Dishonesty V

Scott Bradley

I am an advocate for the exploration of one's motivations as a means to greater self-awareness for the purpose of self-cultivation. When we begin to understand why we say, think and do what we do, we begin to get a sense of the seemingly autonomous powers that control us. One of my personal ironic mantras, for example, is the exclamation, "I just want to be somebody!" This follows upon finding myself propping up my ego with any of a vast number of scenarios in which I am 'right', 'appreciated' or especially 'worthy'. These are pure fantasy as often as not. Write a comment to this post, either positive or negative, and you will provide me an opportunity to self-examine my responses.

It is through such self-examination that I conclude that this endless and futile effort to establish and fix a real and palpable self is the most basic of human self-deceptive projects. It's not enough to simply exist — we require that our existence have some eternal meaning and this we seek to establish by every means possible, even if by things as ludicrous as believing we have an exceptionally cute ass. (Or naturally curly hair, as with one "Peanuts" character.)

This kind of self-examination is invited by the Zhuangzian description of those motivations which reveal a dependence on things external. The sage has no name (no attachment to reputation), no merit (no dependence upon the affirmation of others), no fixed identity (no need to be 'somebody'). The pursuit of such things (name, merit, fixed-identity) is essentially self-deceptive in that to do so is to believe that they can achieve their purpose. They cannot. To believe they have is to enter self-deception of another order.

Is it similarly self-deceptive to believe we can overcome all self-deception? Probably. Can we become the above described sage? Probably not. But this need not put us off the attempt; only awareness of this moderates the nature of that attempt and keeps us honest, that is authentic. Authenticity is not the realization of some ideal, but the honest and conscious acceptance that we have not.

Thus, though the exploration of one's motivations is an important tool for the understanding of what makes one tick, that exploration reveals that we can never really get to the bottom of it all. What motivates our examination of our motives is but another of the questions that must necessarily end in an infinite regress. Honesty, then, is thus in part an acknowledgement of the messiness of the human experience, and that, Zhuangzi might say, is in itself liberating. We are liberated, not from the mess, but within it.

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

Shenzi IX

Scott Bradley

They began by equalizing all things . . . . They knew that each thing had something acceptable and something unacceptable about it and declared, 'To make a choice is to lose the all-pervading; when one thing is taught, something else is blocked out. But the Dao excludes nothing."
(Zhuangzi 33; Ziporyn)

This quote and its interpretation so closely resemble Zhuangzi's arguments that one can only wonder at who inspired whom. As stated in an introductory post, Shenzi was Zhuangzi's older contemporary and Hansen, at least, sees his writing as having preceded that of Zhuangzi. In any event, upon consideration, what becomes most striking here are not the similarities between their positions, but their differences.

First, there is the application. Shenzi (if we can believe the author) sees his equalization of all things as a call to cease making choices altogether; to make a choice is to acknowledge differences and Dao recognizes no differences, ergo, make no choices. This position is extreme, and I think we can understand how this is so if we look at it within the context of the paradoxical nature of the One and the many. The tendency, should one be inclined toward a vision of Oneness, is to believe this somehow negates the absolute integrity, the reality, of things in their individuation. If there is One, then the many are in some way illusory. Shenzi fails to abide in paradox, but rather takes his equalization of things as literal, as the nature of a metaphysical Reality called Dao.

Zhuangzi would have had none of this. "Seen from the point of view of their differences [the many things are absolutely unique and discrete]; seen from the point of view of their sameness, all things are one." These are perspectives, not metaphysical assertions. Zhuangzi's equalization of things is perspectival. He recommends this perspective of oneness as a way of achieving inner freedom, not as a way of complying with the nature of ultimate Reality. Never does Zhuangzi prejudice the many, things in their wonderful differences, in the name of the One. If the One and the many are logically mutually-exclusive, then logic be damned.

