I Used to Be a Sociopath

[smalleffects]

 

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.

[Dave Bockman]

Logic is a wonderful tool which Stefan wields skillfully. However it is a poor tool in the non-rational world of spiritual exploration.

How did you arrive at this conclusion, what methodology did you use, and if it is not logic & reason, why are you not deploying it within the context of this argument in order to demonstrate the faulty use of logic to discern truth from falsehood?

 

[smalleffects]

 

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.

[Dave Bockman]

Oops I put in too much seriosity

I don't know what that means, if you could explain your error another way I would appreciate it.

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.

I don't recall asking you to logically defend your assertion, I asked you what methodology you used (this would meet your criteria for 'curiosity' btw) to arrive at your conclusion?

But please look at how your question prevents any deeper non-rational inquiry.

I don't know what that means, and by asking me to ponder it, I do believe (and correct me if I'm wrong), you are asking me to look for the illogic (error) in my thinking, is that correct?

A response that might lead to deeper inquiry is to wonder what conditions make my assertions acceptable, in a word; curiosity.

I am wondering, hence my original question.

Reality is far too complex and faceted to capture completely with logic

How did you arrive at this conclusion, what methodology did you use, and
if it is not logic & reason, why are you not deploying it within
the context of this argument in order to demonstrate the faulty use of
logic to discern truth from falsehood with regard to empirical reality?

Sigh. Very heavy rationality when I'm attempting to point out non-rationality, this is tricky work.

By your use of the word 'sigh', I get the impression you are trying to convey a sense of weariness or disgust with my curiosity and questions with regard to your post, and a kind of smarmy or douchey superiority. Yeah, that's offensive behavior and does not leave me with the sense that you're particularly concerned with the other person in this conversation. What do you think?

[Mister Mister]

 can you define what you mean by spirituality, in contrast to logic or religion?  I have found great benefit from meditation in terms of enabling self-knowledge, clarity of thought, and general emotional and physical well-being.  I know it's a bit of an argument of effect, but I think this is because we don't have good definitions of meditation or spirituality so it's hard to argue why they are useful except for anecdotal evidence.  That said, there is a lot of crap with regard to this kind of stuff and I try to be careful how I talk about it because i don't want to be associated with the smug self-satisfied flaky relativist New Agey crap that I'm sure you all have a distaste for.

[smalleffects]

 

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.

[smalleffects]

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.

[smalleffects]

 

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. 

[smalleffects]

 

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?

[smalleffects]

 

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. 

[Guest darkskyabove]

If you claim A, I will claim not-A. If you change your mind, and claim not-A, I will claim A. Not to uphold the exclusive truth of A vs. not-A. Merely, to break your attachment.

(Paraphrased from a book on Zen, by Dr. D. T. Suzuki, that I read many years ago. I searched high and low and could not find a reference.)

A is A.

(Aristotle.)

Two sides of the same coin. One from the aspect of "pure" rationality. The other from the aspect of the "non-rational".

What I have learned is that my brain is, by its nature, best suited to rational, sometimes logical, processes. Emotions are a secondary effect.Their purpose is to validate, or invalidate, conscious decisions. If I make good decisions, I will have good emotions. Make bad decisions, bad emotions. This effect is not always immediate. The emotional response of decisions, good or bad, can linger in the subconscious for an indeterminate period. Dreams are a direct consequence of this. People who have "good" emotional states have better dreams. People with "unresolved" conflicts, have "nightmares".

All the so-called proponents of alternatives to rationality must, partly by the historical precedent of language, attempt to describe the irrational by rational means. Does this make them wrong? I don't know. In my experience, as limited as it isn't, it has yet to make them right.

It may not be a "fair" example, but, if you wish to test the validity of irrationality, there exists a simple experiment. Go to an area devoid of human civilization. The wilderness, if you will. Now, see how long you last by practicing the irrational. I'm not entirely sure what that would entail. I suppose, for the sake of argument, rather than drinking water, finding some food and shelter, one could sit on a tree stump and ponder the color purple. To me that would be highly irrational. It would also be fatal.

Rationality is a human's only path to life. We no longer have many of the instincts of our animal cousins, and surely do not posses the same offensive and defensive capabilities. What we have is our mind. Our mind is what allows us to procure, or produce, the necessities of survival.

