To finish up this series, I just want to make a bit of a list of real scenarios I've come across that illustrate some common pitfalls. The reason for doing this is to illustrate how easy it is for the "mystic" to lose sight of her/his rational faculties, thus falling into the realm of simple fantasy. Superseding reason may be a worthwhile endeavor, but we should remember that losing sight of reason entirely can lead to trouble.
True Case #1: Someone I know states that while "channeling" one day he spontaneously wrote in ancient Chinese. According to the story, this was verified by someone nearby who just happened to be familiar with ancient Chinese writing. This person believes that this series of events is proof of reincarnation: If he writes in ancient Chinese, he must once have been a Chinese person.
One thing that makes cases like this tough is that it's all second-hand information. One must first ask whether he was telling the truth or simply lying in order to be perceived a certain way. This is a matter of personal assessment. In this case, I think there's a reasonable chance of some level of fabrication. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that this account is completely true. Can it be taken as evidence of reincarnation?
The case in favor of such a conclusion would seem to hinge on the assumption that reincarnation is the only possible explanation for what occurred. Even if we can completely rule out the possibility that somewhere sometime this person saw ancient Chinese writing and was able to draw on that memory in his trance state, it seems like a bit of a stretch to suppose that there can be only one explanation. For example, is it possible that the Chinese text was read directly from the mind of that nearby person who happened to understand it? Could there have been some other kind of intermediary? In other words, the mechanism by which something like this might happen is not understood in any objective way. We cannot really say how this information would have entered his mind, but it is easy enough to imagine at least a few scenarios, none of which can be tested, given this set of information.
True Case #2: Someone else claims that at the age of six, he began to sing a song whose sole lyrics were "The electrons are better than the waves." This person claims to have had no interest or knowledge of wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics at that time. He believes that he had not been exposed to anything mentioning this topic before. He is curious about what this might mean, but has been unable to draw any specific conclusions on the matter.
As for reliability, I've assessed this person as being very likely to have told the truth about this event. Still, memory of events before the age of six is not generally the most reliable, even less so when trying to claim that one would never have been exposed to certain words, for example. The word "electronics" would certainly have been heard by that stage at the very least, and the word "wave" would have been a part of this person's everyday vocabulary. One is inclined to write this off as coincidence.
Then again, one definition of synchronicity is "meaningful coincidence." To draw a definitive conclusion on the matter based on the fact that there may be a more mundane explanation seems perhaps a bit hasty. In the absence of further evidence, the "who knows?" attitude seems like a healthy one.
True Story #3: Another person claims to have found evidence of ghosts or spirits in an area she frequently visits. The evidence consists of temperature differences at different times of the day. These temperature differences are not necessarily inconsistent with what one might naturally expect. For example: On hot days, it is not inexplicably cold.
...and even if it were... Well, I'll leave that to you. One thing I want to stress here, though, is that it's easy to condemn, but trying to understand may actually be more instructive. What do you think this person's thought process is/was? In other words, what do you think caused this error, and why do you think you are immune to it? If you think this person is simply "stupid" or "irrational" or "superstitious", and that is the whole of your thought process, you are not looking deeply enough.
True Story #4: Someone else I know once claimed to have seen a "vision" of a peculiar shape on the ceiling. This person attached meaning and importance to the shape as a consequence. It was later discovered by this person that the "vision" was simply a pattern of shadows created by clutter near a light source. For some time afterward, the person tried to cling to the notion that the shape was important, though it never was clear how or why.
Ahh, this old trap: "I want to feel that something important and mysterious is happening to me." It may have seemed important when it was thought to be coming from a non-physical source, but afterward information was discovered that showed that it was not even remotely supernatural in origin (unless...). At that stage, however, it was apparently hard for this person to make the psychological adjustment to critical thought. Eventually, this person admitted that the whole episode was useless silliness. Someone less capable of "coming down" might have been chasing rainbows with this one for years -- perhaps a lifetime.
I think that's it for this one. To reiterate my position as clearly as I can:
If you cannot think from a rational materialist viewpoint, you are lost.