Zhuangzi's position thus enables a subtlety of application that Shenzi's cannot. Shenzi says, Do nothing; Zhuangzi says, Practice wuwei (not-doing doing). Shenzi says, Make no choices; Zhuangzi says, Make choices while informed of the inconsequentiality of their ultimate outcomes. Shenzi says, Learn nothing; Zhuangzi says, Learn everything without attaching to anything as if known. Zhuangzi's Dao is "ironic", self-negating; Shenzi's Dao is literal, fixed and absolute. I fear I have done a poor job of articulating (and understanding) how incredibly different these two approaches are and how important. Zhuangzi's "ironic Dao" (Ziporyn's term), is an assumed Dao, not an actual entity Dao, and thus its application is not prescriptively linear, but always paradoxical, open-ended and tentative. Wuwei cannot be practiced without things (events), for it is the things which elicit the responses of following along. We say Yes to the One only in that we say Yes to the many.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

Shenzi VIII

Scott Bradley

I agree with Chad Hansen that Zhuangzi was a complete skeptic when it comes to the idea that there is a metaphysical Dao. And it seems that Shenzi was not, but rather speculated that there is, and drew conclusions about how we might best live accordingly.

Zhuangzi's skepticism, however, is not a negation; he simply does not know, and proceeds accordingly. Shenzi's apparent belief in a metaphysical Dao, however, seems to arrive at the same conclusions about how best to live as does Zhuangzi. The reason for this, I think, is that though while Shenzi suggests a metaphysical Dao, he does not conclude that the best way to live is by some mystical union with this Dao. His Dao provides an example of how we might view the world — it embraces all things and makes no distinctions, and so might we. Thus, in the end, his use of Dao is to arrive at a psychological dao, similar to that of Zhuangzi.

Of Zhuangzi I think we can say that he too sometimes dabbles in speculation about a metaphysical Dao. However, though the idea of such a Dao similarly informs his formulation of a psychological dao, that dao does not require that there be a Dao; that would be to depend on something. These two inform each other, but both are never anything other than tentative and helpful aids to carefree, non-dependent living.

At this point it might be helpful to shake ourselves lose from too much intellection and seriousness. If Zhuangzi dabbles in speculation, it is because he's not interested in following rules — even his own. When not-knowing takes itself too seriously, it becomes what it intends to escape. Not-knowing can be as ever much an expression of rationalism as can knowing. This is the problem with calling Zhuangzi a skeptic; it implies that he has taken a rationalized position, and nothing could be further from the truth; he has taken up a position of flexible fuzziness — one he believes best expresses the life-experience. Perhaps more important to Zhuangzi than not-knowing is playfulness, and playfulness won't allow not-knowing to become some ridge principle to be applied and imposed upon the world.

Thus Shenzi's metaphysical Dao, if he posited one, and Zhuangzi's lack of one, are of no great consequence in terms of their conclusions because both proceed to formulate a psychological dao that requires no Dao.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

Shenzi VI

Scott Bradley

They began by equalizing all things . . .
(Zhuangzi 33; Ziporyn)

If we conclude that equalizing all things is a psychological activity, it still remains to be understood what this really entails. The title of the second chapter of the Zhuangzi, Qiwulun, can be translated as "equalizing our assessments about things". In other words, it is coming to understand that all our judgments about things are based on our unique perspective and thus all views are, from a wider view, equal. This results in an openness toward all points of view, but does not necessitate the abandonment of our own point of view.

"Things" (wu), Ziporyn points out, means a great deal more than simply inanimate objects; it includes all beings and, perhaps most importantly, all our responses to the world as we experience it. It thus means that we equalize "benefit and harm"; we may seek what we think to be the former and avoid the latter, but we are also able to equalize them in terms of our responses to them. Equalizing in this sense is the freedom realized in an equaniminous mind. Nothing can "enter our Numinous Reservoir" so as to disturb us, because we depend on no outcome, whether thought to be beneficial or harmful, for our inner peace. We equalize "good and evil" not because we negate their validity, but because we have a point of view from which we realize that they cannot effect ultimate outcomes. Evil may kill me, but death and life are a single thread, so what is ultimately lost?