I find it ironic, that after all this time of success and advancement created by human minds (resulting in leisure time for some), that the proponents of irrationality should become more aggressive in their mysticism, and "alternative" ways of thinking. Rejecting that which provides one life is, what's the word, SUICIDAL. It is not an experiment (see above). It is not an "alternative".

I estimate that it would not take much to show that any, and all, persons advocating "irrationality", had their needs satisfied in some way. (Most likely, not by their own device.) You'll never find some new age mystic Zen preacher of the afterlife living alone in the wilderness. The practicalities admit of no such possibility.

Arm-chair philosophy is just that. It has no real value in the real world. If one thinks their ideas are sound, they can test them against reality.

Good luck.

[smalleffects]

 

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?

[Guest darkskyabove]

Thanks for trying to understand my, sometimes convulted, and, rarely, simplistic, arguments.

The quotes lend support to the idea that any discussion of non-rational thinking requires the use of "rational" language.(And I will separate from linking non-rational with irrational, they are not, necessarily the same.) Zen is an attempt at dissociating from the rational, but my take is that, unless you go "non-verbal", you are still using a rational venue: language. "What is the sound of one hand clapping"? Well, no sound at all. The correct Zen response is "Mu", translated as: "Unask the question". Now that, definitely, has two (or more) sides. Does it mean that some questions are not worth asking? Isn't the whole point of examining the non-rational; asking questions outside the boundaries of regular thought? Or, does it mean that your attention is narrowly focused? (This is my interpretation.) Can I think outside the box? Can I set aside my upbringing, conditioning, peer pressure, all the things that lead me to a "pat" answer?

So, are there things outside the boundaries of "rationality"? I do not think so. Sitting on a beach, pondering the colors of the sunset, does not require some kind of "extra-rational" process. (Hey, that's a cool concept: extra-rational.)

As to the "Divided-Brain". This is not something new. What the author has done is to cash in on the work of others. Did he promote a single, original, thought of his own? No. Were the reviews favorable? Of course; it's all part of the coercive mentality. You should respect it because we say so. (Philosophy 101, Fallacies: Appeal to Authority.) Not to say that his work is without merit. Just don't keep such an open mind that your brain falls out.

If the issue of a "divided" brain stirs you, I suggest more research. The idea that each hemisphere operates differently has been around for long, long years.

[smalleffects]

 

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.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Don't succumb to frustration. This is good stuff. I, too, have struggled with the "explainable" versus the "sublime".

I would, first, introduce, that you may have this backward. Not that you are wrong. Just coming at it from the wrong angle, maybe. My understanding is that meditation initiates us with the idea of extreme focus, but the ultimate goal is to transcend beyond attention; into a realm where attention is no longer required. Similarily with Zen. As far as I have been able to process, the Koans are tools to break your attention. It seems, at first, that the answer must have some rational basis; acquired by focusing on the problem. Turns out, it is usually the opposite. The answers are, generally, not logical. They require transcendant thought. Easily rationalized as: thinking outside the box. What box? Whose box? Where is this box?

Second, is not rationality transcendant? At least on this planet, humans are the only species to possess its potential. Is not the ability to attempt comprehension of the, possibly, incomprehensible, itself sublime.

As example: I am, by most measures, an extremely rational person. I subscribe to the idea of objective reality. Reality exists, regardless of my views. And yet, I have experienced moments that transcend my structured view of reality.

Third, my view of spitituality is, perhaps, more organic. I do not accept the concept: supernatural. I have come to view the universe, and ALL its potential variations, as so far beyond my insignificant self, that I no longer require an explanation for all things. What explanations I do possess, assist me in my journey. They are not the be all, end all, of my existence.

I guess I do apply a rational basis for my "spirituality". When I have sat upon a mountaintop, or in the depths of the rainforest, alone, surrounded by an almost unfathomable beauty, I simply soak it in. I do have a rational understanding of geology, climatology, biology, ecology, and damn well every other "ology" humans have come up with.

But none of that matters, when living in the moment.

I will leave you with the words to the most rationally non-rational song I know: (the impact is much greater by listening

)

Parabol

So familiar and overwhelmingly warm
This one, this form I hold now
Embracing you, this reality here
This one, this form I hold now
So wide eyed and hopeful
Wide eyed and hopefully wild

We barely remember what came before
This precious moment
Choosing to be here
Right now
Hold on
Stay inside...
This body holding me
Reminding me that I am not alone in

This body makes me feel eternal
All this pain is an illusion.