If you can only think from a rational materialist viewpoint, you are imprisoned.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The Rationalist and the Mystic, Part 2
The scenario is simple and well-known: Person 1 has a revelation and is spoken to by Jesus. Person 1 believes that this is confirmation of Christian doctrine. Person 2 has a revelation and is spoken to by Krishna. Person 2 believes that this is confirmation of Hindu doctrine. As the two are not in agreement on all points, it is clear to the outside observer that both cannot be true. What conclusions can be drawn from this?
Some people may dismiss both "revelations" as false, on the grounds that people from a wide variety of cultures might have comparable experiences which agree with neither of the above when it comes to details. In other words, it is clear that one's belief system entering into such an event has a lot to do with what the person experiences and perceives, and thus it is clear that the person is experiencing something other than objective reality. This would be a typical skeptical viewpoint.
The mystic might interpret the above scenario a little differently. The fact that neither person is likely to have experienced objective reality should be taken as a warning against the assumption that one's own experiences (and interpretations) are necessarily objective facts. In other words, the discrepancies between Person 1 and Person 2 cannot be taken as serious disproof of the extraordinary (for lack of a better term). Similarly, the fact that two people on opposite sides of the world might look into the sky and see extremely different depictions of the sun does not disprove the existence of the sun.
Robert Anton Wilson illustrates a healthy attitude about such matters when he talks about the time he believed he was receiving transmissions from Sirius. After a while, he decided to test whether other views of the matter would interpret his experiences equally well. For example, could those transmissions have been from a 6'3" white rabbit, like in the movie Harvey? He thought so. He also thought that the transmissions could just as easily be interpreted as coming from the right side of his brain. In the end, he decided to stick with the white rabbit explanation because he was unlikely to take it too seriously.
This approach seems like a good way to ward against fanaticism. But in any case, I hope that by now the idea that our little scenario "disproves" the mystical experience is looking a little shallow. Those things that Persons 1 & 2 perceived were occurring in the brain, of course, but that has nothing to do with how powerfully the experiences may have affected their lives.
On the other hand, if Person 3 (Sufi Muslim) and Person 4 (atheist) both pray to Allah hoping for a personal revelation, I would bet good money that Person 3 will get results well before Person 4. The reason is because Person 4 would probably not be able to break free of the "this is bullshit" mentality. We might say that Person 3 wants to prove that the idea of God is false, and Person 4 wants to prove the opposite. Interestingly, and importantly, if they both apply themselves with equal fervor and single-mindedness, both will obtain the proofs they desire.
It is not too much of a leap, then, to suppose that Person 5, who ain't no slouch, might be able to obtain both proofs by willingly entering the mindsets which are most likely to produce them. From Person 5's lofty viewpoint, both contradictory claims appear perfectly true from within their own encompassing mindsets. My, what a flexible mind Person 5 has!
Next post: You can't prove nothin', ya superstitious wishy-washy new-age flake!
Some people may dismiss both "revelations" as false, on the grounds that people from a wide variety of cultures might have comparable experiences which agree with neither of the above when it comes to details. In other words, it is clear that one's belief system entering into such an event has a lot to do with what the person experiences and perceives, and thus it is clear that the person is experiencing something other than objective reality. This would be a typical skeptical viewpoint.
The mystic might interpret the above scenario a little differently. The fact that neither person is likely to have experienced objective reality should be taken as a warning against the assumption that one's own experiences (and interpretations) are necessarily objective facts. In other words, the discrepancies between Person 1 and Person 2 cannot be taken as serious disproof of the extraordinary (for lack of a better term). Similarly, the fact that two people on opposite sides of the world might look into the sky and see extremely different depictions of the sun does not disprove the existence of the sun.
Robert Anton Wilson illustrates a healthy attitude about such matters when he talks about the time he believed he was receiving transmissions from Sirius. After a while, he decided to test whether other views of the matter would interpret his experiences equally well. For example, could those transmissions have been from a 6'3" white rabbit, like in the movie Harvey? He thought so. He also thought that the transmissions could just as easily be interpreted as coming from the right side of his brain. In the end, he decided to stick with the white rabbit explanation because he was unlikely to take it too seriously.
This approach seems like a good way to ward against fanaticism. But in any case, I hope that by now the idea that our little scenario "disproves" the mystical experience is looking a little shallow. Those things that Persons 1 & 2 perceived were occurring in the brain, of course, but that has nothing to do with how powerfully the experiences may have affected their lives.