The reader may have noticed that I said that equalizing things implies equalizing our responses to things, yet I have prescribed a certain kind of response, equanimity. So, let us equalize equanimity and non-equanimity; let us equalize how we would like to be and how we actually are. Let us realize that the equalization of all things means that there are no conditions which have to be met for us to be absolutely affirmable just as we are. There is nothing we need become, however messed-up we may think ourselves to be. Equalizing things means everything, right now, just as they are.

Equalize it, mon!

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

Shenzi V

Scott Bradley

They began by equalizing all things . . .
(Zhuangzi 33; Ziporyn)

This is as good a place to start as any other, I suppose. Indeed, though it sounds like but the first step of many, if actualized, wouldn't it obviate the need for any other? There are many ways to verbally frame the view from Dao, but that view, once realized, realizes them all.

Equalizing all things is an activity with which we are familiar from Zhuangzi, and if Shenzi did indeed write before him, then it is quite possible that Zhuangzi was in some sense indebted to him, as he was to many others. But then, we only have the author of the Tianxia chapter's interpretive word for it — it is he who tells us that Shenzi and friends began by equalizing things. Here, and elsewhere, the author makes an interpretive assertion about Shenzi and then provides a quote intended to demonstrate that assessment that, to my thinking at least, fails to unambiguously support the interpretation. It may very well be that he is anachronistically interpreting Shenzi in the light of later philosophizing, namely that of Zhuangzi. Still, Shenzi and friends seem to have been working on the same approach to inner freedom as Zhuangzi.

Did Shenzi then manage to equalize all things? Did Zhuangzi? If all things are already equal, why would they require equalizing, and if not, how could they be made so? But they are not equal, or at least we need not assert their equality, for the equalizing of things is a psychological activity, not a metaphysical assertion. Thus, if Shenzi and Zhuangzi did manage to equalize all things, then they did so in terms of their own awareness, their own interface with life. The equalization of all things is a 'state' of mind.

We can say that these two began by intellectually equalizing things as a matter of a first step toward realizing it in their conscious experience. Zhuangzi, in the Qiwulun chapter (2), makes a reasoned case for the equalization of our opinions about things. All our judgments are born of our individual perspectives. We think a woman particularly beautiful, but deer flee from her as if from a monster. The view from Dao appreciates that though we must necessarily have a particular perspective we need not cling to it as if to 'truth'. We can appreciate that every perspective is an expression of Dao, even as every sound the forest and crannies make in response to the wind is of equal value.

But this is not the equalization of all things. Though "saying so, makes it so", as Zhuangzi tells us, it remains only intellectually so. The point is to make it so in our actual conscious experience. That is equalizing all things.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

Shenzi III

Scott Bradley

All-embracing and non-partisan, unstrained and unbiased, unhesitating but without any fixed direction, going worth to things without secondary considerations, ignoring all calculations, uninvolved in any clever schemes, choicelessly moving along with things: these were aspects of the ancient Art of the Dao. Peng Meng, Tian Pian, and Shen Dao got wind of them and were delighted.
(Zhuangzi 33; Ziporyn)

The author of the Tianxia ("All Under Heaven") introduces each philosopher or group of like-minded philosophers with a description of what aspect of the 'true' Dao seems to have most inspired them. His criticism of each is that they all attach to only one "corner" of the true Dao and thus fail to encompass the whole which, except for among an unnamed few in the district of Lu (home of Confucius and Mencius), has largely been lost. Taken as a whole, these introductory remarks give us a wide view of what he understood the "ancient Art of the Dao" to have been. But this is a subject for another study. For our present purposes, it is enough to know that whatever his criticism of Shenzi, he believes him to have at least attempted to give expression to these positive values. We thus have two sets of values to ponder, those which the author believes Shenzi appreciated and Shenzi's actual use of them.

