Nek: I remember when I first stumbled upon Roissy (now CH, although I suspect it’s a different writer), and he touted “looks not mattering very much” quite often. While I agree having game and average looks is better than good looks in no game, I did something that made me understand his dynamic much more. I went to images.google.com and looked up roissy in DC. And that’s when it hit me as to why he’d tout the “game” aspect of attraction so much. He’s already a tall, good looking dude. For a guy like him, you, or flyfreshandyoung, game would simply be the final piece to the master puzzle. So from that perspective, it might seem like “game” is the end all but simply for you and guys like you it’s just the final piece, a piece which has a significant multiplier effect.
Nek, yes, even the best thinkers and writers with a great wealth of experience can become confused as to what value to put on the various variables of attraction. I’ve long disagreed with what seems to be Roissy’s view that in the end all attractive traits boil down to or can be replaced by confidence. I think it’s a pretty huge mental map error.
I view the various attractive traits as belonging to different categories, and it’s your overall total score that matters. You can’t be ugly and broke and short and skinny with no social support and super confident and have as high a total score as a guy with a full set of attraction triggers. And a higher total score means a larger pool of available women, as well as an easier time building strong attraction.
And like you say, scoring high with looks gives you a big boost to your total.
It’s not ALL about confidence and attitude and what you say and do. And sometimes that’s not even the easiest variable to affect. A man needs to play the long term game and slowly over years raise his value, through every means possible. Highlighting only game can really do a harmful disservice to the young guy, who can focus too much time and energy on learning to push attraction buttons that won’t serve his needs as well once he’s older, and neglecting fundamentals such as career or his body or even his social networks. And the game changes all the time – a guy might move to a location where provider traits carry more weight. Or meet a girl who is looking for affectionate bonding with an emotionally available man.
If you scan a crowd looking for the color red, all the people with red shirts will pop right out at you, and you’ll barely notice the yellow shirts. I hear guys say that western girls can only be seduced with frat boy game. Maybe that has something to do with their club game low investment pump and dump targets? It isn’t that the aloof game is the univeral core principle of the alpha, it’s that some guys most easily find success with that on some girls in some venues. It’s a style of attraction, not a core principle.
But everything that’s ever said is said from a perspective, and even the most insightful and interesting writers can have this blind spot: guys who already have high value can run an aloof game that either flat out doesn’t work for guys who lack their advantages, or completely misses addressing the emotional needs of a regular non-dark-triad man.
I’m an ugly short guy, with a big bald spot and not much on the top. In any bar or club 98% of the time I’m the ugliest guy there. Being aloof does nothing for guys who are not already projecting high value. We are just an aloof wallflower that nobody cares about then.
There are different brands of game that people use, and the other two Rs heavily emphasize a brand of game that works best for higher value guys (tall, with at least average to above average looks) who are looking for one night stands or no strings attached relationships. Roosh for instance is careful to select girls who are putting out signals of sexual availability. He may even at times be screening for women with attachment avoidance issues.
But there are other types of game that rely more on emotions. A love at first sight type of game, that includes the black and the white keys on the keyboard. Dominance as well as bonding.
We’re going to learn more over time as more men from a variety of backgrounds join in the discussion. The aloof alpha game is a style, not a fundamental principle.
Aloof is a word, and although we’d like to twist it into whatever convenient form fits our ideology, it still holds the simple community agreed upon dictionary definition.
a·loof/əˈlo͞of/
Adjective:
1) Not friendly or forthcoming; cool and distant.
2) Conspicuously uninvolved and uninterested, typically through distaste.
And although he sometimes talks about amused mastery, Roissy/Heartiste still uses this common dictionary definition when he talks about being aloof. From his latest post “HER: My vagina burns for violent sexual adventures with an emotionally opaque, aloof badboy who makes me a little scared for my life.”
We’ve read too many times that fast seduction relies on being everything the provider is not. That’s not truth. There is a style of fast seduction that includes confidence and dominance AND emotional openness.
I should mention that I’ve found a way to compensate for being ugly, that works on some women. I obviously have a smaller pool of women for whom I meet their minimum level of attractiveness, but none the less once I get my foot in the door I can close the deal and then get them deeply emotionally hooked and physically bonded.
The ways that I overcome the handicaps of ugliness have more to do with strong passion, and sex. Subjects you would be unlikely to see discussed on the two R’s blogs. Roissy suggests to not even care if the girl comes, and to use the same rough manhandling use-her-for-your-personal-enjoyment attitude for every sex session. No “Daddy loves you”s from him. His seduction style is absolutely not about having the girl feel engaged in a whirlwind of mutual romance, and if it’s his relationship style is it’s not discussed.
There are huge, monstrous blind spots in game as discussed on some manosphere blogs.
So don’t just rely on that style, unless it is congruent with your needs and inner workings.
Pingback: Daily Linkage – September 16, 2012 | The Second Estate
With regards to hooking them using sex. How do you do it with a virgin? Is it more or less effective with them? And how do you go about it at all?
i have a lot of thoughts on this. you bring up some excellent points. every man needs to adapt “game” or “pickup” or “alpha behavior” to suit his specific strengths.
however, i think the general point of being aloof is really to be non-needy. the person who cares the least is the person with more power. and, you can want a girl but not need her. the person who is least reactive is the one who is higher value.
all these things.
Ya, exactly.
There is something useful we are trying to convey with the word.
It’s just that the dictionary definition of it, as well as many associations it carries, are not the useful thing we are trying to convey. So the word itself can obscure the meaning we are trying to share.
“Aloof” may not be congruent, but its still the BEST way.
Not every baseball player can hit a ball 450 feet. Most contribute to winning by stealing bases, or advancing runners with a bunt, yet none of them forget that the long ball has the most impact on winning games.
Plain and simple. Women as a group respond most favorably to aloof game. Can a man fast seduce women with confidence and dominance AND emotional openness. Of course. You can also choke up on the bat and still knock it over the fence…but physics is physics.
Aloof game is the best. If you can’t pull it off, no big deal. There are other ways to be successful with women, but odds are odds.
Did you see the fast seduction video that has been making the rounds lately? Take a look at the video in this post https://xsplat.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/master-puas-and-their-attitude-to-showing-strong-passionate-stiff-wood-interest-right-from-the-start/ and read that guys post about a strong sexual state and then get back to us and tell us if you still feel the same way.
Yup. Seen it.
That wasn’t seduction. He got a a quick kiss and a phone number. She didn’t leave with him cause he didn’t wind her up enough. A girl who has been properly seduced will accompany you to a different location/bail on her friends. If you can’t re route the bitch…
Also, aloof does not mean asexual though that’s often how it plays out in the hands Betas and the shy.
Actually she was texting me for weeks afterwards. I beg to differ my friend. I did it like this for demo purposes.
Have you also considered that I didn’t WANT to leave with her?
You only need to be aloof when you have not displayed enough value. So active distinterest is not acting interested/negging+DHV. It’s needed before IOIs. After that you are qualifying and building comfort.
Going direct too early can burst the “Love Bubble” as Krauser describes it. That is when you end up with “buyers remorse” even after a ONS if enough comfort is not built before sex.
Pingback: The Essence of Game | Reflections of the Age
OK here I am xsplat, bit late for this particular thread but there you go. Isn’t this all just a very simple disagreement over what works for each sort of person and in each sort of situation? E.g. what CH does works for him and creates the kind of relationship dynamic he wants, and attracts the sort of woman he wants, etc. etc. whereas you have quite a different overall plan. What’s wrong with trying everything (or trying to try everything at least, if you know what I mean) until you begin to find what works?
That’s about right. The problem is that CH teaches that being aloof is the only way to go. And it became common “wisdom” that it was so.
There are several other high profile PUAs who advocate the opposite style – Krauser and Steve Jabba are two that come to mind. And many other people on forums and blogs explain that their style is emotionally open, passionate, and direct.
The problem with advocating only a dark triad style is that it becomes the common wisdom that only that can work, and for some people that is not congruent or the best option for them, yet they don’t come across any alternative plan. And then they grow to resent not only the system, but women and the man they’ve had to become to fuck them. Their attitude becomes poisoned, and they lose the ability to bond or to feel much of anything.
CH advocates pathology as the only means to fuck pretty girls. That’s a problem. Yes, dark triad traits can help a guy get laid. But narcissists for instance are known to attract women easily but the women lose interest when they eventually discover that the projected front doesn’t match up with a core. Narcissists suck at LTRs. Sociopathy is a pathy that poisons, stunts, and even kills enjoyment of romance. Machiavellianism is not a pathy, and I’m down with it.
Also he advocates self hypnosis in order to boost confidence – the narcissists trick of hyper-inflating self worth. This is useful, but the mind habit leaches into other areas, until one loses touch with the habit of regularly performing reality checks, and instead looks at facts from the point of view of emotional need. Can I believe this fact to be true without harming my self conception? If no, then it’s not true.
And as you’ve seen with what happened to you, CH is so invested in his view that he deletes comments that disagree with him. I’ve heard of four or five guys this has happened to – all thoughtful straight up guys, at least one with a high profile manosphere blog (mine is low profile). He even went so far to edit my comments that were in direct response to a conversation with him. And of course any mention of his editing or deleting comments gets deleted. We’ll never know how many guys that’s happened to – and no I’m not talking about comments getting stuck in moderation – I’m talking about comments being deleted after they made it through, and on comments that were in moderation at the same time being selectively deleted – some making it through and some not, depending on content. He also puts usernames and IP addresses into auto-moderation, and leaves the comments stuck in there for weeks at a time, while letting other moderated comments through, to discourage users who disagree with him from airing their view on active comment threads.
Well, it’s disappointing that CH refuses to run the discussion part of his blog with any integrity, but that’s life.
Anyone who had to LEARN such ways (CH style dark triad game) through conscious effort was obviously not an actual sociopath in the beginning. I don’t think there’s much danger of normal people actually developing real, diagnosable, incurable sociopathy from learning any kind of Game; genuine, incurable deviants are born, not made, with exception made for truly abnormal circumstances during the formative years.
I believe there is more and more scientific evidence for this. For one (famous) example, it was believed for a decade or two that schizophrenia was caused by bad parenting, but that’s been discredited. Just keep your eyes out for more of the same; any day now we will see genetic explanations emerging to account for personality disorders like narcissism, borderlinism (just had to coin that), sociopathy, etc. if they haven’t started to emerge already.
