Enlightened Animals

Observing Mindfulness

Humans are animals. Questions to ponder:  What does it mean for an animal to become enlightened? Is it possible to become enlightened incrementally (like gaining expertise)? Is enlightenment on a continuum with regular human capacities, or does it represent a qualitative shift? Or is the approach to enlightenment incremental but then actual achievement is a qualitative shift (kinda like expertise too)?  Can one be enlightened and then fall out of it? Why? Why not?

Of course, religious adherents, especially of Eastern traditions, will have their own answers to these questions, possibly quoting founders and masters who are considered enlightened. Buddhists may point out that “enlightenment” is an English word for which the closest concept is that of bodhi in Buddhist texts. Bodhi is also sometimes translated as “awakening”.

Within religious traditions, enlightenment is partly about achieving wisdom into the “true nature of the world”, i.e., the really real. This wisdom is transformative and resolves the problem of suffering. From an emic perspective, these few words about enlightenment are of course insufficient and misleading because enlightenment is not something regular “dualistic” minds can grasp. One needs a teacher and a lifetime of practice to get and stay on a path to enlightenment.

Enlightenment is usually described as a categorical shift in awareness/wisdom/being. Not just better and better, or more and more enlightened. But – bam! Of course, after the bam! the Enlightened One’s insight may be that these distinctions are nonsensical. Or so the common narrative would suggest.

What are we saying when we say something? Homeostatic Range or Homeostatic Balance

Explorations Outside the Box

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

Observing, Accepting, and Making Meaning

Observing Mindfulness

Observing and accepting thoughts and then gently redirecting attention to something else disrupts their elaboration (which is more thoughts on the same or related subjects). Accepting the first observed manifestation of a thought is not the same as yielding to the thought. When you yield to a thought, you stay with it as it expands and meanders. You haven’t prejudged whether it will lead of anything of value. It may lead to a tangle of thorny bushes or to a treasure trove.

I don’t want this to sound like one is watching the thoughts go hither and yon. It’s more like they are going hither and yon and occasionally another part of the brain – the metacognitive part – listens to the echo of what just went by. This is by nature retrospective. Meaning emerges in time and thoughts are meaning-making processes. To focus on each word as it appears (if that is even possible) is to disrupt the flow of meaning-making.

Meaning-making is an ongoing process (although specific instances of the process stop at some point). Meaning emerges in time and is continually updated. Emergent meaning often requires reinterpretation of what came before. Meaning loops back on itself.

 

The meaning of a string of words may only become clear when it is finished. The meaning of the string may only become clear after many more strings and much more time. And, of course, meaning-making incorporates a lot more than mere words.

 

Actually: does meaning ever become “clear”?

Demographics, Wealth, Income and Inequality: Part I

Politics and Economics

Affluence is mostly a matter of age and education in the US. The median net worth (2011) of young adults (less than 35 years) is $6,676; for 65 to 69 year-olds, it’s $194,226; for 75 and older: $155,714. Basically, people start accumulating wealth in their late 30s and then slowly deplete it after retirement. As with wealth, so with income: the top 1%  for 25-29 year-olds starts at $140,010 a year; for 30-34 year-olds it’s $185,760; incrementally going up with each age group, ending with 55 and over: $331,590. And then, income plummets after retirement – and with income, wealth begins its slow drain.

These days it takes longer to accumulate wealth. By age of household head, younger and middle-aged households are comparatively poorer than they were 30 years ago. Older households are 40% wealthier. This reflects more difficult economic conditions for younger cohorts, as well as the fact that peak earnings occur later in life than they used to (especially for professionals).

As for education, the difference in median wealth between individuals with two-year and four-year degrees is almost $100K; likewise the difference between the latter and holders of graduate or professional degrees. A bachelor’s degree also confers a significant income advantage – 45% higher than possession of an associate’s degree.

Uncertainty, Risk, and Action

Explorations Outside the Box

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.

 

 

Awareness, Consciousness, and Paying Attention

Explorations Outside the Box, Observing Mindfulness

So where does “awareness” come in? What is the difference between “awareness” and focal attention? Is “awareness” the same as “consciousness”? How does equating awareness with consciousness advance understanding of anything?  You still have to define your terms.

Is “awareness” of online focal attention possible, i.e., awareness simultaneous with and distinct from focal attention? Or is “awareness” really the same thing as focal attention? And if we are “aware” of focal attending, is it simultaneous with the attending or awareness of attending that just passed? Please answer and get back to me.