Before we consider the first of these sets of values in detail, it is worth noticing that they are all descriptive of a 'state' of mind; they are psychological expressions. The "Art of Dao" is thus a way of being in the world, not some metaphysical entity. It may be that these attitudinal ways of being in the world require being informed by some metaphysic, but the author does not seem to think it necessary to tell us what it is, if this is so. Were we to ask today who is a Christian we would likely hear a recital of doctrinal beliefs, 'facts' which a Christian believes. Here we have something entirely different — a description of psychological behaviors. This alone is well worth pondering if we wish to understand how these ancient Chinese philosophies differ from our contemporary tendency to found everything on 'facts'. Things must be 'true'. These philosophies are much more concerned that they work. From the Zhuangzian perspective, the efficacy of a dao is all that can be judged in any case; our knowing of the 'truth' of things is entirely "unfixed" and thus unrealizable.

We need not 'cross-over' to this point of view, though the sentiment expressed here is that it would be liberating to do so. It is no easy task, in any case; these tendencies permeate our entire interface with reality. But to simply entertain the possibility of this different take on how we might best live can have a positive effect. And this requires just a bit of imaginative meditation: "How would it feel . . . ?"

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

Frankly, My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn

Trey Smith

Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at Berkeley, and Michael W. Kraus, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, have done much of the research on social power and the attention deficit.

Mr. Keltner suggests that, in general, we focus the most on those we value most. While the wealthy can hire help, those with few material assets are more likely to value their social assets: like the neighbor who will keep an eye on your child from the time she gets home from school until the time you get home from work. The financial difference ends up creating a behavioral difference. Poor people are better attuned to interpersonal relations — with those of the same strata, and the more powerful — than the rich are, because they have to be.
~ from Rich People Just Care Less by Daniel Goleman ~

Why does recent research suggest that the wealthy are less empathetic than the rest of the population? In my mind's eye, the answer is insulation. We put insulation in our homes to keep the warmth in and the cold out. Insulation serves as a physical barrier that makes the modern home more liveable.

The wealthy insulate themselves in a virtual cocoon of wealth and power. Consequently, their only experiences are with others of wealth and power -- the dreams, concerns and interests of those without wealth and power are kept from penetrating into their royal chambers. If you don't spend any time thinking about the situations of others -- particularly others in the lower strata -- there is a much greater chance that you will deem their issues as inconsequential.

Centuries ago the Taoist sages recognized this same happenstance. Even back then, the rich and powerful showed little empathy for the unwashed masses. That is why they emphasized a life of simplicity -- riches tend to complicate not only an individual's personal satisfaction with life but societal relations as well.

While providing for all the creature comforts of life, wealth/power generates untold amounts of internal stress. Having so very much means there always is the possibility that you will lose so very much. You must be ever vigilant to protect all you have from real and imagined adversaries. The best way to protect yourself from loss is to get more and more. So, you push yourself to become ever more wealthy and powerful. What a treadmill to be on!

With all your attention and energies focused on obtaining more, you simply don't have the time or interest of examining the needs and interests of others who are not in a similar situation. Your all-consuming preoccupation with wealth and power serves to insulate you from the issues that relate to the vast majority of your fellow citizens. Because you have become so self-absorbed, you end up with an empathy deficit and this deficit results in far-reaching implications for the whole of society.

BP - The Science Behind Greedy CEO Psychopaths

TYT - Very Homopobic People May Actually be Gay, Says Study

Occupying Oneself

Scott Bradley

It seems to me that most of what we call 'spiritual work' is actually psychological work. Yet in saying this it is important to understand this psychological work is a conscious re-integration with the entirety of our human experience which goes well beyond self-contained mind. The mind is the seat of our awareness, but it is healthy only when it is open in relation to the wider range of our experience.

One reason I am wary of the idea of the 'spiritual' is that it suggests a something within us, a reality, distinctly other than the united rest of us, the mind, the body, the world, and Mystery. This is a perennial belief, the idea that there is a 'spark' of the divine within us, the spiritual, which we must discover and through which we become 'spiritual'. This is a belief that lays the foundation for all manner of dualistic thinking and behavior.

It follows from this belief in a 'spirit' within that there is a Spirit without that acts upon us or, barring that, is something with which we must re-integrate. It is given various names — God, Mind, Dao. I would suggest that for philosophical Daoism, Dao is a state of mind, not a metaphysical reality. It is an orientation toward Mystery; it is not some entity that defines Mystery.