So I wouldn’t worry too much about normal men learning some kinds of Game which don’t bring them happiness — because isn’t it part of simply being a NORMAL human being to learn things which later turn out to be maladaptive? Was there ever a human being in existence who looked back on his life and decided that everything he’d been taught had been correct? Or that all his choices about life-paths had been the right ones? Running into ruts now and then and doubting everything about oneself and the world is the fate of most normal human beings. Those who do not have this characteristic are special — and occasionally, of course, dangerous. I refuse to believe that all the PUA training in the world can create such a person out of a normal person; perhaps for a few years, but not permanently.
For every CH emulator who ultimately decides that he’s on the wrong path, there will be an xsplat emulator who makes the same decision. I believe that none of it really matters in the end, because I don’t believe in what’s been called “the perfectibility of man.” And I am very suspicious of the notion that the average level of human happiness differs from society to society or from time to time in history, again with exceptions allowed for grotesque extremes like North Korea, or the USSR, or China during certain of its bad phases, or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, etc.
What that means, among other things, is that I’m not convinced that the average amount of human happiness was higher in the United States in the 1950s than it is now. Or in the pre-Civil War period, or in the Colonial period — or, for that matter, in 85% of the rest of the planet right now OR in the past. And I do not trust ‘happiness’ surveys or studies of any kind. How do you measure happiness? Certainly not by asking people how happy they are, for one thing (who admits their unhappiness?) Guessing from the amount of unemployment and hardship? Nonsense. Plenty of people (personally I suspect MOST people) with jobs and no material worries are not merely unhappy, but desperately so. Remember Thoreau: “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation.”
The capacity of most human beings to bear extreme and prolonged misery is practically limitless, as you will realize once you’ve read enough lengthy accounts of extreme misery — for a little such light reading, try the stories told by escapees of North Korean prison camps. The ‘ordinary’ misery of life outside of concentration-camps is a cakewalk for humans and our primate ancestors, which lived for millions of years in conditions which were almost as bad as the Nazi death camps. I believe that an evolutionary training in deprivation, desperation, and misery (going back at least as far as the origin of the part of the brain that allows us to FEEL misery — the neocortex, which appeared around 200 million years ago) has created an ironclad habit of mind for ordinary, normal, healthy human beings; it may be possible for them to be happy from time to time, but it is utterly impossible for them to remain so.
For all but the last few seconds, so to speak, of our evolutionary history on this planet, happiness has formed but the most minute fraction of our experience of life. Our entire genome and brains were created under conditions of, and therefore totally designed for, default misery with rare and extremely brief moments of happiness. It has been said by more than one that humans time and time again prove they are uncomfortable with happiness by deliberately destroying it (perhaps unconsciously). There are also plenty of proverbial expressions of this wisdom — one of my favorites, supposedly from Ireland, is, “Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.”
Funny how I ramble, isn’t it.
I agree that sociopaths are born, not created.
I’m not sure if you are saying that our decisions and actions don’t much affect our happiness, or if you are saying that it doesn’t much matter if the advice we receive goes against our nature and produces a less optimal outcome than other advice.
CH for instance tends to downplay income and overplay social skills to the point that might lead young men to neglect career. This is very different advice than given in Krauser’s most recent post, where he talks about phases of life and working to accumulate. I’m not saying that there is a one size fits all answer to how to live a life. But CH is. He is saying that being aloof is the one size fits all answer to seduction, and that confidence is the only requirement for attraction. He promotes narcissism, or “irrational self confidence”, as he puts it, as a life solution. He promotes a willful disconnect with reality, and an avoidance or dismissal of the relative value of other factors that affect attraction, such as financial success, or any of the other ways to better oneself in all the other non-confidence related ways.
Just because there is no ultimate answer how to lead a good life does not mean that some advice is not pernicious. If a person is not a natural dark triad personality, emulating those traits will mean suppressing ones natural human nature, and ill comes from that. Dissatisfaction. A feeling of disconnect. A feeling of never being fulfilled.
I hear it again and again on blogs and forums. People are very clear about their dissatisfaction with no longer being able to respect women or who they have to be to get women. It is an internal lack of ease – a dis-ease. A rampant disease has gripped many impressionable men in the manosphere. And CH has been feeding the source of it – narcissism and sociopathic distancing from empathy and connection.
And like you say, a normal person can’t fully become a sociopath. But we can suppress our natural natures, and that’s where the disease comes in. We can also internalize narcissistic habits of thought, as those are merely the habits of mind we had as young children – they are already a part of us. It’s a matter of regressing. We have entire communities who back up each others narcissistic over inflated baseless esteem.
Many bloggers have been writing about narcissism lately – it’s something I’m just learning about, but is quite interesting. http://therawness.com has been writing a long series of posts on it, and I’ve been reading some posts on arachnoid, including http://arachnoid.com/opinion/social_narcissism.html and http://arachnoid.com/opinion/narcissist_appreciation_society.html . Narcissism is not like sociopathy – it can be somewhat contagious and learned. And while empathy can not be erased in normals, the attitudes of the sociopath can be emulated and empathy and romantic appreciations can be suppressed.
After “swallowing the red pill”, we can either adapt, or maladapt. It’s not all an aperspectival flatland of valueless relativity. It’s BETTER to adapt in a way that incorporates all of our humanity than to maladapt in ways that cause us to feel disconnect and alienation.
I agree that our decisions and actions affect our happiness.
Of course it’s regrettable if we receive bad advice which results in unhappiness; what I think I meant to say is that there is no point worrying about the plague of bad advice, because it is as inevitable in life as bad weather. Advice, both good and bad, always changing over time, is as much a part of human life as fingernails. The Bible, the Koran, the Hindu and Buddhist texts, and all the rest, are largely composed of advice; so are all the manosphere and fembosphere blogs. What exactly of all this advice is GOOD advice? There is nobody to tell us; we have to decide for ourselves.
Don’t want dangerous advice to fall into the wrong young impressionable minds? Start by shutting down the Internet. CH is a seduction and HBD blog, not a Sunday school. Caveat lector and all that. (But even he provides front-page permanent links to non- ‘dark triad’ espousers like KrauserPUA and The Spearhead, married-with-kids game bloggers like Vox Day and Rollo Tomassi, and plain old-fashioned good-mannered men — also married with kids — like Mencius Moldbug and Steve Sailer.)
But I still think it doesn’t really matter what CH is saying in the grand scheme of things, for the reasons I gave above about the totally inevitable presence of both good and bad advice in human life. Do you really think that anyone with an Internet connection has CH as the one and only source of all ideas and advice? By the time any man has read and discussed enough stuff to actually put any ‘dark triad’ game into successful practice, he’s also come across plenty of opposing or alternative advice. If he goes with the dark triad stuff, it’s because he considered and rejected everything else — or in rare cases I suppose, because it worked well right off the bat and he saw no need to try any alternatives. Of course you may say that your man did not give enough consideration, or enough informed consideration, to good advice; but that’s an ordinary and inevitable human failing, isn’t it? This is what blogs like yours are for: to advocate for alternatives.
This whole question revolves around one issue: Is it absolutely necessary for men (at least nowadays) to behave in ways that make them despise women, and themselves, in order to get even the minimal amount of sex to avoid serious unhappiness? If constant real experience and observation from real life shows overwhelmingly that it is absolutely necessary, it’s hardly CH’s fault; the situation was firmly in place before he was even born. Meanwhile, all those men you hear expressing their unease are perfectly free to change their ways away from “narcissism and sociopathic distancing” towards “empathy and connection” and see how well things go; and if they LEARNED the CH way in the first place, doesn’t that prove they’re capable of learning some other new ways? Especially since they have the motivation of current dissatisfaction?
CH is not trying to increase men’s “narcissism and sociopathic distancing from empathy and connection” for any old reason, or in any and all circumstances; he’s saying, and providing constant scientific justification as it appears in the research journals, that it’s the most effective way, outside of mega-wealth, fabulous looks, or extreme high status, to attract women nowadays. One can hardly blame men for wanting to give it a try — and if they find it actually works, but makes them feel deeply uneasy, they still have choices. They can start behaving in ways that restore their self-respect…but what if they then stop having success with women? What are they to do? Well, there is no end of other advice available to them and they’re free to try it all.
So I’ll finish this long ramble with a question: Have you heard from (or about) a significant number of men who tried the CH dark-triad way; had a lot of sexual success; found themselves conflicted and unhappy, so abandoned the dark-triad ways — only to wind up unwanted by desirable women? Or on the other hand, changed their ways so as to maintain their success with women and restore their lost self-esteem, not to mention their good opinion of women?
(Almost finished). I believe that an “internal lack of ease” as you put it, is the normal condition of adult human beings; only a very few are lucky enough to escape it, but studies have shown that it tends to decline in old people who are lucky enough to enjoy good health. (This was equally true back in the days when divorce was extremely rare. Most marriages were kept together not by happiness, but by social and other constraints. Remember, “we’re still together, but only for the sake of the children”?) Another ‘normal condition’ is women’s true inner nature; it has never changed, and is only depressing to contemplate for those who discover it after having been raised on a steady diet of the Blue Pill.
OlioOx, if you don’t mind me butting in a bit –
You make some excellent points. Humans are engaged in a constant process of taking in information (some of it specifically ‘marketed’ as advice, some not), gauging its truth value, and choosing to either apply it in some measure or not. Both the process as a whole and the actual application part can be done consciously or subconsciously. Sometimes it works out, other times it doesn’t. The more conscious we are about the whole thing the sooner we can recognise when it hasn’t worked out and eliminate the modification or do something different.
So in a sense it doesn’t matter if someone’s advice is partially ‘wrong’ or has the potential to produce unsatisfactory changes, because once that is detected in the implementation it will be addressed. But the ability of the average person to do this quickly and efficiently is pretty low. Most people aren’t that conscious of their own states of mind. You said yourself that it could take a few years for some people to realise that the (at this point no longer) new approach isn’t working out and try something different.
