It occurs to me that one can spend far too long thinking! Traversing our own mental landscape, inevitably, we will eventually reach the fringe of understanding - the edge of our flat little world. For the mind is merely a map of reality; it is not synonymous with "what is" (whatever that means!). It is at this fringe that our most outlandish ideas can be found.
For me, reading into certain eastern philosophies and perhaps spending too much time studiously (masochistically) buried in basic neurobiology textbooks, I arrive at the rather unnerving conclusion that nobody is real.
Please understand, I do not entertain such a notion lightly! I simply cannot help but feel, at least for a short while, that the condition we call 'being human' is merely an emergent property of a vast network of neural (brain) cells, collectively computing calculations on an unfathomable scale. Granted I could never hope to comprehend the operation of this system myself. Not least due to my relatively meagre intellect but also due to the observation that the brain, rather paradoxically, seems to be much more intelligent than the mind, or perhaps I should say that the mind is much more intelligible than the brain!
Nevertheless I believe it possible to 'explain away' the workings of the mind-brain with a sufficiently advanced scientific understanding (an understanding which may spark into existence in some as yet undreamed form of artificial intelligence!).
While recently on the toilet (where many of my ideas seem to flicker into existence), I experienced the proposition that, "in a highly evolved system, any subjective 'want' seemingly attributed to volition can and must be reducible, that is to say tracked back, to a collection of basic 'needs' or drives" Somewhat dry I know but, as I said, I spend far too much time buried in textbooks and academic papers and not enough time writing poetry!
This overly reductionist and deterministic viewpoint is rather reminiscent (at least to me) of what the late Alan Watts’ has described as the "prickly" intellectual position. Put simply. prickly individuals like to get things “straightened out” and are often unwavering in their rigorous veracity. This perspective, however, can be contrasted with what Alan described as “gooey.” Gooey individuals like it vague and are often turned off by the prickly "stiffs", the squares.
These two factions can argue with the other until they are blue in the face but, ultimately, both perspectives are viable representational strategies for making sense of our world. But both are essentially ‘games’ we play with ourselves, for reality (so not a fan of this word and the burden of connotations it carries!) is not clear cut in this fashion; the world isn't composed of prickles or goo. Again, to quote Watts: “It's either gooey prickles or prickly goo.”
Take the scientific debate over the fundamental constituents of matter. Those of a prickly disposition would have been inclined to argue that it’s particles, while gooey individuals would argue it’s waves. However this debate has been at least partly resolved by the development of particle-wave duality theory.
For those who know anything about signal detection theory (this is where it gets really dry. For those readers, assuming I have any, who wish to skip ahead please look for the "Forgive my pretentiousness, please resume here" sign), deciding where you sit along the prickle/goo continuum is akin to choosing one's "criterion" level.
In short, when asked to detect a barely perceivably stimulus or "signal", be it a light flash or brief sound, some events within one's sensory system will inevitably be caused by something other than that external signal event (sensory neurons are often active even in the absence of sensory input).
This random activity, referred to as "noise", is always present, even when the signal is also presented. How easy or hard a particular discrimination task (discerning whether the signal is or is not present) will be firmly grounded in an individual's biology; ‘perceptual sensitivity’ is therefore a fixed phenomenon.
However, the one factor that is free to vary is an individual's "criterion" level. This refers to the degree of sensory evidence an individual requires to firmly say "Yes, I experience the signal” or "No" (whatever I experienced was just noise).
And so the individual can slide this criterion as they see fit along the full continuum of possible values, potentially resulting in a more 'conservative' or more 'liberal' bias (that is, more likely to say "No" or "Yes", respectively), Bear in mind, each tactic has its advantages and disadvantages for “out there in the world“ there is often a price for missing a "true" (present) signal or for false alarms (crying wolf when no signal is present).
So the question is which tactic or game do you wish to play?
Forgive my pretentiousness, please resume here...
Before long thinking in a prickly fashion, I begin to collapse in on myself - to crash in a very literal (albeit intangible) fashion. Withdrawing the metaphorical limbs of my mind to warm cold bones following the deep freeze of deep thought.
Initially I thought it a basic self-preservation mechanism coming into play when I'd "'lost touch with myself'. But now, having witnessed this cycle of existential expansion and contraction enough times I think I recognise the process for what it really is. In essence, I simply get bored of playing the game or playing a particular game-style. Actually, what is more likely is that my recognition of the game as such breaks it’s spell over me and the prickle/goo balance is redressed.
It is possible that this processes is the original basis for "the game", where in one must remain ignorant to their own participation lest they "lose" the game. Incidentally, both I now writing this and you reading this have just lost said game. Anyway, I digress.
In a rather twisted fashion, each mental expansion post-contraction is partly a response to the previous expansion. In a particularly extreme example, having become a lost soul deeply troubled by his own hedonism and vice, I may then lose my next self in search of virtue. This is actually rather easy to do!
Consider the line from the Tao Te Ching: “True virtue, not ‘virtue’, therefore virtue.” In other words, true (sincere) virtue does not consider itself virtuous and is, therefore, real (unforced) virtue. One can go round in circles introspecting upon one's drives, trying to discern whether their apparent virtuousness is true or false. And, should I arrive at the conclusion that I am indeed full of shit, I may revert back to my 'old way' of nihilism, hedonism and eventually self loathing.
I begin to ask myself whether this process is what Buddha really meant by samsara - the cycle of birth and rebirth. You may think that I have missed the point a little here. However, not to offend those who hold it to be true, but refuse to believe that a man so mindful, so firmly grounded in the earthly here and now (then and there) as Gautama Buddha would have invoked such an otherworldly notion as life after death. Indeed, there is nothing mystical in saying that the quality of our actions over the course our life determines our future!
Indeed, each time I mentally expand I become someone a little different, depending on the ideas I consider and the conclusions I reach. And when I collapse in on myself I retain a remnant of the previous structure, an echo of a previous "incarnation" (if you'll allow me the liberty).
Perhaps I am experiencing 'first hand' the development of the self. But one spooky question remains: who is this observer that seemingly exists outside of my fickle, persistently changing ego, looking down upon my development from on high? The superego? A higher-order self? I am reminded of an old limerick:
“There was a young man who said though, it seems that I know that I know, but what I would like to see is the I that knows me when I know that I know that I know.”
- Alan Watts.
No comments:
Post a Comment