It needs saying here that this is a choice of paradigms, a model, by which to orient oneself in the world; it is not intended as a statement of truth. Truth, I confess, completely eludes me. This being the case, I can only seek to discover that orientation, that paradigm, which most honestly reflects my experience and most effectively integrates that experience into a whole and pleasant one.

What has been said thus far is intended as an introduction to the psychological work of occupying oneself. This involves not only re-integration with ("re-owning", as Perls puts it) all of one's psychological behaviors as revealed through a growing self-awareness, but also with one's being a body, being this world, and being in an open, empty orientation to Mystery. Occupying oneself thus involves not only being oneself as a distinct person, warts and all, but also being part of the whole which is nature, and not being oneself in relationship with that in which no identity abides.

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

Being Responsible

Scott Bradley

In Gestalt Therapy Verbatim, Fritz Perls tells us that his purpose is to teach "how much you gain by taking responsibility for every emotion, every movement you make, every thought you have — and shed responsibility for anybody else. The world is not there for your expectation, nor do you have to live for the expectation of the world. We touch each other by honestly being what we are, not by intentionally making contact."

In a previous post I referred to how much of Perls' psychological perspective parallels Daoist thought; this, I think, is a case in point. Gestalt is about taking responsibility for ourselves in the here and now. This means, among other things, not blaming others, circumstances, or fate for our manner of relating to the world and ourselves. Others do not make us angry, happy or sad; we do. I am responsible for my responses; this is what Zhuangzi meant when he said that we need not allow anything to enter our "numinous reservoir" and so disturb us. This is how the sage is serene in the face of every eventuality.

To take responsibility for one's feelings, thoughts and deeds one must be aware of what they are, and it is this awareness that it is the goal of self-inquiry. "Know thyself."

Taking responsibility need not mean feeling guilty. Indeed, the more one takes responsibility for oneself, the less guilt arises, despite a greater awareness of 'failings'. This is because guilt is a comparative phenomenon; we feel guilt when we concern ourselves with the expectations of others or of ourselves vis-a-vis an abstract ideal of what we 'should' be. The more we take responsibility for ourselves, the more integrated we are with who we are.

When Perls suggests we shed responsibility for all others he is speaking as a therapist. If this personal responsibility is the key to healthy, integrated self-awareness, then it is this that the therapist seeks to nurture in others. Co-dependence is always the enemy in the therapist/patient relationship. Again, Socratic midwifery is the only viable means of 'helping' others in things spiritual.

Finally, Perls touches on that somewhat troubling (for some) Daoist suggestion that we serve our fellows best when we forget them like fish who disperse and forget each other in the rivers and the lakes. Yet, if we take a closer look, we see that these fish still enjoy schooling and frolicking together; forgetting others is allowing them to be responsible for themselves; it is showing them the greatest possible respect; and this is precisely that which enables relationships to flourish.

These are my immediate reflections on Perls' insights. You might want to return to his words above to experience your own.

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

I Had No Idea

Scott Bradley

I had no idea that Fritz Perls, founder of Gestalt Therapy, was a Daoist sage. At least that's my opinion after reading 24 pages of his Gestalt Therapy Verbatim. If he was not a sage, then at least his understanding of the sometimes pathological workings of the human psyche and its remedy seems as if lifted from Daoist principles. Wu-wei, existential presence, spontaneity, harmony, guiltlessness, flow — it's all there.

I have just begun this book and only mention it now because it has already influenced the Zhouzi stories and want to acknowledge that debt.

In this context, it might be worth considering how ‘spirituality’ is actually an attribute of psychology, and that, lest we forget, is an attribute of physicality. We are not a bunch of parts, but an integral whole. Philosophical Daoism, at least as I see it, is not about discovering something ‘spiritual’ dwelling either inside or outside our experience, but rather about experiencing ourselves in a transcendent way that suggests the ‘spiritual’.

Since space allows, here's Perls on the remedial power of self-awareness:

If you become aware each time you are entering a state of confusion, this is a therapeutic thing. And again, nature takes over. If you understand this, and stay with confusion, confusion will sort itself out by itself. If you try to sort it out, compute how to do it, if you ask me for a prescription how to do it, you only add more confusion to your productions.