So it comes down to : how ‘bad’ is it for someone to spend a few years being extra miserable and spreading that misery around? You seem to think it’s no big deal. I think the added suffering to self and others, plus the potential closing of doors in life that might otherwise have been open in that time, are sufficient grounds to avoid recommending a particular site/blog/theory/book.
But that’s as a general approach. If I’m talking to someone I know is highly conscious of their own states of mind and does not form attachments to theories then I will certainly recommend anything that I think has truth value, no matter how many potentially problematic concepts or bullshit might be mixed in. People like that are few and far between though, and moreover are hard to identify online, hence the general approach in 99% or cases.
Obviously, one can’t control the existence of the information, and it would be insane to want to. What’s out there is out there. But inasmuch as you are able to direct others’ inquiry (very little of course, but not null), is it not better to skew the factors just that little bit to possibly spare someone extra pain?
Of course, typing that I could see the immense intellectual arrogance of it. And yet…
Phedre, no argument from me on that; if you see someone walking toward what you think is a dangerous situation, you give a warning. It’s just that as far as things like seduction advice and the whole associated set of issues are concerned, MY only advice/warning to anyone would be “read a wide range of opinions.”
I have no problems with anyone trying to control or influence the opinions of anyone else, because that is utterly characteristic human behavior. Almost everything said in conversation or in print is meant to get other people to do or to think certain things. Of course, unlike all other life forms, we can choose NOT to do that, and this adds another layer of complexity onto life.
You sound like a man who might enjoy reading Mark Twain’s “What Is Man?” It’s all over the web, just google it. It’s an extremely entertaining argument against free will.
Thanks for the rec OlioOx, although I happen to be a woman 😉
Olio, I wonder what your take would be on Ken Wilbers novel Boomeritis. From some of your comments it appears you’ve recently internalized relativism, which is pretty cool as far as it goes. Ken uses his novel to point out the shortcomings of an extreme relativisistic “flatlant” where all values become equal. It’s an entertaining read, and I think you’ll find a few useful conceptual handles and frameworks in it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomeritis
Xsplat, where would you put yourself along the relativist/positivist continuum? I’ve sort of jerked myself one way or the other at various stages, but I’ve recently been wanting to examine and consciously stabilize on some middle ground. I’ve yet to read something that addresses the topic in a balanced way though, I guess because I don’t really know where to look. Do you have any recommendations?
@xsplat — I’ll see if I can come down with a case of this here Boomeritis and let you know. I’m deliberately exposing myself to places around the Web where I might be likely to catch it.
@Phedre — Get thee behind me! My order strictly forbids me to have words with women!
Just kidding. I don’t know quite enough about philosophy yet to accurately classify myself, but I seem to be a determinist, because apparently Twain’s “What Is Man?” puts forth a completely deterministic view of how the human mind works, and I can’t find the slightest thing wrong with his argument. Otherwise I seem to be some kind of relativist, but I’m not sure: for example, light travels faster than sound. That is an ABSOLUTELY true fact, and I accept it as such. But what is the best way to live a life? Is there an ABSOLUTELY true answer to that question? I’m not convinced.
Don’t forget to read “What is Man?”
http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/mtwain/bl-mtwain-whatisman.htm
As far as sorting out the relativist-positivist thing, I don’t know what to read… I guess one just has to read the whole canon of western philosophy 😛 (But after you’ve read What Is Man, check out David Stove)
I just noticed that “classiclit.about.com” could easily be mistaken for my proposed new website, “classyclit.about.com” — I hope it won’t create too much confusion — carry on, everyone
Haha. Well, I started reading it on Gutenberg before you posted the link, so all is well 😛
I’ve finished now, and my main thought is: everything he says is precisely true – of the ego. That is his ‘Master’. What he calls ‘spiritual comfort’ is ego comfort.
Yes, most people live as fully under the command of their ego as he describes. But it is well known that this can be overcome – the whole point of most Eastern spiritual paths, and even of Christianity at a certain level.
He says that it is utterly impossible to control the mind and what it churns out, but any moderately serious meditation practice will soon prove that false.
He says that selfless acts are actually selfish because everything is done for peace of mind. But if your mind is already peaceful (ie/ you have dissociated from your ego) then you act in spontaneous reaction to a situation, undetermined by personal profit – because there is no personal profit any longer.
I don’t disagree with the idea that there are no original thoughts, and that our actions and our thoughts are products of a vast, complex accumulation of impressions, teachings, etc. I also agree that there is no ‘true’ merit to the good things one does. But it is not necessary to then reduce all action to ego-satisfaction (his ‘contenting the spirit’). Certainly, the ego will play a role corresponding to the degree to which you are attached to it, but the more you can move away from that the more, I think, you can act in genuine, not self-serving, compassion.
I would say that kind of genuine, egoless action would even transcend the lack of new thoughts/ideas, because although you would not be doing anything novel, your actions would spring out of the situation itself, not out of the jumble of concepts and patterns that is your mind. Actually, those are two separate stages I guess – no-ego and no-mind.
Does that negate what otherwise would indeed seem like determinism? If everything you said and did was a fresh, genuine reaction effectively brought out of you by the other person, rather than dictated by your ego, would that not transcend determinism?
I’m going to take a risk and jump in with what might be a muddle headed gut feeling, or might be a dimly remembered consequence of a long forgotten intricate thinking process.
The notion of free will and determinism is both unknowable and irrelevant. While the past affects the future, new songs are created every day. And my dreams and visions are an awesome display of spontaneous creativity. At what point on the scale between random quantum fluctuations and classical physics do processes stop affecting the creative process? We have no way of knowing – nor are we anwhere near close to any theory of consciousness or awareness nor do we have any notion of how those might, or might not affect thought processes.
And even if we had answers – it simply doesn’t matter. It makes no practical difference if we have free will or not. It seems as if we do, and behaving as if we do yields better results than behaving as if we don’t. Better in all the normal we ways we measure better, such as coherent planning with long term benefit for ourselves and others in mind.
It’s fun to get into the nittyest grittiest details of philophy, but after you take a few steps back, much of what you discover is that most of it is rather pointless, and a common sense approach is close enough to the mark after all.
And I’ll go out on a limb and say the same thing applies to the question of if acting out of concern for others without concern for self is possible. Well, our species is built to value reciprocal benefit, and sometimes that takes the shape of giving even ones own life for a stranger. http://arachnoid.com/symmetry/details.html . The programing in our brains was evolved – the genes that gave us those instincts to help others were “chosen” by “selfish” genes – or random chance in other words. So we can view those instincts as random, or the outcome of a program which acts as if it had a purpose to reproduce, or we can view individual acts as altruistic. All those viewpoints are relatively accurate, within their frameworks.
But again – so what?
From the point of view of mind development, it’s true that in some meditative states we can be directly aware of awareness that does not identify with an ego. There is no theoretical reason why the brain could not also perform organized intelligent activity without referencing back to a sense of self – in fact we know that this happens all time – and not just in the lower animals, and not just in the mentally impaired – it’s natural to us.
But so what? Ego is a perfectly workable setup. There is nothing wrong with it. In fact every step towards what can be described as enlightenment can also be described as a STRENGTHENING of ego. We become so strong in our sense of self that we can handle groundlessless, and don’t attach to this or that idea or this or that center to the self, and can let awareness merge into the vast centerless multi-parallel super fast creative and intelligent processing that is usually only accessible to us as insights bubbling up from our subconscious and our dreams. The idea of Atman is an idea indistinct from an ultimately strong ego. Ego is the good guy. We don’t want to destroy him. We want to strengthen him until he sublimely discovers he wasn’t quite what he thought last time. And so on.
Whether we act in the service of ego or not is a null issue – it doesn’t matter. Ego is cool. Ultimately he doesn’t exist, but that’s a trivial insight, and a rather pointless one. I mean, unless you want to chase a peak meditative experience and try to solidify it into a permanent state of being, and join the ranks of the one-in-many-million by also putting in decades of continuous effort in mind training that might lead to nowhere, then the fact that ego is illusory is trite. So what? Pain is illusory too. It’s real enough. Love is also illusory. So what? It’s real enough.
And I don’t just mean that it is philosophically unimportant, I mean that our ordinary day to day ego is a perfectly good functioning tool with which to approach the world. Our brains naturally have and use it, and it’s pretty good. It works well. And the stronger we make it, the better it works. Examples of that are developing a strong enough ego to be unaffected by peer pressure, or to internalize an integrity of vision, or to face cognitive dissonance without collapsing.
So the questions of free will and selfless action are meaningless and not worth answering – or at least that’s how it looks after you work hard for years and years going through rigorous and random steps getting your mind in a place where you can answer them for yourself.
I think maybe the sense in which you’re using ‘ego’ is subtly different than the sense I meant. Or maybe I’m just not seeing it clearly. I was talking about that base level where everything is about you, everything is processed through the filter of ‘I’, everything is valued based on its fulfillment of what is perceived as ‘I, the Self’. It’s kind of a neurotic state. When you strengthen that you will get indifference to peer pressure and strong mental control, but everything is still made to revolve around the ‘I’. I feel that I’m not explaining it precisely, but I’m not sure how else to put it.
Conversely, by egolessness I didn’t mean total no-self, which, despite what buddhist texts insist on, I still cannot see as anything but nihilism. I meant a state where your sense of self is just the sensation of your existence. You don’t have this complex of mental constructs that you identify as ‘I’, you just are.
Maybe you mean this same thing by a strong ego? It seems qualitatively different from just strong ego to me though.
As for the utility of thinking about free will, I fully agree. Most philosophical questions are fun to engage with once in a while but ultimately useless or worse, if they distract you from being fully present in your life.
Yes, I understand the distinction between being ego centered and having less of a feeling everything being rammed through a central processor.
I’m suggesting that the process to loosen ego fixation is actually to strengthen ego, and that the experience of a less of a centralized awareness is also the description of a stronger ego. It’s counter intuitive and even goes against much of what we are taught, but I think if we look closely we’ll see that the progressions are actually progressions of a self – higher and higher stages of cognitive organization. It’s just that the more organized you are the less centralized the experience.
