In response to the ideas written below, I (John Woods) want to make a few
observations.
>In response to this thread in Dave Birred LO4389 and the Choice is an
>Illusion? thread strongly defended by John Woods in LO4352 and LO4393 for
>example, I offer the following perspectives:
I hope I wasn't defending my position so much as explaining why I believe
like I do. I hope I was more engaging in dialogue than searching for
right and wrong. That's more interesting and the real appeal of this
list.
>John seems to be arguing from a perspective that regards all human choice
>as the result of a kind of information processing which takes current
>data, interacts with the assumptions and beliefs which we currently have,
>and presto a decision is made. For convenience, I will refer to this
>interpretation as the Information Processing perspective. I agree that a
>good deal of human and organizational decision-making is carried out in
>this way. However, in my experience, this perspective does not go deep
>enough into the bedrock of self-awareness.
>
>The information processing perspective assumes that understanding, self-
>awareness and indeed consciousness is derivative from brain processing, a
>kind of neural psycho-chemical computational process, commonly assumed by
>researchers in Cognitive Science (including Artificial Intelligence).
>John seems to indicate this in identifying with his brain and the mystery
>and wonder that it know itself. This appears to posit an objective,
>physical universe (including brains) from which consciousness and mystery
>emerge. Could it not be the other way around, and the physical universe
>and brains emerge from the roots of consciousness itself?
My response to this question is that indeed it could. We ultimately
cannot know the answer to that question. It is clear to me, though, based
on my personal experience, that the potential for self awareness, for
consciousness, is built into nature and can emerge under the right
circumstances, as it has on our planet. Or we might say that
consciousness and nature are the same thing, i.e., two sides to the same
coin. Or they are ideas we have invented to explain that which otherwise
would not be explainable. I don't know--it gets a little complicated. I
do know that the seat of consciousness in people is the brain.
I'll also suggest how the brain beomes self aware (my own personal
theory). If the brain is the organ that facilitates our successful
adaptation to and negotiation within the environment, the more of that
environment we can become aware of, the better we may adapt to it. If
that's true, then it would be logical for beings to evolve who have
greater and greater awareness and knowledge of environment. This
continues until the environment one can know about is the universe, which,
at that point, takes in ourselves as a part of that environment. In other
words, we become aware of ourselves not as things separate from the
environment, but as parts of the environment. We cannot extract ourselves
from that environment, anymore than we can extract the sun, winter, or any
other part of that same environment.
>Moreover, in LO4393 a position seems to be indicated by John's remarks
>about Buddhist "desiring desirelessness" and that "this is what the Buddha
>understood"... that the in-depth exploration of our awareness for which
>the Buddhists and others have very long traditions, results in thoughts
>idea/understandings, and not in direct contact with the strata underlying
>awareness itslelf. In my experience, getting below these cognitive layers
>and thought structures requires the very arduous, and rigorous dropping of
>identifications and assumptions. It is not simply a matter of
>intellectual effort, but overcoming the many barriers (mental, emotional,
>sensory) to letting go of All preconceptions.
I would certainly agree that cognition doesn't necessarily get at the
"strata underlying awareness itself" unless one considers cognition just
another form of human experience and a manifestation of our nature. In
other words, we may experience our own thinking processes, not in terms of
the actual thoughts themselves, but as a manifestation of our nature. We
may directly experience ourselves thinking. I suspect that the Zen Koans,
which always seem somewhat paradoxical or nonsensical, are designed to
eventually evoke such awareness. What's the sound of one hand clapping?
There is no answer that is right or wrong. We may come to know that and
appreciate the special gift and experience of (1) trying to figure out the
answer, (2) that any answer we give is ok, (3) that is not unusual to be
puzzled, (4) that thinking is just a part of our nature. I suspect that
coming to realize that is a potential stimulus to enlightenment.