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

Spirituality Is Psychological

Scott Bradley

Though to say that spirituality is psychological may sound reductionist, that there is nothing true 'beyond' the psychological experience, this need not be the case. It simply means that so-called spiritual experiences are rooted in and have their origin in the human. In this sense, yes, it does purposely exclude 'bolts from heaven'; nothing 'out there' acts on the psychological 'in here' so as to effect a change or grant an experience. This does not deny that there is an absolute Reality (how could it be otherwise?), but only that its possible apperception has its locus solely in the human.

I would add a further caveat, however, and say that whatever experience one might have, it would be mistaken to declare it to be of Absolute Reality. To speak of it is to think it, and to think it is to objectify and contain it, something of which the human mind is incapable. The 'enlightened' Zen master would scoff at my ignorance in this regard, no doubt. Yet, I would suggest that it makes no difference; his enlightenment took place solely within himself, and whether he chooses to declare it absolutely the Absolute or not is immaterial. He may very well have experienced Absolute Reality, but to knowingly pronounce it so is another thing altogether. And why, exactly, would he feel it necessary to do so? Think on this, if you will.

Further, though largely compatible with religious philosophies of Eastern persuasion, this statement does deny the fundamental belief of the theistic Abrahamic religions, namely that there is a God actively involved in our lives and it is He that does, in fact, send transformative bolts from heaven. Though I wish to be inclusive, I see no way to avoid this exclusion. Yet, that exclusion is only provisional; though it seems necessary to choose between them for the purposes of one's own spiritual path, it is not necessary to pronounce either perspective objectively true or false. Moreover, it most certainly does not deny the psychological validity of the theist's experience. Understanding spirituality as psychological allows for an appreciation of every such experience as valid, no matter how attained and by whatever beliefs one has utilized to obtain them.

Although all this might sound like a load of theoretical blabber, it is not so for me. Indeed, isn't this the very crux of both philosophical Daoism's and Zen's insistence that the spiritual breakthrough into transcendence is had in the abandonment of the objective and external? God, Buddha, Mind, Absolute Reality — all these are objective distractions which hinder us from realizing what is beyond all conception. Can you feel that barrier, that thin membrane between the bounded and the unbounded, the limited and the unlimited?

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

Trusting Trust

Scott Bradley

I concluded the last post with the assertion that we are born into "connectedness", that "in-ness" is a given. If this is true, then no assertion is required, for if it be 'true', it is already true in us.

Kierkegaard required "a leap of faith" for truth to be true for him. Why? Because, despite his understanding that "truth is subjectivity" and his railing against the belief that spirituality is obtained through assent to objective truth, he still had something objective to which to leap. There was something that required belief.

Trust requires no leap, for it is a "normal function" of life. We can nurture trust and grow in trust, but only when we have discovered it as already in ourselves.

What might hinder awareness of our native trust? W. Giegerich's criticism of Jung, who sought it in the unconscious, demonstrates what is probably the attitude that most alienates us from life's natural trust. "The end of meaning" is a crisis of faith precipitated by the triumph of reason; the old objective cosmologies can no longer stand. We are now devoid of a raison d'etre, a reason to be.

Giegerich criticizes Jung for looking somewhere other than to reason for a sense of belonging in the world. Yet it is he who sunders the human experience and insists that the exercise of reason, the "understanding consciousness", is the only valid and "adult" way by which to orient oneself in the world. As wonderful as the gift of reason is, however, there is a lot more to the human expression than this. Nor should we think that reason stands opposed to our other, more visceral, dimensions. When, as Zhuangzi says, "the understanding consciousness rests in what it cannot know", it has reached its fulfillment. Its fulfillment is found in its harmony with the fullness of the human experience.

Does this mean that reason must give superstition its proper place? Not at all; for what is superstition but belief in objective ‘truths’? Superstition belongs to reason, not to trust. Trust has no content; it requires no belief.