It’s tricky to use the word ego, and then imagine developing it until we don’t experience awareness as ego-centric. It makes just as much sense to talk about ego being an “illusion”. But our ego is a cognitive organization, and strengthening it means being able to include more and more information at once in a more and more organized fashion. Always in moments of heightened awareness there is less of a sense of self, and to have a more stable and inclusive organization can be described quite accurately as a more healthy and organized ego. It’s just that it’s a progression that changes our internal experience to be less about a sense of ego – but none the less, that’s our starting point.
As we make the journey we discover that we can handle dismantling our false selves, and peel back the onion. That requires a strong ego – otherwise we’d go nuts. It requires greater mental organization to peel back layers fixed concepts, to face unknowing and remain confused without grasping immediately after certainty – to rest the mind in openness – that takes a higher cognitive ability – a more developed sense of self – a more subtle and refined self that can withstand a wider onslaught against it’s sense of identity without cracking up and becoming disjointed.
Mental health requires a healthy ego – no matter if we are talking about borderlines or ashram admins.
And besides, not all aspect of egocentric perspective are pathological. It’s a perfectly good system, on the whole. For instance we trade esteem points, and that motivates each other. A lot of people think that it’s sick to seek “validation”, but it’s sick to think that it’s sick. Validation is a good system – it feels good, it motivates, and we can give it to others to motivate them and reward them. Ego is wired right into our brains, and it serves so many useful functions. Good functions. Ego is fine.
Long time meditators are known to say something very similar. At first having those relatively egoless experiences is deadly important. But then after a while you start to not see much difference in a way between ego and not ego – it’s the same thing, in a way. And then you get the attitude that non-ego isn’t really that big a deal after all.
Actually in your best moments you’ll see ego arise while at the same time seeing it arise as non-ego. So then when you slip back to just having ego arise without it being surrounded by and realized as meditative insight (prajna), you relax about it, because at some level you know it’s just all mind, and it’s ok. You don’t really have to correct it. It’s fine. The sense of being imprisoned in it is gone – it’s not a prison. It’s just a structure – and a fine structure. We don’t always have to be in it, but being in it is cool enough.
There is no need to tear down a perfectly good prison when the doors are already opened. We can even revamp it and make it a great place to be.
That makes sense, Xsplat.
I guess what threw me off is that when I lost my ego-centricity it felt like a sudden break, but maybe I just became aware of it suddenly. I had also stopped consciously working to strengthen the ego a few years beforehand, but maybe I had just reached a stage where I could relax into it and let it happen on its own. I dunno. I’ve felt like my willpower and drive are much less than they used to be, but on the other hand I have complete non-attachment to emotions and only the rare manifestation of egocentricity.
Sometimes I think the problems with drive and willpower must just be physical, like a nutrient deficiency or something. Other times I wonder if I just need to ‘fix’ something in the way my mind is organised. Not really sure how to approach that.
I see it this way. We have free will BUT the laws governing our minds are such that we will eventually always choose the path that leads to enlightenment. We can resist for as long as we like and people resist for eternities trying every which way to satisfy our egos but eventually we start to give it up more and more and so move upwards in conciousnes. We give up because we realize the pain of attatchment is to great and we start to give it up step by step. The choice to give it up is ours but we also have a metaphorical gun to our head in terms of the pain that makes us all choose the high road EVENTUALLY.
Phedre you should take a stop over at thetaobums.com. There are several people there with lucid dreaming experience which you mentioned you where interested in, people with very advanced meditation, qigong, martial arts and yoga practices and extensive experience from various spiritual traditions, people with lots of knowledge of energy sex and people that are generally inclined to understand polarity in relationships them being taoistly inclined and all. A incredibly high number of the guys there have some sort of experience with PUA stuff. Most came across it after they had started tehir spiritual practice but some also got into the spiritual stuff via PUA which is quite common as PUAs often get encouraged to meditate, read Tolle and Deida etc.
You mentioned you were looking for a meditation practice but hadn`t quite found what you where looking for. If you elaborate maybe xsplat and I can suggest some stuff to try out (his knowledge and experience is far vaster than mine though). Why did you not feel right about the stuff you looked at and what are you looking for?
Thanks Wudang. I’ll check the website out.
After posting that comment I realised that I really shouldn’t ask for advice until I’ve done some serious research of my own, so I’ve been reading on the topic continuously since then. I figured the best approach would be to just read as widely as possible. So far I’ve gone Tibetan Buddhist tantra, Hindu tantra, Western tantra, Western Buddhism, Bon tantra. Funny enough, I’m finding the Western stuff the most appealing so far (I don’t mean the soft new-agey crap, obviously). Right now I’m in the middle of Daniel Ingram’s Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha: An Unusually Hardcore Dharma Book, which I’m finding quite helpful.
My problems had to do with a- language that I found neither precise nor inspiring. I’ve now found stuff that is one or the other and have gotten a ton out of it. And b- perpetual focus on breath practice, as if that’s the only thing you can do in meditation. For some reason, I’ve always found breath practice really aggravating. Now I know there are any number of objects or physical sensations you can focus on in meditation practice, which makes the whole thing much more approachable to me.
So I guess I’ve dug myself out of that mental hole, and now I just have to be regular about my practice. If you have any suggestions for reading that you’ve found particularly illuminating or inspiring, or for meditation techniques that you’ve found especially enjoyable or effective, I’d love to hear them.
Breath practice has a shit ton of real world applicability (unlimited, in my experience), from health to work to sports to sex… as well as many other less language-definable benefits. If you plan to dive into it deeply, I humbly recommend first developing a plan to also remain grounded. Initially, I didn’t know to do that, and fuck, losing one’s ground can be very disorienting. Have fun.
Thanks, Avd.
I do plan to come back to it. I just needed something more pleasant to help me through the initial difficulty of habit formation.
The more we burn through ego (sense of self), the more we actually find, SELF. The ego is then gradually reconstituted to reflect our findings. It’s an infinite process. The path is the destination.
And don’t the hucksters and fraudsters love taking advantage of this paradox:
“I’m suggesting that the process to loosen ego fixation is actually to strengthen ego, and that the experience of a less of a centralized awareness is also the description of a stronger ego. It’s counter intuitive…”
Note: someone either ignorant, or trying to fuck you, will utilize this polarized paradox to draw you into their agenda. Buyer beware.
I should have said above, ‘any writer of big books containing religious metaphysical etc. mumbo jumbo will not be read by me.’ I’m perfectly happy to discuss such things on live blogs with polite people!!!! The way I formulated it before was unintentionally tactless.
[In fact xsplat, since the original comment is in moderation, perhaps you could just substitute this corrected one and kill my brief post which just appeared]
whoa you guys are really getting into it … I don’t have time to contribute as much as I would like but here are a few things I want to say for now:
I experienced a bad omen when looking for that Ken Wilber book — some really black juju, man. I downloaded an ebook with the title ‘Boomeritis’ and it turned out to be a small .exe file plus a 7mb data file. So I uploaded the .exe file to virustotal.com online collection-of-scanners and it came back with over 40 positive malware reports!
But here’s a RATIONAL reason why I’m suspicious of Wilber — the following is from http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2010/03/critique-of-ken-wilber.html
Life is short, and potential reading material must be RUTHLESSLY filtered. Any writer of big books who 1) concerns himself seriously with Christian and other religious metaphysical mumbo-jumbo (as Wilber does) and 2) espouses irrational positions like “everyone is divine in essence, if not in experience” (as Wilber does) will not be given ANY attention by me. Clearly something has gone very very wrong with Mr. Wilber’s thinking. See “What is Wrong with Our Thoughts? A Neo-Positivist Credo,” by the great contemporary philosopher David Stove, at:
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/wrongthoughts.html
I guess I’m a hard-assed positivist rationalist determinist pessimist skeptic. The only kooky ideas I’m willing to investigate are my own — and to my way of thinking, the idea that anything is ‘divine’ is major kook territory.
@Phedre — let’s just take one thing at a time. “[Twain] said that it is utterly impossible to control the mind and what it churns out, but any moderately serious meditation practice will soon prove that false.” Please explain. By the way, the argument (should you choose to make it) that one can only understand ‘control of the mind’ once one has achieved it, and that therefore it cannot be explained to those who do not yet have it, will not do at all. That’s because all it really means is “you’ll simply have to BELIEVE those who say they can control their minds.” What is the PROOF they can control their minds? What is the evidence?
Wilber extends developmental psychology past the stages recognized by most of that community, and used to go so far as to make metaphysical propositions. I hear that he’s explicitly abandoned making any metaphysical claims in his later efforts, and has adjusted his position, but I haven’t read anything of his since boomeritis.
However up until the “controversial” developmental stages that he posits, everything is in line with what the current researchers put out. So for a book like A Brief History of Everything, or his more complete Sex, Ecology, Spirituality , a person could read along with his explanations of our current understanding and ignore the rest. What I thought might be of interest to you is his explication of the developmental stage of “Vision Logic”, and his pointing out that at the early vision logic stage, there is the risk for an extreme relativistic outlook where values are no longer seen. He labels that as aperspectival madness. There is no metaphysics required to follow his arguments, and he does offer some useful conceptual handles to how we organize our thought.
Boomeritis is in novel form, which makes it more accessible to a wider audience. I loved the meaty ideas contained in SES. SES is full of footnotes and he does his best to make a strong case. As I say, up until the controversial stages of development, he’s well within mainstream undersanding and doesn’t’ invoke any spooky concepts.
OlioOx, the proof that the mind can be controlled lies in those who have learned to control it. Are you going to say that disease x doesn’t exist because you personally haven’t experienced it?
What other proof can there be? What is Twain’s proof that it is impossible? Experience. Well, there is another experience possible, and plenty will attest that it exists. How is that any less valid?
Twain says that it is impossible to arrest thought on a particular subject or altogether. Any decent meditator can attain a state where thoughts enter the mind, are not engaged with, and pass quickly and easily. After a while you can keep your mind quiet for extended periods. There is nothing elitist or esoteric about this. Anyone can do it. Just because most in our culture have never tried (beyond what the Young Man in the essay does) does not mean it is impossible or false.
I couldn’t find a quickie download of Wilber but I found something more interesting….
