It's good to hear from You, Doug. Your comments (partly quoted below) hit
me right between the eyes.
>John [Woods] 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.
I think John would say that a decision isn't reached, but rather a course
of action emerges.
> 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....
[snip]
>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?
This is pretty mystical stuff. You might want to read Neil
Douglas-Klotz's book _Desert Wisdom_ or some of Rumi's poetry. But the
idea is very intriguing, especially as it leads into the perception that
we - humans, birds, trees, the planets, etc. - are all part of a single
all-encompassing Unity of some sort from which we emerge and to which we
somehow contribute.
>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.
Here's where the brick hit me. For many years I've worked from a model I
call Rigorous Thinking. It is based on the idea that the Unity I referred
to above (another word for this is Tao) exists whether or not I exist,
which is to say that it is objective reality, and I am subjective reality,
and if I am to fully participate in this Unity I need to understand it and
adapt myself to it, rather than expect it to adapt itself to me (I know it
works both ways; this is the simplified version). This applied to other
levels of reality as well, such as organizations. Anyway, Rigorous
Thinking has three principles:
1. Identify and challenge all assumptions, both conscious suppositions and the
presuppositions that normally reside in the subconscious. This means that
anything taken on faith must be identified as such. There's no room for
unquestioned belief.
2. Nothing can operate outside its true nature. This means that all behavior
is rooted in the underlying essence of the creature engaging in it. Careful
observation and acceptance of what one sees will lead toward understanding,
or at least awareness, of the true nature of things.
3. No one can know everything, or, ignorance is normal. To respect this fact
leads a perceptive person who questions all assumptions to respect the
scope and impact of ignorance.
As You said,
>It is not simply a matter of intellectual effort, but overcoming the many
>barriers (mental, emotional, sensory) to letting go of All preconceptions.
It is extremely difficult, but I've found after 25 years that it works.
It's been a very personal path, one that I've only now put into writing.
The great benefit for me in social settings - families, organizations,
networks of friends - is to provide a framework that generates a lot of
insights into the underlying strata of the interactions and behaviors I
see. I share this with the entire learning-org network on the chance that
someone else might benefit. I think the model has great potential for
organizational learning. It has certainly shaped my own development.
Your message continued on the theme of freedom:
>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.
[snip]
>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?
I think it's in the nature of humans to be self-motivating and
interdependent. Without a sense of freedom, we would be some other kind
of creature. So I'd say that John Woods may be correct in saying that -
objectively - our actions derive from our mental models and the
circumstances we find ourselves in, and there may in fact be no true
choice. But I'd also say that our *subjective* reality is that we do in
fact have freedom and the ability to choose and make conscious change.
This perception is necessary for us to play out the complexity of our
nature, and for that nature to grow and develop.
So I guess the bottom line for me in this is simply that I need to believe
I'm free to choose. I suspect this is a universal human trait that
underlies the development of civilization as we know it.
This was a long way around to a very simply point. I hope there's some
value in the process. I appreciate having a forum of intelligent and
tolerant people within which to have this conversation.
Dave
-- David E. Birren Phone: (608)267-2442 Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources Fax: (608)267-3579 Bureau of Management & Budget E-mail: birred@dnr.state.wi.us"Our future is to be food - Wisdom's gift - for what comes after us." -- Saadi (Neil Douglas-Klotz)