smalleffects

Since my original comment that logic and reason are not good tools for spiritual work I have realized it is not a side issue unrelated to Stefan's main work as I originally thought. Popular discussions of spirituality are often stuck on belief and logic both of which get in the way of deep spiritual exploration. Religious fundamentalist twist logic and reason to serve their ends, but a similar situation exists when purely rational discussions are demanded, logic and reason are then used to flatten reality into chunks which are amenable to these tools. Opening to a larger reality is a critical prerequisite to any social reform. Changing our social structures to fix problems is much like attempting to level a house with a skewed foundation by working on the attic. We need to change our relationships to ourselves and the world in an embodied way, literally in our bodies. Social rules and philosophy appear contain bodies but our bodies are actually being excluded as is the world. Our social structures are the result and expression of our relationship with each other and our inner life. Changing social structure alone has proven to be a very hard and long road. There is much more leverage available by changing ourselves along with the structures.

Ok I watched it as you suggested. I would not argue with the logic or the facts but I do feel something slightly "off" with the explanation. The parable of the master and the emissary might offer a way of discussing what I'm feeling. I'm looking at the explanation as the master might while the Stefan's explanation is from the emissary's perspective. The emissary looks at the world from a precise narrow sharply focused detailed perspective. The master looks at the world from a broad open but alert perspective. Both views are necessary for a complete picture unfortunately as Dr McGilchrist points out the emissary often claims sole ownership of the solution. Some hints of this show up in Stefan's explanation as "hard" boundaries on facts and penetrating precise logic which counterpoints the broad open view. I've found from the master's perspective facts are often fuzzy and uncertain. I've also discovered logic can produce true and accurate results which are completely wrong because the context is often larger than the emissary is aware. I see these kinds of solutions all over our culture; true, accurate, precise but completely wrong. I'm using the word wrong here in the sense that the problem is not solved and often made worse so as in the parable everyone loses.

Have I gone too far? Maybe I've pushed Dr. McGilchrist's work beyond the acceptable. Or is the idea that spirituality and nonsense (non-rational again) are closely related upsetting? How about something more orthodox like David M. Levy's March 2008 Google talk "No Time to Think." I think he leaves out a lot and using slow and fast to characterize thinking is not a good fit. Still his recommendations might be acceptable to a larger number of people.

Moncaloono I'm finding this discussion useful as well thank you for the encouragement. Your post captures the flavor of what I'm talking about. Would you say your experience included anything like transcendent rationality? Would you agree the experience was a taste of what may be possible on the peak side, that a more transcendent and deeper experience is possible? I suggest fragments of this transcendent experience already exist in our daily routines where it is taken for granted because it is so familiar, but also it is possible to bring more of this experience into ordinary daily living so it shapes our choices and decisions. Doing this seems for our necessary for our survival. Dr McGilchrist's parable of The Master and His Emissary offers some insight into this idea. The Parabol lyrics remind me of Dr. Moody's work on nonsense a related but slightly different conversation. Though Dr. Moody's ideas on nonsense might be a good way to work with this stuff since there is less focus on whether things are real or true and more on affect and meaning.

I just spent an hour and a half composing a reply to your post when I realized this is the same error I made before when I attempted to construct a logical path from where we are to where I would like us to visit, literally I cannot argue a point and no variation of that will work. Apparently to understand what I'm trying to say you must already understand what I'm trying to say. What a conundrum! Perhaps the original purpose of Zen Koans was to help flip a mental switch for a different way of seeing.

Thank you Darkskyabove for responding it helps me get clear on what is not part of the conversation. I'm not advocating irrationality nor giving up rational thinking. I respect rational thinking and logic, it is one of the things which attracted me to Stefan's broadcasts. Non-rational seems descriptive to me since I'm talking about something neither rational or irrational. Perhaps from your perspective there is no distinction between non-rational and irrational so I'll need to find different words. I've discovered Dr McGilchrist has a TED talk on The divided Brain. A twelve minute talk is not enough time for more than bullet points yet he does a marvelous job. He covers much of what I wished to say so I may not have much more to contribute to the conversation than to recommend his TED talk as a teaser and his book as an introduction to interesting possibilities. I'm wondering how you interpret the quotes you offered. Your comment suggests to me that you see them as related, is that true?

I supect the lack of reponse indicates my choice of words and unusual approach has violated acceptable norms. By fortunate coincidence I've encountered a book by Iain McGilchrist M.D. that articulates elegantly most of what I wanted to say. Though it is the menu not the meal it does offer insights and supporting material about the brain not as commonly understood as I had presumed. Please do not let any judgements about me prevent you from reading Dr. McGilchrist's book The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World.

I've never tried this particular kind of discussion before so I'm learning as we go along. In a rational discussion I would present my case and you would judge it's merits. But this kind of discussion is a collaborative effort. The level of success depends on how much each of us is willing to commit to the discussion. I confess I started with a low level of commitment. But I've learned some interesting things from the attempt so I'm willing to keep going for a while longer. Are you willing to try my previous request?