If trust requires trust, then it is only that it trust in itself. It is to trust in life, because life is trust. The process and the élan that is life is trust. We see it everywhere in Nature — trust unaware. It is the human privilege to find and awarefully nurture trust in itself. Or, we can be ‘more’ than life, and nurture despair. This, too, is life.

“To put your trust in the Heart-Mind [where trust abides] is to live without separation, and in this non-duality you are one with your Life-Source.” (Hsin-Hsin Ming; Clarke) In the end, trust is gladly being who you are.

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

Unborn Again

Scott Bradley

I've been reading a paper by a psychologist, Wolfgang Giegerich, entitled The End of Meaning and the Birth of Man: An essay about the state reached in the history of consciousness and an analysis of C. G. Jung's psychological project (pdf). It was loaned to me with the teasing request that I sum it up for she who found it a bit too 'scholarly'. Similarly, I thought I might teasingly sum it up as: "huh?" Still, the overall thesis is clear.

Humanity has finally left the womb. Previous to the 19th century, human beings were typically born into a myth which provided meaning and a sense "in-ness". Consciousness remained essentially "unborn". With the "death of God", however, humanity was finally born into the cold "meaningless" world. Consciousness now has to stand up on its own two feet without mythological props and must find its "meaning" in itself.

Needless to say, this is an awfully broad brush stroke; a huge majority of the world's population is still born into a sustaining mythology and remains there, and is thus still unborn in Giegerich's sense. The 'truly born' are a small minority and are predominantly in the West. Nevertheless, it is my belief that this minority does in fact typify the humanity of the future. The West and its 'truly born' lead the way. This may sound like jingoism, but it is not meant to imply that this is necessarily a 'good' thing; consumerism is a good example of the global trend toward what the West has wrought. This applies equally to secularism.

Following this model, one would have to conclude that when a person is "born again" as a Christian, for instance, he is actually being unborn again. He has returned to the womb of myth so as to escape the cold, scary world of mythlessness and meaninglessness.

Giegerich's critique of Jung is on the whole quite negative. Jung, he tells us, chose psychology as his course of study not as a scientist, but as one seeking to restore meaning to his life. The concepts of the 'unconscious' and 'collective consciousness' are his invented means of restoring meaning, of being unborn again. Meaning, "in-ness", is found in the unconscious from which the West has effectively sealed itself off. This is certainly reflected in his commentaries on religious Daoist works of "inner alchemy", one of which I have critiqued here (The Secret of the Golden Flower). "His was a counter-factual recue project", Giegerich writes.

I, and most my readers I suspect, are at work on a similar project. So, I would guess, is Giegerich; it’s unavoidable. Yet he, and we, constantly attempt to return to “critical zero”; we try and not be “counter-factual”. We seek a way of “in-ness” (connectedness) while remaining resolutely out in the cold. It is no easy task.

Giegerich also makes the point that as long as we seek meaning, we in effect remain unborn; if we feel the lack, we are not truly born. I wonder, therefore, if humanity is or ever will be truly “born” in his sense. We are, after all, born into a world of connectedness. “In-ness” is a given.

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

Wu uuuu wwei heeeey

Ta-Wan

Although we can only focus on one thing at a time, multitasking is far more natural to us than constant focus. Meditation exposes our inner lack of control and inability to hold focus on one thing at a time and, when it comes to historical accounts of a person able to dedicate a lot of constant thought to one issue, then they are far and few those who display this ability. This is a strange statement. We can only focus on one thing at a time, but we all know from common experience that our focus constantly shifts from one thing to the next. It is certainly

Sorry, I lost my train of thought then and had a swig of coffee.

It is certain that evolution would favour those who shifted attention frequently as one who was stuck in one thought could well find themselves starving or under attack. It is not obvious why evolution would not have encouraged the ability to focus on more than one thing at once. Yet do we actually operate this way? Is it one thing or nothing? Apparently not.

