Just like with speech, thoughts aren’t only about their literal content but also their function. Morin et al (2011) found that one function of inner speech was self-motivation. Some inner outbursts do serve to boost confidence by self-praise (“that was brilliant”!) or motivate corrective behavior by self-chastisement (“that was stupid”!). Sometimes we replay moments of triumph; other times we replay moments of failure. The former motivates approach behavior – confidence to keep going; the latter motivates avoidance behavior – let’s not do that again, along with consideration of counterfactuals and alternative, potentially more successful, behaviors.

Reference:

Morin A., Uttl B., Hamper B. (2011). Self-reported frequency, content, and functions of inner speech. Proc. Soc. Behav. J. 30, 1714–1718

In “Self Comes to Mind”, Antonio Damasio writes of the homeostatic range associated with the well-being of living creatures. Venture too close to the periphery of this range and you get pain. Inhabit the middle and you get pleasure. The nice thing about a range is that things don’t have to be perfect to feel good. You don’t need to hit the sweet spot – just stay within the range.

Now compare the concept of the homeostatic range to the idea of homeostatic balance. Homeostatic balance is a perfectly respectable concept meaning a condition of equilibrium. But my interest is in the “use value” of the word ‘balance’: what it is meant to evoke and accomplish in discursive communities.

With balance, you’ve got equilibrium and with equilibrium, you’ve got a ‘point of equilibrium’. With points, there’s not much wiggle room. An internal temperature around 98.6°F is pretty much a point – venture a degree either way and we have a problem Houston.

Ranges usually have a lot of wiggle room. One doesn’t hear a “delicate range’. Ranges are sturdy; ranges provide options. Ranges imply tolerance of insults, at least to a degree.

Balance is another matter. Balance is often coupled with “delicate” (over 3 million results on Google!). Delicate balance implies fragility, vulnerability, and lurking danger. Hence, reference to a “delicate balance” as a call to action, often evoked in perceived threats to biological systems, especially from outsiders – whether those outsiders are unnatural chemicals or invasive species.

Reference: Antonio Damasio (2010) Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain; Vintage Books, New York, NY

When you have strong opinions, appreciate you may be wrong. When you have weak opinions, you may be wrong. When you think it’s all too complicated to have an opinion, you may be wrong.  If you keep having the same kinds of opinions (strong, weak, or resisted), you’ll probably over-relying on heuristics and not trying hard enough.

Every action involves risk. Every inaction involves risk. Whatever we do or don’t do is a gamble.

Viewing humans as primates-mammals-animals-life forms, the concept of “enlightenment” and of “enlightened” beings seems strange to me.  If enlightenment exists, could animals other than humans become enlightened? Why? Why not? No surprise: I’m skeptical about whether enlightenment, in any of its religious variations, actually exists.

I am more interested in the idea of enlightenment from outside a religious tradition – the etic perspective.  For instance, how does the concept of enlightenment relate to broader societal practices and memes? What assumptions and themes are associated with the concept of enlightenment?  How does the concept of enlightenment square with scientific findings? What is the truth-value of the concept of enlightenment? Does the concept of enlightenment make sense in terms of neuroscience and evolutionary theory?

Why do we believe that some people have achieved enlightenment? What counts as evidence of enlightenment, or an argument for the existence of enlightenment?

What is the relationship between enlightenment as a portal onto the really real* and enlightened humans as authorities on the really real?  On the one hand, we have the idea that enlightenment is not on a continuum with regular experience; on the other, we have enlightened “masters” who are not on a continuum with regular folk.  There is a special status, a categorical difference that marks the experience of enlightenment and the enlightened person : something absolutely different.

We’re talking about the authority of religious experience and of religious leaders. Since the state and the personal transformation cannot be understood by the unenlightened, the latter would do well to follow and obey those who have passed into the light. At least that’s the theory.

—

* Per Clifford Geertz, it’s the really real upon which the religious perspective rests.

When we say that political differences basically come down to values, we are often saying there’s an unbridgeable gulf between us and people on the other side. Values are generally seen as bedrock non-negotiables, so what’s the point of even talking to the other side? And so we have the increasing polarization and breakdown of communication between Democrats and Republicans.

Instead of thinking about political differences in terms of values, think of these differences in terms of priorities. Priorities are informed by multiple, often competing, goals based on multiple, often competing, values. Since multiple goals and values are involved, at least some are likely to be shared across the political spectrum. And prioritizing is not just about what we should aim for and what matters – it’s also based on assessments of urgency, opportunity, and resources (think time and money). To frame issues in terms of priorities is to appreciate a complex world.

When we talk about priorities, there’s less “either/or” thinking than when we talk about values. When we talk about priorities instead of values, there’s more room for discussion and compromise.