With regard to letting go of all preconceptions: well I don't think that's
possible. Letting go itself is based on a preconception that doing that
makes sense. The preconception that works best, then, is one that
acknowledges we can't let go completely and one that acknowledges that
change, difference, learning, openness, and maybe improving are at the
heart of the best parts of our nature. In addition, I would never suggest
that intellectual effort could somehow be separated from emotion. In
fact, just the opposite. Our emotions are the cues that provide direction
for our intellect. If we somehow lose connection with our emotions and
what they tell us about where we stand in any situation, you can be sure
that our intellect will be greatly compromised. It's not surprising that
we should feel good when our rational processes are really working well.
Using the mind to make sense of difficult ideas is one way to experience
an emotional high.
The most enlightened leaders are also admired for their intellect and
their ability to explain the mystical and/or lead people to experience it
for themselves. I believe that such leaders appreciate the gift of being
able to apprehend at some level the mysteries of life, and then talk and
write about them. So while they have the capability of meditating and
experiencing themselves at profound levels, this also contributes to their
ability to explain such experiences and their value to others, an act
requiring what we usually call cognition.
>In my experience and that of some others, there is also something which
>emerges from these depths which could be called Fundamental Choice....
>For me it is an absolute spontaneity which is the freedom of the totality
>of existence channelling through the aperture of my individuality. Hence,
>the notion of "free choice" is valid for me at this fundamental level, a
>level independent from, but completely influencing the vicissitudes of
>ordinary human decision-making. For me it is also what makes empowerment
>possible (in the self-generated sense)
Ok, there is a lot of good stuff here. But how about this: Let us say
that what is truly liberating is not holding onto choice, but letting that
idea go. It's like having to defend something you think is important. If
you give the thing up, you don't have to worry about it anymore. The idea
of choice depends on how you define it. For me, choice is just the
logical consequence of our ability to understand different situations and
our role in them. It may be, though, that in some situations our "choice"
is to simply go with the flow. We just experience whatever is going on
with no conscious directing of the experience. Of course, the ability to
do that still depends on understanding that that going with the flow is
worth doing, though I will acknowledge that sometimes people get involved
in situations that carry them along and they seem to have no will to
prevent it. Nevertheless, imagine how liberating it is to no longer worry
about choice. For me, what emerges from that is the idea of refining my
ability to understand different situations so what happens will be "good."
And when "bad" things happen, I can know that such experiences are a part
of our human nature, and they can give me further insight into that
nature.
>For me, this deep freedom is something which we all share, and any
>attempts at depriving others from it, only deprives ourselves to an even
>greater extent. For me as well, it is the basis of a "deep democracy"
>between us all. The common perspective in modern science of only an
>"objective reality", grants an authority to the interpreters of this
>objectivism, those scientists who take a priestly or "true believer"
>stance, deprives You and I, the sovereignty of our own deep freedom, and
>results in a kind of tyranny. Rather, You and I granting each other the
>dignity of this deep freedom, then becoming victims to the preconceptions
>of establishment rationality.
I would never suggest that there is some objective reality out there that
we must defer to. If our behavior is the result of our understanding,
then this suggests that by definition, the world of people is very
subjective. (As I've said before here, "The world is exactly like you
think it is, and that's why.") By acknowledging that about ourselves, it
helps us acknowledge that about others. To affirm ourselves, we must
affirm others. That's how things work.
>Hence for me, choice at this deep level is not an illusion, even though on
>many levels of human experience it seems to be so. Does this ring any
>bells?
So I think Doug and I are really pretty close together. We just come at
things from slightly different perspectives. Choice is an illusion, but
so are all our understandings. They are our subjective attempts to make
sense of ourselves in relation to our world that we are inextricably part
of.
Finally, we may note that any perspective depends on its opposite to make
any sense. So any position requires its opposite to exist. Thus to get
any where close to any truth, we must enfold opposites together. Remember
the words, The tao that can be spoken is not the tao. Yet we speak about
it. Go figure.
Still thinking about things and trying to puzzle it all out,
-- John Woods jwoods@execpc.com Madison, WI