On the other hand, if Person 3 (Sufi Muslim) and Person 4 (atheist) both pray to Allah hoping for a personal revelation, I would bet good money that Person 3 will get results well before Person 4. The reason is because Person 4 would probably not be able to break free of the "this is bullshit" mentality. We might say that Person 3 wants to prove that the idea of God is false, and Person 4 wants to prove the opposite. Interestingly, and importantly, if they both apply themselves with equal fervor and single-mindedness, both will obtain the proofs they desire.
It is not too much of a leap, then, to suppose that Person 5, who ain't no slouch, might be able to obtain both proofs by willingly entering the mindsets which are most likely to produce them. From Person 5's lofty viewpoint, both contradictory claims appear perfectly true from within their own encompassing mindsets. My, what a flexible mind Person 5 has!
Next post: You can't prove nothin', ya superstitious wishy-washy new-age flake!
Friday, March 26, 2010
The Rationalist and the Mystic, Part 1
I've been meaning to write this post for a while. I put it off partly because I felt like it was a bit too obvious to bother writing about, but an exchange I had today reminded me that it's still something that should be put out there.
One pretty large rift that I'm sure hasn't escaped anyone's attention these days is the one between so-called skeptics and so-called believers. This is related to any sort of claim about "spiritual" or "paranormal" phenomena, as well as metaphysical models of the way the universe works and religious dogma. The "believer" claims that there is something extraordinary going on (psychic phenomena, spiritual entities, survival of consciousness beyond death, etc), and the "skeptic" (for the sake of this post, "skeptic" will refer to someone coming from a hard-line rational materialist viewpoint generally, and not a skeptic in the original sense) claims that it is not so.
The skeptic in this scenario generally has good reason to doubt: Scams are everywhere. People from all sorts of religious or spiritual viewpoints have been caught red-handed blatantly faking miracles by a wide variety of clever means. Scientific findings which disagree with an official religious dogma have in the past been ignored or suppressed. In short, there is every reason to treat psychics, faith healers, religious leaders, astrologers, palm-readers, etc. as people who are probably full of shit.
What's also clear is that new-agers, religious and spiritual types, seem at times to be ridiculously gullible. After all, they're willing to accept wild absurdities about miracles of all sorts, often without a shred of hard evidence. Those who think they have personal proofs often seem to be deluding themselves, setting aside the rational mind entirely in favor of what they would prefer to believe.
For these reasons at the very least, the skeptic is quite justified in starting any investigation of these matters with a very high degree of doubt. It is unfortunate, but perhaps understandable, that such people couple this doubt with a certain degree of contempt for all such extraordinary claims. The skeptic believes that the "truth" of this matter will be settled by science, in which the overwhelming burden of proof must fall on those who make extraordinary claims.
What, then, does the mystic have to say about all this (and why in the hell should anyone take such a person seriously)? The mystic, much like the modern scientist, is one who seeks proofs. But the proof of the mystic is not the same kind of proof as that of the scientist. The main difference is that the scientific viewpoint holds that proof is to be found external to the experimenter, whereas the mystic holds that proof can only be found by individual direct experience.
The mystic then seeks that experience for him/her self, with the understanding that it is the only thing can settle the matter. If I experience X, and you believe there is no evidence of X and it is in fact impossible, your opinion is completely irrelevant to me. It has already happened. Even if your reasons are completely correct by all rational measures, I have acquired proof to the contrary. It's not the kind of proof that should convince anyone else, but that's another matter.
On the other hand, this gets us into some tricky territory. Naturally, if this occurs for two people from radically different cultural or religious backgrounds which conflict with one another, we can recognize that they cannot both be completely right. As for what conclusions can be rightly drawn from this, though, well, that's a topic for the next post!
One pretty large rift that I'm sure hasn't escaped anyone's attention these days is the one between so-called skeptics and so-called believers. This is related to any sort of claim about "spiritual" or "paranormal" phenomena, as well as metaphysical models of the way the universe works and religious dogma. The "believer" claims that there is something extraordinary going on (psychic phenomena, spiritual entities, survival of consciousness beyond death, etc), and the "skeptic" (for the sake of this post, "skeptic" will refer to someone coming from a hard-line rational materialist viewpoint generally, and not a skeptic in the original sense) claims that it is not so.