Have you been stuck on a problem then either forgotten about it or had a good sleep and awoke with the answer? This is a common experience and research into it has shown that our subconscious is always at work on multiple tasks and, in fact, when people feel they are being Wu Wei and just getting things done by not really trying, when they master a particular act so much that even the complexities of say drawing happen just as breathing, it is the subconscious at work. It is known by all in that state that if they become too conscious of the event, then they'll flop.

Is the feeling of being conscious of only one thing at a time perhaps a flaw in our thinking? Could it be that if we operated entirely from our subconscious and never have conscious attention enter the picture that life really would flow with the Tao in perfect Wu Wei?

I think this may be true.

You can check out Ta-Wan's other musings here.

Exceptions to the Rule

Scott Bradley

There is and can be no self-knowledge based on theoretical assumptions, for the object of self-knowledge is an individual — a relative and irregular phenomenon. Hence it is not the universal and the regular that characterize the individual, but rather the unique. He is not to be understood as a recurrent unit but as something unique and singular which in the last analysis can neither be known nor compared with anything else.
(The Undiscovered Self; Carl Jung)

In support of his thesis that every individual is an exception to the rule, and cannot be known within the confines of "knowledge", Jung offers the simple example of the difference between the average and the specific. Though we might find the average weight of a pebble in a pile of pebbles to be 145 grams, we would be hard pressed to find a pebble that actually weighed 145 grams. Every pebble is likely to be an exception to the rule.

Universal generalizations are a necessary component of knowledge, and thus knowledge cannot lead us to true self-knowledge. Jung thus contrasts knowledge with understanding:

I can only approach the task of understanding with a free and open mind, whereas knowledge of man, or insight into human character, presupposes all sorts of knowledge about mankind in general.

Any quest for self-knowledge is thus only hampered by presupposed answers or goals. One can only know oneself through oneself. To begin with a heap of theoretical baggage about what it is to be human is to impose the unreal theoretical on the real and actual. The Socratic "Know thyself" begins and ends with oneself. "A free and open mind" is one which puts the entire onus of responsibility for self-knowledge on the individual. It is easy to understand, therefore, how every religious philosophy, with its pre-packaged definitions and goals, might hinder the realization of the very understanding of oneself to which it directs us.

It is equally clear, if we accept Jung's thesis, that it is absolutely impossible to truly know another person, each individual being unique and all knowledge about oneself being self-contained.

Experiencing as I am a bit of that "spiritual nausea" of which I have spoken in a previous post, that is, a feeling of unease in excessive distinction making, I am reluctant to join all Jung's dots. Nevertheless, I will attempt one broad-brush swipe at them and say that, looked at from his perspective, no religion or philosophy can lead us to self-knowledge as long as it supplies us with definitions and goals before we begin the journey. The spiritual journey is empirical, not idealistic.

"Find your own way" is probably the most challenging of all imperatives, for it puts the entire onus of responsibility for self-awareness on one's own shoulders. And yet, if "a free and open mind" is in itself a positive experience, then the journey becomes the goal.

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

Cutting Cheese

Trey Smith

Baroness Radon sent me a link to a very interesting article in the New York Times, Politics, Odor and Soap by Nicholas Kristof. The main feature of the article is a discussion of how liberals and conservatives view moral psychology differently. I encourage those interested in the subject matter to give it a read.

Of course, since I'm an odd guy, there was something else that caught my eye!

A University of Toronto study found that if people were asked to wash their hands with soap and water before filling out a questionnaire, they become more moralistic about issues like drug use and pornography. Researchers found that interviewees on Stanford’s campus offered harsher, more moralistic views after “fart spray” had been released in the area.

What I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around is the "fart spray" experiment. Why would anyone even think of that?

Were a bunch of researchers sitting around a conference table discussing various control elements when, all of a sudden, one of them shared a bit of gas? Did one or more of them then become more moralistic during the conversation?

"Dr. Derryaire, I think you're on to something here!"

"Yes, Dr. Sphincter, I'm getting a whiff of a brilliant idea!"

"What is it?" the other researchers ask.

Fart spray!

Afternoon Matinee: The Primacy of Consciousness, Part 7

Afternoon Matinee: The Primacy of Consciousness, Part 6