Parabola

We barely remember who or what came before
This precious moment
We are choosing to be here
Right now
Hold on
Stay inside...
This holy reality
This holy experience.
Choosing to be here in

This body
This body holding me
Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body
This body holding me
Feeling eternal
All this pain is an illusion.

Alive, I

In this holy reality
In this holy experience
Choosing to be here in

This body
This body holding me
Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body
This body holding me
Feeling eternal
All this pain is an illusion.

Twirling round with this familiar parable
Spinning, weaving round each new experience
Recognize this as a holy gift
And celebrate this chance to be
Alive and breathing

This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality
Embrace this moment
Remember
We are eternal
All this pain is an illusion

 

[Rick Horton]

 

Don't succumb to frustration. This is good stuff. I, too, have struggled with the "explainable" versus the "sublime".

I would, first, introduce, that you may have this backward. Not that you are wrong. Just coming at it from the wrong angle, maybe. My understanding is that meditation initiates us with the idea of extreme focus, but the ultimate goal is to transcend beyond attention; into a realm where attention is no longer required. Similarily with Zen. As far as I have been able to process, the Koans are tools to break your attention. It seems, at first, that the answer must have some rational basis; acquired by focusing on the problem. Turns out, it is usually the opposite. The answers are, generally, not logical. They require transcendant thought. Easily rationalized as: thinking outside the box. What box? Whose box? Where is this box?

Second, is not rationality transcendant? At least on this planet, humans are the only species to possess its potential. Is not the ability to attempt comprehension of the, possibly, incomprehensible, itself sublime.

As example: I am, by most measures, an extremely rational person. I subscribe to the idea of objective reality. Reality exists, regardless of my views. And yet, I have experienced moments that transcend my structured view of reality.

Third, my view of spitituality is, perhaps, more organic. I do not accept the concept: supernatural. I have come to view the universe, and ALL its potential variations, as so far beyond my insignificant self, that I no longer require an explanation for all things. What explanations I do possess, assist me in my journey. They are not the be all, end all, of my existence.

I guess I do apply a rational basis for my "spirituality". When I have sat upon a mountaintop, or in the depths of the rainforest, alone, surrounded by an almost unfathomable beauty, I simply soak it in. I do have a rational understanding of geology, climatology, biology, ecology, and damn well every other "ology" humans have come up with.

But none of that matters, when living in the moment.

I will leave you with the words to the most rationally non-rational song I know: (the impact is much greater by listening

)

Parabol

So familiar and overwhelmingly warm
This one, this form I hold now
Embracing you, this reality here
This one, this form I hold now
So wide eyed and hopeful
Wide eyed and hopefully wild

We barely remember what came before
This precious moment
Choosing to be here
Right now
Hold on
Stay inside...
This body holding me
Reminding me that I am not alone in

This body makes me feel eternal
All this pain is an illusion.

Parabola

We barely remember who or what came before
This precious moment
We are choosing to be here
Right now
Hold on
Stay inside...
This holy reality
This holy experience.
Choosing to be here in

This body
This body holding me
Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body
This body holding me
Feeling eternal
All this pain is an illusion.

Alive, I

In this holy reality
In this holy experience
Choosing to be here in

This body
This body holding me
Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body
This body holding me
Feeling eternal
All this pain is an illusion.

Twirling round with this familiar parable
Spinning, weaving round each new experience
Recognize this as a holy gift
And celebrate this chance to be
Alive and breathing

This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality
Embrace this moment
Remember
We are eternal
All this pain is an illusion

 

 

Yes.  I LOVE this song. It has an amazing spiritual meaning. Depending on what year I hear it, it makes more sense or not to me, though.

Right now, I'm not feeling the deep transcending nature of it because it brings about a lot of hard questions that "I" can't answer, BUT when I hear the song and the words it does hit a spot deep inside that "something" in me does recognize as true. So, I think you hit the nail on the head with using this as an example to express the dilemna. 

[smalleffects]

 

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.

 

[smalleffects]

 

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. 

[Pepin]

 

 

I would suggest watching the bomb in the brain. I can guess that you have seen it, but watch it again. If you are feeling anxious or hesisitant about rewatching it, then it is really important to understand why and not to rationalize a reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[smalleffects]

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.

[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.

[Pepin]

That is quite motivating I must say.