The skeptic in this scenario generally has good reason to doubt: Scams are everywhere. People from all sorts of religious or spiritual viewpoints have been caught red-handed blatantly faking miracles by a wide variety of clever means. Scientific findings which disagree with an official religious dogma have in the past been ignored or suppressed. In short, there is every reason to treat psychics, faith healers, religious leaders, astrologers, palm-readers, etc. as people who are probably full of shit.
What's also clear is that new-agers, religious and spiritual types, seem at times to be ridiculously gullible. After all, they're willing to accept wild absurdities about miracles of all sorts, often without a shred of hard evidence. Those who think they have personal proofs often seem to be deluding themselves, setting aside the rational mind entirely in favor of what they would prefer to believe.
For these reasons at the very least, the skeptic is quite justified in starting any investigation of these matters with a very high degree of doubt. It is unfortunate, but perhaps understandable, that such people couple this doubt with a certain degree of contempt for all such extraordinary claims. The skeptic believes that the "truth" of this matter will be settled by science, in which the overwhelming burden of proof must fall on those who make extraordinary claims.
What, then, does the mystic have to say about all this (and why in the hell should anyone take such a person seriously)? The mystic, much like the modern scientist, is one who seeks proofs. But the proof of the mystic is not the same kind of proof as that of the scientist. The main difference is that the scientific viewpoint holds that proof is to be found external to the experimenter, whereas the mystic holds that proof can only be found by individual direct experience.
The mystic then seeks that experience for him/her self, with the understanding that it is the only thing can settle the matter. If I experience X, and you believe there is no evidence of X and it is in fact impossible, your opinion is completely irrelevant to me. It has already happened. Even if your reasons are completely correct by all rational measures, I have acquired proof to the contrary. It's not the kind of proof that should convince anyone else, but that's another matter.
On the other hand, this gets us into some tricky territory. Naturally, if this occurs for two people from radically different cultural or religious backgrounds which conflict with one another, we can recognize that they cannot both be completely right. As for what conclusions can be rightly drawn from this, though, well, that's a topic for the next post!
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Free Will
I've not been posting much because, well, I guess I'm not quite sure what I want this blog to be about. Recently I've been really struck by how much material there is on esoteric topics of all kinds, and I've become uncomfortable adding to the information overload -- which has its upside, to be sure, but I also think it's a problem that I'm uncomfortable contributing to. But for now, I guess I'm going to set that aside and see how it feels.
My next series here is about the concept of free will. By free will, I am referring to the idea that we each have the ability to choose for ourselves what we do. Philosophically, this idea is often taken for granted, especially in the Western world. It should go without saying that not all worldviews share this particular idea.
The most extreme views on this matter generally seem to come from spiritual outlooks, which probably shouldn't be a surprise. On one side, we have the New Age idea that we are all responsible for everything in our lives. I've heard this idea a lot, I'm not even sure who its most prominent exponent is. Esther Hicks comes to mind. The underlying principle is that we are all far more powerful than we realize, and in fact we are co-creating our realities and the universe itself. Thus, whatever occurs to a person is his/her creation. Consequently, the victim is also the perpetrator in all cases. More on this later.
The other extreme seems to be the belief that we are controlled by our surroundings in all respects, living out essentially mechanical lives from start to finish. To them, nothing we do can break away from our destinies, subjective appearances notwithstanding. We are small parts of the larger cosmic machine and free will is illusory. U.G. Krishnamurti was a particularly interesting character who seemed to hold this view.
With respect to the first extreme, as I said, its most rabid followers in the West seem to be coming from the New Agers. A friend's partner once wrote a story in which the protagonist killed a New Age guru who held this view -- which was sarcastically served as "proof" that the guru wanted to be killed. A similar outlook seems to form part of the basis of Western society's punitive institutions. The criminal chooses crime, thus proving that he/she has decided in favor of evil... I'm sure we can guess what follows.
The second extreme has its own problems. It can lead to pitfalls of non-involvement or justification for any course of action. For example: "I can harm others in whatever way I see fit because my actions are a result of forces beyond my control. I have no true freedom, therefore whatever I do is inevitable and not my responsibility."