Two individuals, Geoffrey D. Falk and Jim Andrews, have written lengthy criticisms of Ken Wilber’s work, which at first glance seem pretty devastating. Skim the following if you have the time to spare:
(Andrews) Twenty Boomeritis Blunders: Shoddy Scholarship, Salacious Sex, and Sham Spirituality
(Andrews) Ken Wilber On Meditation:
A Baffling Babbling Of Unending Nonsense
(Falk) “Norman Einstein”:
The Dis-Integration of Ken Wilber (book-length work available as free PDF download)
A quick skim through some of this material was enough to FURTHER convince me that I don’t have time for Ken Wilber. I’m a hardcore positivist-empiricist-skeptic type and any talk whatsoever about spirit, essence, atman, etc. puts me on edge. If you want to read an actual professional philosopher’s expression of my point of view about suspiciously kooky thinking, check out the David Stove essay I mentioned — it’s not terribly long, it’s only a chapter from one of his books:
“What is Wrong with Our Thoughts? A Neo-Positivist Credo.” Chapter 7 of David Stove, The Plato Cult and Other Philosophical Follies (Blackwell, 1991).
Yours in Curmudgeonishness,
OlioOx
I take it you’d not want to read any of Newtons ideas also. Newton was major crackpot. Or how about Tesla? A kook and a charlatan and a vapor ware salesman.
Both had their useful contributions.
Wilber comes from a background of meditation and he took it upon himself to try to explain his experiences in a framework that would make as much sense of as much of his world as possible. An ambitious project. I think he made a good effort of it, but there are many spots in his views that I disagree with. He’s not stupid or clumsy in his thinking – he just has (or had) some presumptions that were metaphysical. That’s been known to happen. It’s hard to be wrong 100% of the time, and much of Kens writing has nothing to do with his own theories – it just explains well many current theories and puts them together in useful ways. Much of his work, as I said, is not contested. It’s the higher levels of cognition and intuited reality that they see that are contested. That’s only a fraction of his focus.
I would have recommended Piaget or some other original source, but I’ve not read the original sources. The issue that the boomeritis book talks about is probably made by Piaget, only in weaker and less explicit terms.
I humbly submit that if any talk about the divine is “kooky” to you, then there’s an element of understanding you have missed. I’m no theist, at all. But even coming from a place of physics, we can talk about the all-encompassing energy of the universe. The sense of unity and our small part in it. All that is, is one. This is where physics and the Tao Te Ching meet. Start with meditation, so your hard-assed rationalist skeptical self can function better and feel clearer. Then read something like the Tao, leaving open the possibility that there may be a higher truth in it which can enrich you, even without being able to fully understand it rationally.
Rawgod — My levels of “functioning” and “clarity” are giving me no grounds for complaint and I feel no need at all for “higher truth.” Plain old truth is good enough for me.
Let’s take things one argument at a time. I have so far been unable to download anything by Wilber, and I’m not going to purchase anything by him, so I’ll stop saying anything at all about him. If anyone would like to copy and paste a Wilber passage so I can get a taste of the great sage, so to speak, feel free, and I’ll comment.
I want to go into this free will thing with Phedre:
Your doctor doesn’t have to inject a bit of your blood into his own body to determine that you’ve got malaria.
So let us consider the two classes of people, those who have achieved ‘control over the mind’ and those who have not. How can you tell the difference between them? How does the ability to control one’s mind manifest itself? Are there any observable differences between these two classes of people?
In other words, is there any evidence that these two classes of people are different in any way at all?
“How does the ability to control one’s mind manifest itself? ”
What do mean by that? How does it appear to other people? Who cares about how it appears to the outside world? I’ve described to you what the experience of it is like. Since we’re talking about internal processing any external differences would be highly individualistic and therefore variable.
Also,
“is there any evidence that these two classes of people are different in any way at all?”
No, these two classes of people are not different at all, and in fact they are not two different classes of people. I think you’re creating a duality where none exists. All people are capable of this.
Look, you wouldn’t deny that people have a different degree of attachment to emotions, right? Like when women get insanely emotional, and no amount of reason can pull them out. You look at that uncomprehendingly because your emotions don’t pull you that deep into the current. But why assume that the degree to which you *do* get caught up in your emotions is as ‘free’ from them as it can get? If you can be less emotional than the next person, why deny that someone else might be less emotional than you?
It’s the same thing with thoughts. It’s harder to give familiar examples though, because people don’t tend to analyse and therefore talk about thought attachment the way they do about emotionality.
Phedre, you said before:
Therefore, there are indeed two classes of people under discussion here: Those who have learned to control the mind, and those who have not.
(For the purposes of this discussion, let us use the term ‘meditator’ to mean, not necessarily those who are in the act of meditating, but rather those who have mastered the skill-set described in this quote from you. ‘Non-meditator’ will simply mean those who have not learned the skill-set.)
So: how do observers of the ‘decent meditator’ know that this is indeed what is happening within the mind of the active meditator? I’m afraid it is not enough to take him at his word. There must be evidence — and statements like ‘try it for yourself, you’ll see’ or ‘why would they lie?’ do NOT constitute evidence.
Consider the case of two people, the first claiming to have the meditator’s skill you describe, and the second claiming the ability to speak Japanese. We ask each person to provide evidence of their skills. I’m sure you can imagine any number of tests which would provide firm evidence that the second person has either some Japanese ability or none whatsoever. But what about the first person? What could a meditator do that would convince an outside observer that anything at all separates him from the class of non-meditators?
If the only available answer is something like “Well, nothing really,” then why bother with meditation at all? If you answer “Oh but there are benefits to meditation,” that means that something differs between meditators and non-meditators. What exactly?
Olio, you seem to be denying the very existence of our interior subjective experiences. Or at least you are saying that unless they can be be shown to have measurable exterior correlates, that they are completely meaningless.
Is your pain real? If you were paralyzed and had no access to sophisticated biological measuring equipment, would the difference between being in pain and not being in pain not be meaningful? I’m sure it would be real and meaningful to you – even if only you could verify your pain.
It’s not only an extreme position to say that interiority has to be measured before it is in some way “valid”, but all of our experience shows that to be simply silly. Subjective states are also real – they don’t become real once measured by 3rd parties.
But if you do insist on verifying your pain by looking at the machine, we can hook you up. And we’ve hooked up meditators and studied them too, and find differences.
I doubt our current measurements would even know where to look for free will though. Does that mean that free will can’t exist? Because we don’t know how to measure it?
But if you want to measure correlates to thinking, and tell a meditator not to think of a blue elephant, we can do that and there will be no sign of the blue elephant in the equipment. We’ve known that since the seventies.
Mark Twains arguments against free will are very crude, and don’t resonate with the personal experiences of experienced meditators. We don’t read those passages and say “oh yeah! That makes sense! My experience is like that!” We read them and hear the assumptions of a person who had never done any mind training. The assumptions are comically primitive.
Also, it’s strange that you accept the self reporting of the non meditators but deny the self reporting of the meditators, when neither has any external measurable proof of their true interior states.
xsplat I have read your most recent reply (January 18, 2013 at 12:24 am) and cannot find in it any answer to my very simple question. I’m not asking for much, but I must insist on that at least. After I get an answer, we’ll proceed.
“What could a meditator do that would convince an outside observer that anything at all separates him from the class of non-meditators?”
Hook himself up to an EEG or other brain scanning machine.
Like Xsplat said, if you want ‘hard physical evidence’, there’s plenty of brain scanning stuff that’s been done. A basic google search will yields tons.
This one is perhaps closest to what we were taking about above:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12661646
Now we’re getting somewhere! I’ll check it out and reply in a day or 2
Yeah this is EXACTLY the sort of stuff I was thinking of, it sounds like good old true blue science, thanks for the link
I’m still curious though how and why you would deny the validity of subjective experience. If you don’t want to go off topic, that’s fine, but if you were willing to elaborate I’d like to hear it. It seems like a totally absurd stance, if you don’t mind my saying so.
Phedre let me think about that one, it’s a hard question.
Here are some links to that Josipovic researcher’s work — I really have to run now
http://psych.nyu.edu/josipovic/
http://www.frontiersin.org/Journal/FullText.aspx?ART_DOI=10.3389/fnhum.2011.00183&name=Human_Neuroscience&x=y#
http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mkozhevnlab/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/Kozhevnikov_etal_meditation_2009.pdf
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/neurobiology/labs/malach/sites/neurobiology.labs.malach/files/perceptionWithoutPerceiver_Malach_Josipovich.pdf
Some thoughts about scientific studies of meditation, with quotes.
It is clear that some meditators can put their brains into an observable state which differs somewhat from that of non-meditators:
The evidence which leads Dr J to that interpretation is that during meditation, blood flow to different areas and structures of the brain (as measured by fMRI technology) differs from the patterns of flow seen in non-meditators.
(Caution: The two “brain networks” which Dr J studies are not the same as so-called “neural networks”, a term which journalist Danzico unfortunately uses in his article. Dr J’s research articles prefer the terms “extrinsic or task-positive system” and “intrinsic, task-negative, or default system.” It’s important to keep this in mind because “neural networks” form the subject of a completely different area of study.)
Interpretation of this data leads Dr J and colleagues to the following conclusions and speculations — “correlations” refers to analyses of observed amounts of blood flow in the brain (my emphases):
[High degree of confidence in conclusion:]
[Conclusion not expressed quite so confidently, but supported by other reputable research:]
[Conclusions expressed very cautiously; “speculative”; “might”; and no other research mentioned:]
So far, so good; orthodox peer-reviewed science etc. But now comes the part that excites my sceptic’s instincts:
The above quote is from the BBC article, not any of Dr J’s scientific publications. Clearly he believes in the reality of such a state of consciousness, and that’s fine; he is a proper scientist and expresses his opinions on such things in the proper manner (as did Newton, another orthodox scientist with unorthodox hobbies.) After doing a little reading about this state, I have found that the whole area of “nonduality” or “oneness” or whatever you want to call it, is almost completely outside of the scientific mainstream. That’s because there is precisely no scientifically accepted evidence for its existence. Correct me if I’m wrong.
So: some highly-trained-and-experienced meditators can voluntarily change their brain-activity in ways that non-meditators cannot. But what do these particular brain activities actually CORRESPOND to?
— Physical relaxation, characteristic patterns of blood flow in the brain, lowered pulse rate, slower respiration, that sort of thing? Proven.