Denmark: Vibrant Business Sector, High Taxes, and Basic Security for All

Politics and Economics

Denmark’s generous safety net is made possible by high taxes – and not particularly progressive taxes at that.  Kicking in at incomes of roughly $6300/year, the lowest tax rate is 37.5%. The highest rate is 59%, starting at about $50,400/year. Counting all sources of taxation, taxes comprise 49% of GDP – the highest in Europe.

But then there’s the basic security of universal health care, paid parental leave, free college, and unemployment compensation for up to two years. The Danes are making a trade-off: in exchange for that basic security, their after-tax income is lower and the cost of living a lot higher than what we have in the US.  They live in smaller houses (half the size of US homes, on average) and have less stuff.

The Danes are what I’d call comfortable but not affluent. The American middle class has much more discretionary income than their Danish counterparts. Even with stagnating wages.

I think the Danish trade-off is worth it. Vibrant business sector, committed to the free market and free trade, balanced by high individual taxes and a basic security for everyone. Who needs big houses and big cars? Doesn’t help the soul and it’s not good for the planet.

Of course, Americans will never go for it. At least not in the near future.

For more:  http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/03/26/would-americans-be-happier-if-u-s-were-more-like-denmark/

Death and Climate Change

The Environment

Ignoring possible human suffering and death caused by climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts is no different than  drone pilots disassociating from the effects of their bombing runs. Of course, sometimes drastic – and lethal – measures are justified. But trade-offs are involved – and if you care about human life, trade-offs must be seriously considered.

We know people will die because of climate change. We know people will die if global economic growth stalls. How many of us have a good idea of the numbers? What might increase or reduce those numbers?

It’s a cop-out to say that “in the long run” more human lives will be saved, or that all forms of life matter, not just humans. Is a die-off of humans necessary for other forms of life to prosper? Are there ways to help other species thrive without requiring that a bunch of people suffer and die?

In a previous post, I simplified climate change action priorities as follows: reduce green house gases, protect habitats, protect wildlife and protect humans. With the empowerment of women and economic development throughout the world, human population will plummet. Sorry guys – when women have options, they don’t want a dozen kids – one or two will do. With technological advances, humans can grow food on less and less land. Without dependency on the land, more and more will flock to the cities. All these developments will reduce greenhouse gases, increase wild habitat, protect wildlife and save human lives.

Science and the Freedom to Speak One’s Mind

Scientific Encounters

“The problem with free speech is that it’s hard, and self-censorship is the path of least resistance. But once you learn to keep yourself from voicing unwelcome thoughts, you forget how to think them – how to think freely at all – and ideas perish at conception.” George Packer, p.20, The New Yorker April 13, 2015.

So, how to reduce self-censorship in science?  A few ways: anyone writing or speaking about scientific opinions (theories, hypotheses, summaries of evidence) should:

  • Avoid appealing to indicators of authority or status in reference to those scientific opinions. That means no “highly respected”,  “renowned”, or “leader in his/her field”.
  • Avoid assigning scientists into  in- and out-groups.  It doesn’t matter if the in-group is the “consensus” or the “anti-orthodoxy rebels” – anything that triggers belonging needs interferes with independent judgment.  Anything that encourages an “us versus them” attitude impoverishes scientific discourse, because it makes it that much harder to speak up.
  • Expunge the concept of “proof” in science, as proofs apply only to the domains of mathematics and logic.
  • Assume a skeptical attitude. Skepticism means appreciating we may be wrong on many levels – not just the “facts”. We may be wrongly interpreting the facts, or not seeing them in the proper context, or misestimating their importance in relation to some other facts. There are so many ways we can be wrong – we need to remain alert to their possibilities. We need people around who alert us.

 

 

Who are Thoughts Speaking To?

Observing Mindfulness

We often talk about thoughts as if they were an outpouring of words, with word after word reeling off like widgets coming off an assembly line. When I hear my thoughts they are more like participants in a conversation. As social animals, our behaviors are often communicative acts. And that includes cognitive behavior. Seen in this way, thoughts that involve words could be considered a type of communicative behavior: silent speech acts.

When I become aware of thoughts, they are almost always talking thoughts. By “talking”, I mean they are prosodic, with conversational inflections – not just reflecting semantic content but also employing rhetorical devices, as if trying to have an effect on an audience. And they seem to be talking to someone. Who’s the audience? Sometimes oneself – like when we try to persuade, remind or convince ourselves of something: “You idiot! Why did you do that?” “God, you’re good!”, “Remember to buy cheese”. Sometimes the audience is someone we know, like when we replay a difficult conversation but fix our part to produce a better outcome (in our heads). Sometimes the audience has no specific identity; we’re simply engaging in a silent monologue. Even though monologists are speaking to no one in particular, they are still speaking to be heard.