And this brings me to why I decided to write on this topic. It's not that I'm inherently interested in whether or not free will exists. I am not. I think the question is ultimately unanswerable, and I'd rather not waste too much of my time chasing after rainbows.
Why then does it remain an important topic to me? Because we have all made some assessments, whether consciously or not, about whether people are ultimately responsible for their actions, and when. This means that we posses internal models for dealing with this matter which affect how we interact with others in the outside world.
Anecdotally, a relative of mine (a fundamentalist Christian) has long held the view that our emotions and actions are all choices we make. At the time I was interacting with him most, I regularly had insomnia. If I complained about poor sleep, he would tell me (sarcastically), "Good choice." This was not in the least bit helpful and subjectively it also didn't seem to be true. My suspicion is that in this circumstance, his model of the functioning of "free will" had overridden his natural better sense.
What I'd like to do is present a slightly more flexible model of how this works, and I guess with any luck someone will find it useful.
I'll start with another anecdote. A few years ago, I started to develop hay fever at certain times of the year. It is still not entirely clear to me what exactly I had become allergic to (wattle?), but it became so severe that on certain days I was put pretty much entirely out of commission. Going outside was very stressful if not impossible because my nose was constantly streaming and sneezing fits were so extreme that it became hard to walk or even stand. The whole experience was really quite miserable. Even strong allergy medications only helped up to a certain point.
After a certain time, I had begun doing a lot of careful self-observation combined with a few techniques for calming down tensions. When I started to become a bit more skilled in these areas, I suddenly realized one day that I had become capable of catching a sneeze before it happened and calming it down, so that my allergic reaction didn't kick in. With a bit of practice, I became better at this, and partly for this reason, I haven't had comparable allergies since, though my control over the matter is far from perfect.
Now, if someone had come up to me when my allergies were bad and had told me that I was making a choice to be so allergic, I would have told that person to fuck off. But on a certain level, one could argue that the "free choice" model was correct, since later on I demonstrated the ability to make it stop. The problem with this idea should be obvious. To give me a hard time about that would have been akin to yelling at a healthy newborn for not being able to walk. That capacity develops later, and with effort. The newborn does not somehow "choose" to be incapable of the normal functioning of an adult. Likewise, I don't think I should expect anyone else to be able to just stop sneezing.
The "newborn" analogy is not perfect, though, since the ability to walk will certainly develop in a normal human being whereas the ability to catch a sneeze and stop it before it happens will not. This brings up another common problem: The tendency to expect that others should be capable of everything we are ourselves capable of. This tendency is maybe a bit of a tangent to the main "free will" idea, but it's related in that often the unspoken model for how we judge ourselves and others is something like, "Whatever I can do could be done by you if only you really wanted to. Whatever I cannot do is forgivable because I just can't do it." That is, your inabilities are related to your failure to exercise free will as I have. My inabilities are related to the hand that fate dealt me. This double-standard seems to be a pretty common trap and should be guarded against vigorously.
Back to my sneezing anecdote, it should be noted that my ability to stop sneezing did not develop out of any sort of prayer or blind application of some hazy notion of "will power", as though it were an arm-wrestling contest. It did not develop out of any dogmatic notions regarding the capacity of free will or choice. In fact, it did not even develop out of a desire to stop sneezing. The primary practices that led to its development were the practice of extending my self-awareness and the practice of alleviating my natural tensions. I emphasize this point both because I think it generalizes for control over many other aspects of the mind and body, and because some people seem to adhere to the "arm-wrestling match" model of free will at times when other models are probably more appropriate to the development of greater freedom.
And speaking of "greater freedom" -- now we're touching on what I think is the heart of the matter. Gaining a greater control and understanding of some function of one's being -- emotional, physical, mental, whatever -- does not necessarily imply total control over that function. Likewise, it does not necessarily imply anything about one's degree of control over other functions.
This is another common pitfall. Using my sneezing anecdote as an example, it does not mean necessarily that I can be expected to never sneeze. It also does not mean that I am any good at controlling my flinch response.
In terms of "free will", however, it might be clearest to say that I have been able to extend a greater degree of free will into one particular aspect of my physical being. Some people might have seen me write elsewhere that "free will is not a boolean value." This is what I'm trying to get at. Whether there is any true free will in the absolute sense is not my concern. However, I now appear to have a choice where previously I appeared to have none.