— Feelings of well-being, positive mood? Difficult to quantify but extremely well attested; not an extraordinary claim. Nobody disagrees that meditation causes its practitioners to feel positive emotional changes.
— “a state of … unifying consciousness between a person and their environment”? Utterly unproven; not even satisfactorily defined.
Have a look at Wikipedia to see what an enormous scientific and philosophic problem it is to define the single term consciousness, without speaking of things like “a state of consciousness which unifies a person and his environment.” We’re back to the you-have-to-experience-it-yourself problem, which is no solution to scientists. What about someone who wants to impress other people and simply lies about his experience of “oneness?” (Fun thought-experiment: Consider how a man might lie convincingly about it after studying three or four hundred accounts of “oneness” experiences and talking to experienced meditators for a hundred hours. Now compare that to the case of a man who spends hundreds of hours preparing to convince Japanese-speaking people that he can speak Japanese, by doing everything except studying Japanese. The first may succeed when challenged by experts. The second will never succeed when challenged by experts. If my understanding of inductive argumentation is correct, this is sufficient proof that proponents of a “oneness” state of mind have an ENORMOUS credibility problem.)
What if the overpowering, convincing feeling of “oneness” experienced by the successfully trained meditator is nothing more than a mental phenomenon — a feeling or impression — resulting from the associated physiological activity in the brain? Please take a moment to think about that. This “oneness” may be nothing more than the impression that one is experiencing something in particular. But belief in an impression, no matter how strong, is NOT evidence that what made the impression exists.
Finally, Phedre, I’m not sure what you mean by “denying the validity of subjective experience.” I don’t deny it exists. Perhaps what I’ve written here will help make my views clearer. And we haven’t even gotten to the free will part of this meditation stuff yet — I’ll have something to say about that in a few days (hint: Mark Twain’s position is undamaged by Dr J’s findings.)
Sources:
“Influence of meditation on anti-correlated networks in the brain” Josipovic et. al. 2012 – doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00183
“Brains of Buddhist monks scanned in meditation study” M. Danzico 2011 – BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12661646
Oh, were you looking for objective proof that there is a “thing” called non-dual awareness?
Ya, you are right. I doubt that can be objectively proven. And you are right, the only way to “know” it is to experience. Which, if it is science, is not science in the way that uses instruments to verify that our perceptions are what we perceive them as. Like you say, it could all just be in the mind.
I won’t disagree with any of that.
But there are pragmatic reasons why people work hard to be able to experience first hand non-dual states of awareness, and there are reasons why traditions that bring about such awareness have been around for thousands of years, and are alive today. It’s not difficult to interview people with first hand knowledge of such states. It’s also possible for (some) people to work hard and have some experience with non-dual awareness themselves.
Is it a real thing? I’m not really sure why that matters so much. Maybe, like you say, it’s just all in the mind, and is not a “thing” at all. Ok, so is it a real all-in-the-mind thing? As you say, that can’t really be proven – after all, it’s an interior pereption that can’t be reduced to an external measurement. There really is no way to prove it. Just as there really is no way to prove that you are accurately describing the experience of seeing the color red. Your experience is entirely interior, and can not be reduced to the correlates that we can measure in your brain function.
Now, we can hook people up to machines and the ones who are experiencing a non-dual state may measure some similar patterns. But as you say, that doesn’t prove that their experience is of a real thing. Their descriptions of their state of mind might match up pretty well, and the measurements might match up showing some patterns, but without seeing the color red for yourself, you’ll never know what they are describing any more than a blind man will ever know what the color red is.
Personally I don’t really see what difference it makes, one way or the other, if non-duality has any physical or metaphysical reality to it. The experience of it has practical value, psychologically and physically and as a more expansive way be alive.
Some say that the experience leads to the cessation of suffering, but I call bullshit. It can lead to not identifying with a self who is suffering, which is a witness state. Oh, and people who can stabilize at the witness state often learn to increase bliss and compassion – so in that way suffering changes. But any way talking about those states is esoteric, and I don’t really see the value in it for people who don’t want to try those things out personally. But if you ask those who have gone far in meditation why they do it, and if the changes in perception and frame of reference are practical and valuable to them, I’d bet you’d hear positive answers.
I would agree with you that any science that does not only accept 3rd person measurements, and that accepts any first person measurements, such as “the sun is orange and the sky is blue”, is a science that is flawed at it’s base. I’d agree that only measurements that machines can digitally quantify have any place in a rigorous science. After all, who is to say that we aren’t lying about our internal subjective experience of color? Or that the experience is just something that happens in the mind? Just because we’ll all agree on it, CAN’T, by the very nature of science, mean that our perceptions have any external validity. Only machines can be trusted – never our senses, as all sensory perception is fundamentally subjective. So I’d agree that even if a room full of 1000 meditators all had experience of non-duality, they could not have any scientific reason to conclude that non-duality is a thing. Exactly like in a room full of 1000 people no one can conclude that red is a thing. I agree that only machines can verify with quantified data that red is a measurable aspect of a real reality.
I just don’t really see why the distinction is useful. So what if we can’t verify, other than through some correlations, that what we experience as red has much of anything to do with an external reality? So what? Really – what’s the point of all that?
If you want to be careful about what we label as science, I’d not stand in your way. But if you want to put all that is science and all that is knowledge into the same category, then doesn’t that mean that knowledge of beauty has no meaning to you? Yes, the experience of a sunset on a Sunday with friends and family isn’t science – but is it meaningful? Yes, non-duality is never going to be digitalized – but does that mean it can not exist at least as much as can the the experience of beauty?
We share an inter-subjective reality. We’ll never digitalize our understanding of the relationships between the characters in a Shakespeare play, nor will we ever come to a final conclusion about them, however scholars meaningfully discuss his plays. You have to have deep experience of his plays to be able to join any discussion about them. Inter-subjective communication can be real and meaningful, even when it is not at all scientific.
JUst a quick answer, gotta run, more later — I disagree: Red IS a thing. It’s a certain range of wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum and all normal human eyes are designed (so to speak) to respond to it, and the brain can classify it in comparison with other wavelengths. But even if human beings had never existed, light would still exist, and there would still be some light of red wavelengths in the universe.
Oh, so you are saying that the subjective experience of red is equal to the what is measured as electromagnetic waves?
The philosophy of science is a subject that you might not have thought about or read about yet. Most scientists are not even aware of the turtles all the way down.
The SUBJECTIVE experience of red has correlations to a measurable world. But there is no redness in the outside world – that happens within us only. Red is a mental fabrication, that is dependent upon external triggers. The external triggers can be quantified and measured by machines, but RED can’t.
There are other subjective experiences that don’t have as simple triggers – such as being horny. A horny person can be known to be horny by studying their physiology. Just as a meditator can be known to be a meditator by studying their physiology. Horny is real, and the meditative experience is real. But the only way to really “know” what horny means is intersubjectively – shared subjective experience. Pre-pubescents can study graphs all day long but won’t have any appreciable understanding of horny.
Why is it so hard for some people, like OlioOx? There isn’t the ROI for me to respond his lengthy posts, but it’s as simple as this for me:
In 2003, I tried a particular type of meditation, in the absence of 100% scientific proof that it would work. The horror! At the end of 10 minutes, I was experiencing a different state of mind.
I subsequently purchased a product, and practised conscientiously for a couple of months. During that time, I would experience moments and flashes of pure clarity, calmness and even something close to bliss. I haven’t continued the meditation path much since then, but I feel everyday state has been permanently improved, maybe on the order of 2-5% since then, and my subsequent life path would be consistent with that.
That’s all. You gotta try things. When you want to get in shape, you hit the gym. Have you seen how fucking insane some of the arguments about diet and nutrition on forums are? Get trapped there and you’ll never lift a dumbbell.
No. I’m saying that the subjective experience of red CORRESPONDS to what is measured as electromagnetic waves. Experience of redness (and let us leave aside dreaming or imagining of red, since it might be possible that people blind from birth dream or imagine red, but cannot know, describe, or understand descriptions of it) is not equal to, but is necessarily associated with, something in the external world.
Agreed — but it’s more than that; it has correlations to a specific subset of the measurable world, which is reliably the same subset every time ‘redness’ is experienced. Under normal conditions, a source (or reflector) of blue light will not produce the subjective experience of redness.
All right, let’s compare this to “oneness” (meaning the meditator’s experience of this state of consciousness which is unknown to non-meditators). Oneness is the subjective experience, like “redness”; what then are the triggers that can be quantified and measured? Where are they? External or internal? What is their nature?
I already agreed with you that there is no such “thing” as oneness. Just as there is no such “thing” as math.
I agree that when we see red, we have very good reasons to believe that there are physical correlates (that are distinct from our subjective impressions) that are very strongly implied. We have very good reasons to believe that our interpretations are of something or other, and that this isn’t just some sort of simulation in someones basement computer.
Perhaps it was already obvious, but I was trying to highlight how subjective data are distinct from objective data. There is no red in the real world. Red is a not a property of the real world. The experience of visual redness is a subjective interpretation of some properties of the real world.
From noticing that distinction (which many people hand wave away or never bother to notice), the next step I’m making is comparing various subjective data – some with correlations to known outside forces, some without.
How about mathematics? Is math real? Where does math exist? It’s a mental event. You don’t need to count fingers to do it, and theoretical physics is an example of not needing any experiments to come up with it. Is it real knowledge?
And so by that example you can postulate that one-ness could also be a type of subjective knowledge.
I hope you won’t mind that I don’t want to discuss mathematics (except for maybe the simplest things)on the grounds that I’m not a mathematician; I’m not an expert on anything really but I would REALLY feel on shaky ground saying anything about mathematics.
Why don’t we leave this whole area, we’ve certainly covered some very interesting ground and brought a lot of things into the light, even if we haven’t reached final agreement on everything; let’s get back to Mark Twain and free will, and how these scientific findings about meditation are relevant to the question of free will. I don’t believe Twain’s position is compromised by these findings, and I’ll say why, but would you like to say anything about that to start us off?
