "meditation" or technique can be laid out, there seems to be something central and convincing (if not always motivating) that experienced meditators refer to within themselves even when they cannot speak of it in a motivating manner. I want to distinguish slightly, then, between the benefits and techniques that can be categorized and that aspect of ineffability. Besides all the reasons or explanations, something is convincingly right in a very fundamental sense. It is rare that any of us deeply question whether love feels good, and meditation can have a similarly unassailable feeling-quality. Before that quality is firmly established in one's history and consciousness, we look for motivation.
At first, I tried to categorize types of meditation by technique or by benefits. I then tried to figure a "best way" for Americans around my age to engage meditation--by mindfulness, relaxation/stress reduction, stories around absorption, bhakti, focus on breathing or mantra, etc. Same old story. More recently, I have been circling one of the most basic experiences involved in many forms of meditation--nonattachment. While nonattachment may be hard to describe well, it is certainly not ineffable or intangible. One teacher, when asked what it is like to let go, handed the questioner a pencil and asked the other person to grip that pencil tightly. The teacher then asked the person what it takes to let go of the pencil. We simply unclench. This is also a very fundamental experience, and the connection between the physical and psychological aspects are obvious. You unclench your fist and your mind unclenches. This is the basic feeling of nonattachment. People like speaking of "letting go", and when proponents of "letting go" go too far with it, they often demonize the thinking mode of mental operations. I would ask them how many minds they have, whether their "thinking" mind is a different "mind". That seems as ridiculous to me as to say that when I am sleeping I am a different person than when I am awake--my sleeping mind and waking mind are different in certain ways without being different minds.
Your meditative mind is not somewhere else when you are feeling not-so-meditative. It is one mind. It is mind. You don't have to change your mind like you change your shoes for different activities. Your meditation is never somewhere else. Never. And while letting go feels relaxing, holding tightly to letting go is not.
As a trained therapist, motivation stands out as central to the practice of meditation. Certainly, the groups we are in make a huge difference in our focus and motivation, but if we set culture and communication aside for a moment, attention and emotion in the individual seem to go hand in hand. Since emotions constantly shift, maintaining one's emotional investment in an activity entails maintaining one's sense of benefit/value or returning repeatedly to one's sense of benefit/value in said activity.
In many meditative traditions, though, we are told that we do not actively "do" meditation and that in fact trying to do can disrupt meditation. This places a nearly universal emotional fact of life (emotional shifting and the need for motivation) against meditation (as non-doing). And while this non-doing may make enough sense from an experienced meditator's standpoint (to say nothing whatsoever of enlightened meditator's), those without a certain amount of experience and familiarity still look for some motivation to continue. (At times, most experienced meditator's also end up looking for a specific feeling of motivation.)
While the benefits of any particular type of "meditation" or technique can be laid out, there seems to be something central and convincing (if not always motivating) that experienced meditators refer to within themselves even when they cannot speak of it in a motivating manner. I want to distinguish slightly, then, between the benefits and techniques that can be categorized and that aspect of ineffability. Besides all the reasons or explanations, something is convincingly right in a very fundamental sense. It is rare that any of us deeply question whether love feels good, and meditation can have a similarly unassailable feeling-quality. Before that quality is firmly established in one's history and consciousness, we look for motivation.
At first, I tried to categorize types of meditation by technique or by benefits. I then tried to figure a "best way" for Americans around my age to engage meditation--by mindfulness, relaxation/stress reduction, stories around absorption, bhakti, focus on breathing or mantra, etc. Same old story. More recently, I have been circling one of the most basic experiences involved in many forms of meditation--nonattachment. While nonattachment may be hard to describe well, it is certainly not ineffable or intangible. One teacher, when asked what it is like to let go, handed the questioner a pencil and asked the other person to grip that pencil tightly. The teacher then asked the person what it takes to let go of the pencil. We simply unclench. This is also a very fundamental experience, and the connection between the physical and psychological aspects are obvious. You unclench your fist and your mind unclenches. This is the basic feeling of nonattachment. People like speaking of "letting go", and when proponents of "letting go" go too far with it, they often demonize the thinking mode of mental operations. I would ask them how many minds they have, whether their "thinking" mind is a different "mind". That seems as ridiculous to me as to say that when I am sleeping I am a different person than when I am awake--my sleeping mind and waking mind are different in certain ways without being different minds.
Your meditative mind is not somewhere else when you are feeling not-so-meditative. It is one mind. It is mind. You don't have to change your mind like you change your shoes for different activities. Your meditation is never somewhere else. Never. And while letting go feels relaxing, holding tightly to letting go is not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)