Besides attempting the impossible I've apparently also made a poor estimate on were to start. How about we try this; Think of a time when you were happy. Place yourself in the experience. Now answer the following questions. You need not tell me the answers but I would like you to observe the process used to answer. If the feeling had a shape what would it be? If the feeling had a color what would it be? Where in your body do you feel this most? What is the texture? What is the temperature? Self observation is a skill, you will notice more with practice. If this is unfamiliar then it would be a good idea to practice with several different experiences. Explore other times when you were happy or other emotions such as sadness, fear, or anger.

I've not attempted to define spirituality though I have been tempted. It seems counterproductive since it would be movement toward rationality rather than non-rationally. Also I've noticed that definitions tend to create "things" while "spirituality" seems more about process and movement. I've read that David Bohm was interested in the Blackfoot language because it describes the world in terms of process and relationship, which he felt was more accurate than English which describes the world as the interaction of things. I know a few people who have experienced a state where no "things" exist. One man told me while in this state he pointed to a hill and said "hill" which immediately shifted him back to our usual view of the world fill with things. There is something about naming or defining that inhibits deeper experiences.

Wow, I failed even worse than I thought. Seriousty = serious + iosity, since we have curiosity and religiosity why not seriosity? I wanted to lighten the mood a little, obviously that didn't work. I also realized my first post was making the same kind of errors I perceive Stefan made in "I Used to Be a Sociopath." In keeping with non-rationality this does not invalid what I wish to point out. Perhaps to confuse matters further I mostly agree with everything Stefan said in the podcast. I've been playing with non-rationality for several years and I still feel like a beginner, there are no handles, nothing to grasp and no words. I suspect a methodology might exist but it would not look like anything we find in the rational world. I was not asking you to see the error in your thinking because non-rational does not involve thinking, at least not in the way we usually experience thinking. My "sigh" was realizing I had failed to get anywhere near my target. I see now I was trying to build a path from rational to non-rational which just won't work. We need to start at non-rational and end at non-rational, so there is no path.

Oops I put in too much seriosity. But really, asking me to logically defend the assertion that logic is inappropriate for the topic at hand? You've got me there, I don't have a clue. But please look at how your question prevents any deeper non-rational inquiry. A response that might lead to deeper inquiry is to wonder what conditions make my assertions acceptable, in a word; curiosity. I hope you agree logic does not improve experiences such as watching a sunrise or listening to music. Reality is far too complex and faceted to capture completely with logic. Consider how logic is applied; a mental abstraction is created to model the area of interest. A rigorous set of rules are applied in sequence and the results are translated from the model to reality. Watching a sunrise does not involve abstraction or models. Even sequence is less important, the sun rising or setting is beautiful. Also consider the experience easily spans the range; "Seen one sunrise seen them all" to "My God I've never seen that shade of purple before, this is glorious!" Sigh. Very heavy rationality when I'm attempting to point out non-rationality, this is tricky work.

My reaction to the YouTube video "I Used to Be a Sociopath" motivated me to comment. Defining terms might be useful but the post would be unbearably long, my apology for the shortcut. Logic is a wonderful tool which Stefan wields skillfully. However it is a poor tool in the non-rational world of spiritual exploration. Non-rational is not necessarily irrational although there is enough popular irrationality to produce confusion. In addition to being less effective applying logic to spiritual experience brings a quality of mind that filters away experiences that might bring clarity. I would like to suggest that attention is both the active ingredient in meditation and an effective tool for an empirical spiritual exploration. Attention is a key ingredient in many forms of spiritual work such as Zen Koans. Attention also serves as an example of non-rational experience that is not logical or irrational. Some self-experimentation with attention will begin to reveal it has qualities which we have no vocabulary to discuss or even acknowledge exists. In that respect we are like early pioneers of chemistry lacking enough understanding to ask sensible questions or agree on what is a sensible question. My spiritual exploration has moved me away from orthodox beliefs and closer to an atheistic perspective yet I consider myself more deeply spiritual now than when I was certain God existed. I find this odd, yet it reminds me of the non-rational quality of the spiritual landscape. To require spiritual experience fit into a logical and rational frame flattens and filters the sublime out of our awareness.

Fortunately I experience very little violence in my life. Yet I am aware violence exists in my community in the form of murder, rape, armed robbery and abuse. I am also aware of violence in other countries in the form of war, revolution and dictatorships. I can agree much of the violence might be eliminated through proper education. But the level of cooperation required for such a feat seems to require the results of the education before it is provided. And how can we deal with the remaining violence since there will always be a few (thousand?) people who cannot or will not learn non-violent interactions.

Recently approved and new listener to freedomainradio. I am intrigued by Stefan's moral economics but it seems unreachable. Human behavior spans the entire moral spectrum, this is unlikely to change. I am unconvinced any system is robust enough to be sustained without violence. I will enjoy exploring the discussions around Stefan's broadcasts.