I haven’t read the Twain essay in years, but as I recall his argument invokes a thought experiment of checking oneself to see if he really has control to limit thoughts, right? The argument that was made to you is that meditators dispute that. You countered that you had no reason to trust the self reporting of meditators, and would only continue to trust the self reporting of non-meditators. So it was shown to you that there is measurable proof of different brain patterns. The different brain patters should suggest to you that meditators are capable of different brain processes. Which should open up the door to including their self reporting of their subjective experience as much as non-meditators. Meditators are kind of experts about what it is they are thinking and feeling after all. To know that is their full time job.
I was a little surprised that you didn’t seem to follow my argument that I’ve agreed that oneness can’t be scientifically proven to be a thing, but that we have no reason to believe that it is not a type of knowledge, in the same way that math is a type of knowledge. You don’t have to have studied math in any depth to able to follow the analogy. I also earlier pointed out other types of meaning. I’ve been under the impression that you want to reduce all knowledge and meaning to only be real knowledge and real meaning if it is scientific, in the 3rd person objective way that you define it. The wikipedia article on the philosophy of science would give you many examples of why that opinion is logically inconsistent.
So we are forced to either limit the applicability of science to a subset of the various domains of meaning and knowledge, or expand our definition of science. Wilber carefully detailed his reasons to expand the definition of science, but I’ve agreed with you that there is no need to do so. But that leaves only the option of acknowledging that 3rd person objective science can not have much to say about a great deal of reality.
I suppose next we’re going to be pondering “the hard question” of why science can not ever resolve the duality of subjective reality and objective nature!
I agree I need to read more about philosophy and the philosophy of science; I’m trying. As a natural conservative, I’m extremely reluctant to “expand the definition of science” but such things are of course not up to me. Anyway please don’t be offended if I don’t answer all your arguments, I’m certainly reading them all, I don’t have as much free time as I’d like.
What’s going on here with the scientists and the meditators is the investigation of claims. That doesn’t mean “meditators claim super powers” or anything so silly. The original claim was that meditators can deliberately induce a certain state of mind that is totally unknown to non-meditators in normal circumstances. So far what has been reliably verified is that expert meditators are doing something that results in patterns of brain activity unique to expert meditators; probably a few other things have been previously verified, like their ability to lower their heart rates and make some other interesting changes in their physiology — but this is all. Everything else is in the realm of the scientifically unverified. I think we can agree on that while disagreeing where to go from there.
As for math, it can easily be shown that there are many SPECTACULAR correspondences between subjective mathematical thinking and the external world, for example, when engineers use calculus to design a bridge. During the calculations phase, there is only subjective experience (let us imagine the engineers not needing paper or pens or computers); but later this subjective experience directly leads to the particular form of a particular bridge. Once upon a time, during the development of calculus, there were hardly any correspondences to the external world; it was almost totally subjective. Perhaps the investigation into meditation is at that stage.
Do reputable meditators make any other claims than the experience of “oneness”? If that’s all they’re claiming, perhaps it’s hardly worth investigating. In fact just the other day I spoke to someone who had studied meditation and claimed to have had the experience himself; he said it was interesting but rather overrated. If meditation offers nothing more than the possibility of this interesting and pleasant feeling, plus relaxation and a bit of refreshment for the mind, there’s not much to get excited about, it seems to me. But the fact that meditators produce this unique brain activity is exciting, and I hope to hear of more findings.
Let’s not!
Getting back to free will, the meditators don’t have it, any more than the rest of us.
For a start, where does anyone get the idea to meditate, or indeed, any idea at all? Twain (who explains this much better than I’m about to, so you could read him again and skip this) says there are only two sources, and they are both beyond the control of any ‘will.’ Firstly, there is the OUTSIDE source. Consider the way that most people in the world have their first thoughts about the subject of meditation: they read about it or hear about it accidentally — or they are deliberately told by ANOTHER person. Certainly this is not a free choice – for you cannot freely decide to learn about meditation for the first time if you’ve never heard of it before. Someone tells you something, or you come across it in your reading. In any case, YOU did not originate the thought, it came from somewhere else. You could not even consciously desire it, because you didn’t know what it was.
The second source of ideas, or things that come into the conscious mind, is the spontaneous and uncontrollable normal working of the brain. Ideas just pop into one’s head on their own. You cannot really decide on your own what to think about, because where did you get the idea that you should think about anything in particular? There is always either an outside source, or a spontaneous inner one that just occurred to you. Suppose it occurs to you one day that you need to exercise more (or that, having been told you should exercise more, one day the realization pops into your head that you will take the recommendation seriously.) Now that you have such a thought (or small group of related thoughts) in your consciousness, various associated thoughts, memories, etc. will spontaneously pop into your mind — forms of exercise in your knowledge, possible schedules, etc. — and this, to the free-willists, seems like controlled, freely conducted review of or reflection on the desired goal of exercise. But is it really? No; it is just the mechanical, automatic operation of the mind-machine.
And what directs or motivates this process? What is the battery, or energy-source? In Twain’s view, it is the all-powerful need to please one’s Inner Master. (This is Twain’s term and I will continue to use it, to mean exactly what Twain means. If you’re going to use a different term, like ego or whatever, please define it first).
Everything the mind does is an automatic effort to please the Inner Master; but some situations are complicated, and the thoughts and feelings run thick and fast, in the effort to work out what is most pleasing to the Inner Master. It happens without your control. ‘Pleasing the Inner Master’ doesn’t necessarily mean doing what brings you the most pleasure; it might mean doing what brings you the least pain, and the final decision may seem agonizing, but the point is, in the end, you think you’ve made the final decision, but it was simply made by the machine of your mind. Your freedom to choose it is illusory. Read how Twain brilliantly illustrates this, or picture the dramatic scene in “Sophie’s Choice” for another excellent example, or the scene in “All the King’s Horses” (Kurt Vonnegut story) wherein a man can only save his family by sacrificing one of them, and only he may make the decision.
What an extremely interesting situation, now that I think of it. Man, wife, children (let’s say four). Sacrifice one and rest are saved. Who does the man give up? Himself? Wife that he still adores? Oldest child? Youngest? Ugliest? Stupidest? Boy? Girl? I’d say it’s a real test of free will. The man can even choose to sacrifice the whole family to save himself a lifetime of guilt from having sentenced a family member to death.
But in the end, I think Twain’s right. The man will make the only choice he can; forced to make a SINGLE choice, he will make the choice that is easiest for HIM to live with. Selfish, you say? Only thinking of his own happiness? Suppose he sacrifices himself — why? Because he knows he could not live with himself otherwise. He would rather DIE than continue to look the rest of his family in the eye after he sent one of them to death. He must spare HIMSELF this agony at all costs — even the cost of his own life. Dying, compared to the alternative, suddenly does not seem so bad.
The situation might be even clearer if the man is not allowed to choose himself for sacrifice. Now there will be no escape from a lifetime of guilt. But does sacrificing one family member involve less guilt than sacrificing another? What is the best thing for the interests of the family? Suppose he is not allowed to consult or even see his family while he is trying to make up his mind. In the end he WILL decide, and I think we can agree that only a true sociopath would flip a coin or roll a die. His mind will at last settle on one family member, and he will realize that he could never have possibly chosen another. As the soldiers raise their guns to shoot the entire family, he will, in the last split second, scream out his choice, knowing that he really has no OTHER choice than that particular family member. (Later, he may regret his choice, but that makes no difference.)
But what REALLY led him to make his particular choice? It was the need to content his Inner Master as far as possible in these terrible circumstances. Just try to find any possible kind of truly selfless self-sacrificing way to make this decision. Suppose the man has a favorite child, but also shudders to contemplate the children having to grow up without a mother, etc. of course he wants to do what’s best for the FAMILY, not for HIMSELF. But why does he want to do what’s best for them? BECAUSE HE COULD NOT LIVE WITH HIMSELF IF HE DID NOT.
That’s what ‘self-sacrifice’ is really all about; the person who behaves unselfishly, altruistically, etc. really has no choice but to do what he does, if you think about it. They can’t NOT help others; they wouldn’t be able to face themselves in the mirror. So does anyone else have free will where moral and ethical decisions are concerned? I don’t think so. Choices, even if made up of groups or networks of choices, are always made one at a time, and every single time, the Inner Master is standing over you with a whip.
Meditators got the original idea of meditating from others, so that did not involve free will; they practiced a set of skills and techniques learned from others — no originality there; and they DESIRE to continue because it pleases their Inner Masters. The control they achieve over their brains is merely a skill, like playing the piano or learning calculus. If the Inner Master stops being pleased by meditation, the meditator will quit; but the meditator doesn’t choose to stop being pleased by meditation; one day he simply finds he’s losing interest. No free will, no decision. Man is a machine.
But Twain leaves room for self-improvement and the betterment of mankind generally, within the no-free-will framework. Many people act so as to improve their behavior toward their fellow man; where did they get the idea to do so? They heard about it and their Inner Master liked it, so off they go. If you want to improve yourself, or develop in a certain direction, you expose yourself to the appropriate input and associations, and the efforts you make will be great, or less, all according to constant evaluations by your automatic Inner Master. But don’t forget that the very IDEA or DESIRE of improving or developing yourself either came from OUTSIDE, or occurred to you SPONTANEOUSLY — mechanically — so there is no question of free will.
One final thing: It seems to me that Twain’s account is utterly validated by plain observation of living things, including human beings. All the EVIDENCE supports it as the simplest explanation of the working of the human mind. (That’s just a hunch at the moment but I’ll flesh it out if I can.)
I just remembered, there’s a very nicely formatted PDF of What Is Man? here.
I have to run, but:
Here’s why I brought the meditator’s mind up. I think Twain’s Inner Master is the core part of his no-free-will argument, and I think it’s wrong. Of course ideas come from all around us and are not self-originated, but to say that how we use them is utterly, invariably, uncontrollably determined by the Inner Master does not align with my experience. Look, for all the ‘scientific proof’ stuff we come back to this – as human’s always do, I think – that you will not really ‘feel’ the veracity of a theory unless it fits your experience of the world. You say his theory is validated by your observations about the world. I say, not everyone’s experience fits that. There’s a whole group of people who have worked on changing that and have succeeded. Their Inner Master does not rule them to the same extent, and ultimately maybe not at all.
