Thursday, February 26, 2009

On Perception

Every person is entitled to their opinion, perspective and world-view. Collectively, I'll call these "perceptions."

Considering that the origin of perceptions are rooted in upbringing, culture and personal experiences--with characteristics specific to the individual--how could a person not be entitled to their own perspective?

To disregard the opinion of another is to consider his or her entire life experience invalid. Our collective experiences all point to and support a particular world-view, from which we form our opinions. To question them is to question our own experiences.

If we suppose that all perceptions are valid, that there is nothing "wrong" but simply "different," where is "truth," or better stated, what is "objective reality?"

Objective reality is defined by numbers. The more people that hold a particular belief or perception, the more "real" their relative reality becomes. Indeed, the culture produced by collective perception reinforces itself. The shared perception becomes "objective" because there is no one (or few) to question it.

The world as I see it is much different than the world an African sees it. Are either of our perceptions invalid? Who will judge? Who is not influenced by their past or their environment? Who is free from the constraints of their own mental patterns?

If indeed there is no objective world "out there," then what is the "out there" that we see, hear, taste, smell, feel and contemplate about all day, every day.

There is no "out there." There is no objective reality. Who would know about it? How would they know about it?

Can you see the world in relation to anything other than yourself? In relation to anything other than your past? How would you perceive it? With your mind? A mind that has been shaped, arguably beyond our control, for decades, by a culture of consumerism, emotionally traumatic relationships and mediocre parenting?

The world you experience, having been filtered through the mind, is non-different from the mind itself. Every perception you have of the outer-world is simply an extension of your conscious or subconscious mind. Everywhere you go, there you are.

To understand yourself is to understand the world. To embrace your lack of knowledge is to embrace your fellow man in the wondrous mystery of life.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

On Culture and Spiritual Community

Reverend J. Dana Trent recently asked me about my opinion of the Binkley Baptist Church's covenant. My initial response:
"I have to admit that reading the church covenant reminded me of my psychological aversion to joining groups. The self-imposed pressure of group obligations make me uncomfortable."
To which she responded:
"I know what you mean about self-imposed formal group pressure. The irony of that church covenant is that many people ... feel it's 'anti-Baptist' because Baptists are very individualistic and autonomy-oriented. I want to hear more about how you feel/perceive this."
There is a lot of value is being part of a group. Some people need external accountability and a feeling of community to be consistent in their spiritual practice. Some people are the opposite.

For example, folks who eventually become atheists may idealize the principles of Christianity, and then become disillusioned when they don't see those principles applied perfectly by practitioners.

Ideally, members of a community should emphasize individual accountability and introspection, otherwise those external pressures become artificial and competitive.

I would argue that in the past, humanity's culture emphasized the virtues mentioned above, so the spiritual communities that developed within the context of such a culture did not have to address issues that arise when those virtues are not present. It may seem like a "dumbing down" of spiritual principles, but I think those virtues need to be address by spiritual communities. "How?" is a big question, and should be voluntarily determined by members according to their collective psychological predispositions. The "how" should be flexible, even readily disregarded if it's effectiveness eventually becomes questionable.

I looked in my Gita (18.42-43) to find a few nice virtues: tranquility, self-control, austerity, forgiveness, honesty, faith, determination, and generosity.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Interesting articles

  • Exploring Consciousness through the Study of Bees (Scientific American, January, 2009) "... there is no accepted theory of consciousness, no principled theory that would tell us which systems, organic or artificial, are conscious and why."

  • How Google Is Making Us Smarter (Discover, January 15, 2009) "the mind appears to be adapted for reaching out from our heads and making the world, including our machines, an extension of itself."

  • Is Technology Producing A Decline In Critical Thinking And Analysis? (ScienceDaily January 29, 2009) "'As students spend more time with visual media and less time with print, evaluation methods that include visual media will give a better picture of what they actually know...'"

  • DVD teaches autistic kids what a smile means (Associated Press, January 15, 2009) "About a decade ago, Baron-Cohen suggested that autism — which is much less likely to afflict girls — might be an extreme version of the typical male brain. Men tend to understand the world via patterns and structure, whereas women are more inclined to understand emotions and sympathize with others."

  • Mind Out Of Balance, Body Out Of Balance (ScienceDaily, January 27, 2009) "Many ... adults who suffer from anxiety disorders also have problems with balance. As increasing numbers of children are diagnosed with anxiety, Tel Aviv University researchers have discovered that the link between balance and anxiety can be assessed at an early age and that something can be done about it before it becomes a problem."

  • Elevating Science, Elevating Democracy (The New York Times January 26, 2009) "Science is not a monument of received Truth but something that people do to look for truth. That endeavor, which has transformed the world in the last few centuries, does indeed teach values. Those values, among others, are honesty, doubt, respect for evidence, openness, accountability and tolerance and indeed hunger for opposing points of view. [...] The habit of questioning that you learn in physics is invaluable in the rest of society."

On Happiness

In this attempt to describe happiness and it's origins, I will first recognize the emotion as a completely subjective experience. "Objective" observers might witness or measure external indications of happiness, but those indications may be intentionally misleading, or unintentionally misinterpreted. Happiness, in full, can only be perceived through subjective experience, because in principle, it is an emotion or "state of mind," and no one has direct awareness of your mind except you.

I concede that external standards of happiness, when measured over time with statistical significance, may reveal trends and provide useful guidelines for a happy life. However, guidelines have a tendency to become dogmatic when followed outside context and culture.

If you are the only one who truly knows whether or not you are happy, then your own happiness is ultimately your responsibility. How do you know if you're happy?

Knowing your own happiness may seem simple, but our current culture of consumerism muddies the process. Rather than recognizing instances of unhappiness, Western culture encourages us to ignore it by consuming, i.e. watching TV, surfing online, having sex, eating junk food or even shopping.

The Western solution to unhappiness could be compared to hiding from a potential attacker. Running and out of breath, you manage to find an open door to slip behind, and the attacker is unable to find you. You breath a sigh of relief and experience a degree of happiness. But you still have to come back from behind the door. You still have to face the potential threat of being attacked by someone else, and they might find out your hiding spot! The experience really wasn't happiness, it was the temporary cessation of unhappiness. Big difference.

Philokalia - Love of the Beautiful

This weekend I spent several hours browsing the Edward McKay used bookstore. I picked up a book that I couldn't put back down, The Philokalia:
Philokalia is defined as the 'love of the beautiful, the exalted, the excellent, understood as the transcendent source of life and the revelation of Truth.' The original authors were mostly monks, whose striving for purification of the heart and spiritual perfection are recurring themes in the Philokalia.
As much aversion as I have for Christian dogma, this book speaks the non-sectarian language of divine love. When exploring the essence of existence and the nature of our relationship with the divine, a certain pattern emerges across all traditions--that of pure, selfless devotion to our personal ishta devata.