One related thing I want to note: Robert Anton Wilson, when talking about Timothy Leary's Eight Circuit Model of Consciousness, has made the point that from the point of view of each successive circuit, those who only function on the previous ones appear to be unthinking robots. That is to say, each one on some level represents a certain degree of relative deautomatization. The overall view is not "once you're here, you're free," but rather, "from this point of view, you appear more free than you previously were." This distinction does not always occur to the experiencer of a new state of consciousness without some external source pointing it out.
What do I hope the reader will take away from all this this? I guess a few things, but these three in particular:
1. Free will is not a boolean value.
2. Judgment of others is a tricky matter. What functions does the other person have real control over, and to what degree? You do not know. Know yourself first.
3. You (yes, YOU!) (YES! YOU!) do not have control over the mechanisms of your being. You function largely as a reactive biological machine (just like how you think all those other stupid people work). This is true regardless of your education. By increasing your awareness and calming yourself down, some aspects of this condition may be partially alleviated.
The methods for doing so are laid out in a variety of esoteric traditions. If you're looking for somewhere to start, personally I think Crowley's Liber E is an excellent resource.
My next series here is about the concept of free will. By free will, I am referring to the idea that we each have the ability to choose for ourselves what we do. Philosophically, this idea is often taken for granted, especially in the Western world. It should go without saying that not all worldviews share this particular idea.
The most extreme views on this matter generally seem to come from spiritual outlooks, which probably shouldn't be a surprise. On one side, we have the New Age idea that we are all responsible for everything in our lives. I've heard this idea a lot, I'm not even sure who its most prominent exponent is. Esther Hicks comes to mind. The underlying principle is that we are all far more powerful than we realize, and in fact we are co-creating our realities and the universe itself. Thus, whatever occurs to a person is his/her creation. Consequently, the victim is also the perpetrator in all cases. More on this later.
The other extreme seems to be the belief that we are controlled by our surroundings in all respects, living out essentially mechanical lives from start to finish. To them, nothing we do can break away from our destinies, subjective appearances notwithstanding. We are small parts of the larger cosmic machine and free will is illusory. U.G. Krishnamurti was a particularly interesting character who seemed to hold this view.
With respect to the first extreme, as I said, its most rabid followers in the West seem to be coming from the New Agers. A friend's partner once wrote a story in which the protagonist killed a New Age guru who held this view -- which was sarcastically served as "proof" that the guru wanted to be killed. A similar outlook seems to form part of the basis of Western society's punitive institutions. The criminal chooses crime, thus proving that he/she has decided in favor of evil... I'm sure we can guess what follows.
The second extreme has its own problems. It can lead to pitfalls of non-involvement or justification for any course of action. For example: "I can harm others in whatever way I see fit because my actions are a result of forces beyond my control. I have no true freedom, therefore whatever I do is inevitable and not my responsibility."
And this brings me to why I decided to write on this topic. It's not that I'm inherently interested in whether or not free will exists. I am not. I think the question is ultimately unanswerable, and I'd rather not waste too much of my time chasing after rainbows.
Why then does it remain an important topic to me? Because we have all made some assessments, whether consciously or not, about whether people are ultimately responsible for their actions, and when. This means that we posses internal models for dealing with this matter which affect how we interact with others in the outside world.
Anecdotally, a relative of mine (a fundamentalist Christian) has long held the view that our emotions and actions are all choices we make. At the time I was interacting with him most, I regularly had insomnia. If I complained about poor sleep, he would tell me (sarcastically), "Good choice." This was not in the least bit helpful and subjectively it also didn't seem to be true. My suspicion is that in this circumstance, his model of the functioning of "free will" had overridden his natural better sense.
What I'd like to do is present a slightly more flexible model of how this works, and I guess with any luck someone will find it useful.
I'll start with another anecdote. A few years ago, I started to develop hay fever at certain times of the year. It is still not entirely clear to me what exactly I had become allergic to (wattle?), but it became so severe that on certain days I was put pretty much entirely out of commission. Going outside was very stressful if not impossible because my nose was constantly streaming and sneezing fits were so extreme that it became hard to walk or even stand. The whole experience was really quite miserable. Even strong allergy medications only helped up to a certain point.