To me the only part of Twain’s theory that resonates with truth is that no ideas are original, but I don’t think you can claim lack of free will just on that. How you integrate and how you apply ideas/images is still an individual, mutable, and free process. Not to mention that the idea of even an in-control Inner Master ‘caring’ about the minutiae of how you fit together images for artistic production, or fit together concepts for useless trains of thought, seems kind of excessive. Unless you’re a person who does EVERYTHING, even privately, to further your own sense of self, to cultivate your ‘personality’, the concept just doesn’t work.
@Phedre — just a quick comment or two for now: There ARE original ideas, but they just occur to people without their control. As Twain says, some rare people are excellent combining machines; they combine what they’ve learned in new and original ways, but their minds do it automatically. You don’t create a new idea, it just pops into your head. Where’s the free will in that? You may have WANTED to get a new idea about something, and you may be “racking your brains”; but the idea comes all on its own, when IT wants (speaking metaphorically), not when YOU want. Or it may not come at all. It is entirely independent of any control on your part.
And where did you get that DESIRE to get the new idea? From previously received ideas and suggestions, again which you had no control over.
Free will is just an illusion.
The ‘Inner Master’ isn’t like a personality or anything, it’s just a metaphor for the way the mind works. But it’s such a perfect metaphor it’s hard not to use it.
Evidence please?
Well, we’ve come back full circle. Where’s your evidence that there aren’t any people like that? Your experience tells you that. My experience tells me otherwise. So now what?
As for having no control over the development of ideas, it still doesn’t make a case against free will, in my opinion. Just because it pops into your head doesn’t mean a – you have to follow it, or b – that you can’t consciously choose to expose yourself to this or that kind of information. Twain’s argument is ‘you think you can choose those things, but actually it’s your Inner Master that dictates them to you’. So we come back to the extent to which the
Inner Master is controllable.
Let’s try to use reasoning and thought-experiments and try to go through this stuff a little at a time.
An idea pops up (no free will so far as I think you have agreed) and then it may or may not be followed by another spontaneous no-free-will mental event: The idea to consider the previous idea, to react to it or not, to instantly consider it ridiculous or impossible and reject it out of hand, whatever. But this second event JUST POPPED UP, and so will the next, and so will the next. YOU can’t direct them. Try it and see.
Look at the time; how many more minutes are you going to spend on OlioOx today? Observe your thoughts. Right after you read that question, a stream of thoughts poured automatically into your mind, one followed by another, right?
Make up some more thought-experiments and let me know what happens. Try to make one that demonstrates free will. (You’ll notice I’m only dealing with part of this whole issue, we should take things step by step)
“Right after you read that question, a stream of thoughts poured automatically into your mind, one followed by another, right?”
No. I didn’t want to think about it so I didn’t. The not wanting isn’t a thought either, like ‘I don’t want to think about this’. It’s just a lack of intention to think about it. If the intention to think about something isn’t there I wont think about it.
Likewise, the popping up wont just happen randomly. I have to have the intention to think about the topic. Yes, the ‘thinking’ is just stuff popping up – a no-free-will mental event, like you said. But I don’t have to engage in it. If I need to work a topic out for some external reason, I will create the intent and start on the ‘thinking’ process. If I am in the mood for experiencing thought on a certain topic, I may create the intention and let myself be carried away by the stream for a while. But barring having to think about something or wanting to think about something my mind is still, and I can choose to stay there. How is that not free-will?
I’ve been looking at “What is Man?” again and improving the formatting — the one you see all over the web has all caps where there should be italics, except in a few places. Here is my new improved edition, much more like Twain actually published it. The italics are more tasteful than those caps.
http://www.2shared.com/document/4InIInmy/What_is_Man__-_Mark_Twain_-_Im.html
Phedre I will try to deal with your head-scratching challenges when I can but I’m not sure I can do better than Twain himself….
So there was no thought, but instead a “lack of intention to think about it.” But that also does not involve free will. No intention or “thought” to think about it popped into your mind. The automatic machinery of the mind is also capable of non-response. I suppose you simply didn’t stop to think at the question-mark, but kept reading, which would adequately explain the lack of intention at that point.
Could you have chosen in this manner, upon seeing my prediction: “I may either have the desire or intention to think about this, or I will not. Hmm, I think I will choose not to have the desire to think about it”? Notice, this does not mean, “I will choose to think or not think about it.” I am asking, could you have at all controlled, or FREELY CHOSEN, your initial, immediate mental or emotional or whatever response to my prediction? The answer is no.
I was wrong to try to predict your response; every mind is unique and will respond in a different way (if it is aware of the stimulus). But there is an instant, automatic response of SOME kind, even if it’s a very small and low-level one like the vague awareness of a perhaps not very stimulating stimulus. And I think you will agree that that FIRST response, whatever it consists of, is not subject to any free will. Even if you have TRAINED yourself to respond in very special ways (leaving aside for later the question of why you ‘chose’ to do the training), the trained response is still automatic. And during the training phase, you desire a certain response, but as you’re not finished training, the automatic response is not yet always the one you want it to be.
First responses don’t have to be thoughts; they can be anything which is perceived by the mind, like a feeling for example, to which no thought seems to be attached. In all cases however, these first responses to a mental or physical stimulus which originates outside the mind are automatic and not subject to free will. Agreed?
If you agree so far, we will next discuss what happens after the initial automatic response — or, if you like, after the initial automatic PART of the response, if the response is felt to be a long one, during which one may have the impression of control — but control only beginning at some point AFTER the automatic and uncontrolled beginning. It would be simpler just to split such a response into two: The first automatic response, and then the response to the response, which we will next have to examine for the presence of free will.
“Could you have chosen in this manner, upon seeing my prediction: “I may either have the desire or intention to think about this, or I will not. Hmm, I think I will choose not to have the desire to think about it”? Notice, this does not mean, “I will choose to think or not think about it.” I am asking, could you have at all controlled, or FREELY CHOSEN, your initial, immediate mental or emotional or whatever response to my prediction? The answer is no.”
Notice I said above, “The not wanting isn’t a thought either, like ‘I don’t want to think about this’.”
My initial response is not a response. There is no immediate mental or emotional reaction. The words are just words. They’re unconnected to my consciousness. I can engage with them, but it doesn’t come from a place of wanting or not wanting. I’m not sure how else to describe it.
For the record, I didn’t get to that through meditation. Meditation helps me to be conscious of when I am out of that state and get back into it faster, but it actually happened on its own when I really nailed my diet. Other people have had this experience too. When you get your digestion utterly perfect and are nutritionally replete this seems to happen on its own.
I made some more corrections to my cleaned-up edition of “What is Man?”
http://www.2shared.com/document/jaFnN9wz/What_is_Man__-_Mark_Twain_-_Im.html
That’s all very interesting, but it is not evidence for free will. In fact, it doesn’t seem to constitute evidence for anything at all. Perhaps it describes a state of mind wherein one doesn’t give a flying toss whether one has free will or not? If so it is an enviable state of mind.
Haha, that may be true. Seriously though, it’s not a state of not caring in the way that boredom is. I can choose to engage with the moment and delve into the emotional or mental stream. That’s the point. It is a choice. The choice is between stillness and engagement, and *I* make that choice. Freely. I don’t have to do it. Nothing changes either way. There’s no ‘Inner Master’ to care whether I choose to engage or not. I can just spontaneously do it or not.
Anyone else with the same experience want to chime in? I’d rather not feel like I’m just talking about myself here.
The point about the inner master is that it may feel like ‘you’ are making the choice, but any choice you make is the one that contents your own spirit the most. Sure, you may choose this or that or nothing at all; but something in your brain evaluates the choices and picks the one that most contents your spirit at that moment; and what most contents your spirit is not under your control either; it is the combined product of your total MAKE and EDUCATION – but as you have read Twain’s dialogue thoroughly, you of course know which sections I’m referring to.
Look, I know you think that I’m evaluating myself inaccurately. There’s nothing I can do to make you see it otherwise, because my experience is not yours. But I can say in fully honest reflection that when I am in this state – and remember, I did mention that it is not constant. I know the one you’re talking about and I experience it daily too. This is different. – when I am in this state neither choice ‘contents my spirit’ more than the other. In any given instance I can choose to engage or not and it doesn’t matter. Neither option is better than the other. It’s not an intellectual thing, like ‘I know a isn’t better than b, but I’ll just choose a’. There is no judgement. A is fine, b is fine. One of them will happen, or it wont. The Self is disengaged from either a or b or from what the mind may or may not have to say about them.
Consider the possibility that what I’m saying may actually be true. You can keep reinterpreting my words to fit what you think I’m experiencing, and I can keep reformulating, but nothing will get resolved this way. So you can decide that I’m deluded and unable to see my own state of mind clearly, or you can entertain the possibility that I may be right about my experience and try to experience it for yourself.
The problem for me at this point is that I’m not sure I understand you fully; do you mean that sometimes the choices you are aware of in your mind, or the alternatives if you like, seem to be equally choice-worthy? The particular state you are describing is one where none of the choices is actually very interesting, correct? Can you illustrate this state with an example, or anecdote?
“Do you mean that sometimes the choices you are aware of in your mind, or the alternatives if you like, seem to be equally choice-worthy?”
Yes. Barring real physical need or the needs of someone dependent on me, the various directions any one situation can take are all equally ‘choice-worthy’.
Take Twain’s example with the old woman and the carriage on the snowy night. I might offer the woman the carriage or I might not. In the one case the result is that I would be warmer and home sooner (nice), in the other I would enjoy the snowy walk (also nice). But those are *resultant* pleasures. They are incidental to the situation. They are not the motivators of the choice. It’s kind of like neither is interesting and both are interesting at the same time. In other words, it’s not about interest. In the moment, I will choose one or the other but if I had to do the opposite one of my choice, it would make no difference to my state of mind. I’d be just as happy having to do the one I didn’t choose – which is why the choice is actually besides the point.
Any clearer?
We should probably continue this somewhere else … people have been debating whether or not free will exists for hundreds of years so I expect we’ll need a week or two to solve it once and for all (and then announce the good news to the world)
No more than that, I’m sure. What do you propose?
I think it’s time I joined a philosophy discussion board of some kind but i have no idea where to begin frankly… give me a few days … i’ll ask at coursera.org (I’m one of the 180,000 people who signed up for their course on Logic and Argumentation)
Pingback: Debunking more PUA bullshit « Random Xpat Rantings