Humbly responding to the dialogue between John Woods and Doug Seeley in
"Choice sometimes an illusion" (LO4585 and LO4554):
I've saved John's message LO4585 in my personal directory titled "soul"
because it (including Doug's wise words) speaks so directly and elegantly
to issues of knowing and the essence of humanity. I'll just comment on
one part of it and let the rest of it just sink in.
John described his theory of "how the brain becomes self aware":
>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.
I think this is a chicken-egg situation. The ability to perceive of a
universe that we can't directly experience points to an already-developed
self-awareness. I say this on the assumption that the universe is a
concept and self-awareness is just one form of conceptual thinking. Every
creature is fully aware of its environment, within the limits of its
perceptual organs and its data processing resources; e.g., a spider senses
its environment through very weak eyes but very sensitive feet/fingers,
and it processes the data it receives through its spider brain. I'd
further suggest that conceptual thinking is a function of the complexity
of neural/cranial development (i.e., the amount of DP resources
available). A few examples (some of them hypothetical) of different
levels of conceptual thinking and the level of self-awareness they imply:
-- My dog and cat know their names and a few simple words (actually
patterns of intonation). Although they seek information differently and
process it differently once they get it, both are functioning at the level
of immediate stimulus-response within their base programming. They appear
to be aware of the limits of their and others' bodies, but they don't seem
able to understand the simple idea of privacy.
-- My horse doesn't know its name or understand a single thing I say, but
he sure knows who's talking to him and what it means when I press my calf
against his side, twitch the reins, pick up a crop or whip, or hit him
over the head with a 2x2. Definitely a kinesthetic learner, but totally
without self-respect.
-- My pet chimpanzee is incredibly playful and curious, in every sense
like having a speech-impaired kindergartner. Shows some level of
self-awareness, and is just beginning to get the idea of what an insult
is. Has practical jokes down to a "T" but doesn't plan them very well.
-- My teenage daughter has virtually no sense of the scope of her
potential as a human, nor does she have much awareness of the scope of the
universe, but she is incredibly self-aware (i.e., center of the universe).
Just beginning to get the hang of ideas like fairness and other people's
feelings. Very well-developed sense of stupidity in others, limited sense
of it in self.
-- I am beginning to sense that there is a universe out there of which I
am a part, and that this sense cannot be communicated to or from another
person; i.e., I am beginning to get some dim inkling of what Enlightenment
means. Feet firmly rooted.
-- My guru just sits and listens, then smiles at me, says a word or two
(perhaps in English) and returns to his breathing. Not always on this
planet.
So what's the point? Just to indicate that there are many environments
and many ways to interpret them. Whether we are self-aware depends partly
on our base level of native intelligence, partly on our innate potential
for development, and partly on the extent to which we develop that
potential. But I think the first requirement is most important: to have a
base level of cranial development that will (eventually) support the
conceptual thinking of which self-conscious awareness is but one form. (I
could have said this in fewer words, but the examples were fun.)
Later in the message, John says:
>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.
I agree with this. The need that I expressed a little while back - that
it's important for humans to believe they have the freedom to make
decisions - is intimately tied into the power of the ego. Where the ego
is needed, this freedom becomes a resource and a force in making things
happen. Where the ego is not needed, this sense of freedom becomes less
meaningful. I'd suggest that this issue of choice has generated a lot of
discussion in this network because so many of us are working at the
boundary between ego and simple awareness, that foggy mental space where
we are aware of our cosmic interconnectedness but unable (yet) to be there
completely. Well, I speak for myself anyway.
A little dazed and definitely confused,
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)