After a certain time, I had begun doing a lot of careful self-observation combined with a few techniques for calming down tensions. When I started to become a bit more skilled in these areas, I suddenly realized one day that I had become capable of catching a sneeze before it happened and calming it down, so that my allergic reaction didn't kick in. With a bit of practice, I became better at this, and partly for this reason, I haven't had comparable allergies since, though my control over the matter is far from perfect.
Now, if someone had come up to me when my allergies were bad and had told me that I was making a choice to be so allergic, I would have told that person to fuck off. But on a certain level, one could argue that the "free choice" model was correct, since later on I demonstrated the ability to make it stop. The problem with this idea should be obvious. To give me a hard time about that would have been akin to yelling at a healthy newborn for not being able to walk. That capacity develops later, and with effort. The newborn does not somehow "choose" to be incapable of the normal functioning of an adult. Likewise, I don't think I should expect anyone else to be able to just stop sneezing.
The "newborn" analogy is not perfect, though, since the ability to walk will certainly develop in a normal human being whereas the ability to catch a sneeze and stop it before it happens will not. This brings up another common problem: The tendency to expect that others should be capable of everything we are ourselves capable of. This tendency is maybe a bit of a tangent to the main "free will" idea, but it's related in that often the unspoken model for how we judge ourselves and others is something like, "Whatever I can do could be done by you if only you really wanted to. Whatever I cannot do is forgivable because I just can't do it." That is, your inabilities are related to your failure to exercise free will as I have. My inabilities are related to the hand that fate dealt me. This double-standard seems to be a pretty common trap and should be guarded against vigorously.
Back to my sneezing anecdote, it should be noted that my ability to stop sneezing did not develop out of any sort of prayer or blind application of some hazy notion of "will power", as though it were an arm-wrestling contest. It did not develop out of any dogmatic notions regarding the capacity of free will or choice. In fact, it did not even develop out of a desire to stop sneezing. The primary practices that led to its development were the practice of extending my self-awareness and the practice of alleviating my natural tensions. I emphasize this point both because I think it generalizes for control over many other aspects of the mind and body, and because some people seem to adhere to the "arm-wrestling match" model of free will at times when other models are probably more appropriate to the development of greater freedom.
And speaking of "greater freedom" -- now we're touching on what I think is the heart of the matter. Gaining a greater control and understanding of some function of one's being -- emotional, physical, mental, whatever -- does not necessarily imply total control over that function. Likewise, it does not necessarily imply anything about one's degree of control over other functions.
This is another common pitfall. Using my sneezing anecdote as an example, it does not mean necessarily that I can be expected to never sneeze. It also does not mean that I am any good at controlling my flinch response.
In terms of "free will", however, it might be clearest to say that I have been able to extend a greater degree of free will into one particular aspect of my physical being. Some people might have seen me write elsewhere that "free will is not a boolean value." This is what I'm trying to get at. Whether there is any true free will in the absolute sense is not my concern. However, I now appear to have a choice where previously I appeared to have none.
One related thing I want to note: Robert Anton Wilson, when talking about Timothy Leary's Eight Circuit Model of Consciousness, has made the point that from the point of view of each successive circuit, those who only function on the previous ones appear to be unthinking robots. That is to say, each one on some level represents a certain degree of relative deautomatization. The overall view is not "once you're here, you're free," but rather, "from this point of view, you appear more free than you previously were." This distinction does not always occur to the experiencer of a new state of consciousness without some external source pointing it out.
What do I hope the reader will take away from all this this? I guess a few things, but these three in particular:
1. Free will is not a boolean value.
2. Judgment of others is a tricky matter. What functions does the other person have real control over, and to what degree? You do not know. Know yourself first.
3. You (yes, YOU!) (YES! YOU!) do not have control over the mechanisms of your being. You function largely as a reactive biological machine (just like how you think all those other stupid people work). This is true regardless of your education. By increasing your awareness and calming yourself down, some aspects of this condition may be partially alleviated.
The methods for doing so are laid out in a variety of esoteric traditions. If you're looking for somewhere to start, personally I think Crowley's Liber E is an excellent resource.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)