Saturday, 2 August 2014

Introducing... A Totally New Angle On The End Of Suffering



Well, that took a while.  As eager followers of this blog will know I've been putting together a book recently, but more importantly, as part of that, I've been trying to connect up the wires for a totally new approach to addressing amplified human suffering from the inside.

That is to say, the anxiety, the fear, the pain, the despair, the worry, the rage, the self-sustaining, emotionally driven blindness, all of that.  It's all one process playing out in different ways, and that's something I've charted elsewhere.

Hidden underneath the mysticism and ornate trappings of Eastern thought lies a pretty simple, core idea.  It's that this process can be, basically, disrupted at source.  Now, the way in which it tries to do this is very profound - and quite united across every different strand of Eastern philosophy.  The names change, the framework changes, but the underlying process is always pretty straightforward.

It has been the gold standard for interdicting human suffering for several thousand years, and a lot of my work has been on stripping out all the fancy-schmancy superstitions, and clarifying the core process so anyone can use it.  I do this because I think the potential is limitless - in a civilisation where communications are as distributed as ours, the idea of a truly global revolution in human nature is by no means wacky.

The last time I released a major chunk of research was the high-watermark of my work in this area.  I'd zeroed in on Hui Neng (the de facto founder of Zen) as having the clearest view of the internal workings, and I believed then, and I believe now, that I was able to open them up, stripped of reverence and dogma, and just present them pure

But the problem, my friends, is that Zen isn't deep enough.  Buddha isn't deep enough, the Bhagavad Gita isn't deep enough.  The answer is real - it does work - but it necessitates a kind of retreat from life, a retreat from the interplay of people and things.  This is seen as a virtue - transcending the world.  But it inhibits the good this thing can do - if the best our work can do is give all the wise people a way to bail on engaging with the world, that's not a good thing.  The world is in desperate need of wisdom, but active wisdom, deep engagement with things.

There's another related problem that's even more basic.  It's that the whole Eastern approach, for all its talk of nonduality and peace, is inherently antagonistic.  Because it can see no way to salvage the human self (which it sees as the source of suffering) the only real option it presents is the suppression of that self.  That can be through meditation, paradoxes - whatever.  Whether it's an attempt at ego destruction or clever circumvention, the ego, the self - you, me - is still seen as the problem.  Stillness and peace, they are the solution. 

It works against the basic nature of the human animal.  The basic nature of what the self is.  No matter how you embellish it, no matter if you call silence the 'True Self', the basic antagonism of the whole approach is hardwired from the work of Buddha onward.  It's just not deep enough.  It doesn't have enough insight into the nature of the self to find a way that the self can be reinvented.

That is what my new work is about.  It's taken me (as always) years to put it together, to get all the pieces clear and flush, to test it over and over from inside to familiarise myself with the core workings, to experience how they play out in real life.

I've written a book about it, but that's still going through editing, and I'll be looking for a real publisher, so it probably won't be released for a while.  What I've done instead is put together a series of lectures where I open up the core ideas.  There are three lectures, the first two I've already done, the third will be happening in September.

The first lecture sets out a new understanding of human nature.  It's pretty simple, if very strange, but it's the detail in this perspective, the new breakthroughs in understanding the basic nature and agenda of the human self, that open up the new options available for deep, powerful change.

You can see the first lecture here.

The second lecture is all about that change.  It's about showcasing a new kind of answer to the problem of human suffering.  Something that operates at a similar depth to the core process of Eastern thought - but takes the response to suffering in a totally new direction.

The core difference is that this isn't about transcending the self.  It's about creating a new kind of fluid self that is massively more powerful and stable than anything we've had before. 

You can see the second lecture here.

Apparently the sound quality in the video recording's not as good as it was in the podcast version of that one, so if you want to listen to it more clearly without the benefit of my impression of Chewbacca's dad, this is the link for that.

The third lecture is about how that change can scale.  Because this is a different response to the core problem of human suffering, it has a different trajectory as it scales.  There are different rules to it, different opportunities it presents.  What I believe it does is allow us to tap the power that ideology has to unite people without getting sucked into the power ideology has to divide people.  That it could - in principle at least - be used as the core of a new kind of revolution, one vastly deeper than anything humanity has so far considered.

Details on the third lecture can be found at this link, as soon as it's up on the web I'll put up the link.

So, look at you!  You just read a massive chunk of words on the internet and didn't go looking for cat videos once.  You've made me proud.

Hope you like the lectures - and I must give a shout out to the people who make all of this possible by subscribing.  These are not wealthy people, they're just people who've decided that this kind of research is important enough to support.  You really are the people who make this possible, it takes a huge investment of time and energy to put all this stuff together, and without the financial support of the people who subscribe, it simply would not happen.

If you would like to subscribe to support this work, (and also to get a hardline to me so you can ask me questions about implementing this new stuff, or any kind of philosophical madness) simply click this link and follow the onscreen instructions.

I hope you enjoy the new stuff, and please please please do share it with people who you think might, even potentially, have an interest.  Being an indie philosopher means that I have no vast funding to push these ideas out there, they rely on people just like you being generous with them, and sharing them with others, so don't be a miser and hoard all of it, share the love.

Ok, I'm done.  Go on, go look at cat videos.  You've earned it.

Thursday, 15 May 2014

More Edinburgh Interpretation - Quantum Superpositions And Historical Coherence



Hello everyone.

Just got a new question from a new subscriber - firstly, thanks so much for the support, it makes this possible.

Secondly, it's a great question that really digs in to the differences between the new ideas about time and Quantum Mechanics that I introduced in One Song, and the standard ideas of the Copenhagen Interpretation.  I've done my best to make this clear - but I'll publish and respond to any decent comments on this one if anyone else has anything to add.

Here goes:

XXXXX

Hey man, just subscribed. I'm not a trained physicist either, everything I know is from MIT's open course and wikipedia articles, so no doubt there are flaws in my understanding. I've got some questions for you though. I think I've got the gist of your theory but I can't quite get my head around what it means in certain situations.

"The 'Now' flows through the probability path of least resistance." 

So, the Earth is in a position to orbit the sun because of the the physical masses involved, but we see this occurring continuously over time because the path of least resistance in regards to probability collapse is a result of that which came before it, which includes the physical masses, position in space, rotation, energy etc.  Therefore the Earth is ever manifested into the now and its orbit continues.

If it did just suddenly cease to orbit it, it would be the result of some other perfectly coherent phenomena. Even in a "by the hand of God scenario", it would be a result of a coherent reality in which there exists the possibility of a "hand of God" in the first place. Any event in any system can only ever be a result of the prior possibility of that event. All things that happen must be coherent with everything that came before them. This seems sound.

However, in the example of Schrodinger's cat, according to the idea of quantum superposition, the cat is simultaneously dead and alive, because the atom exists in all possible theoretical states until the point of observation. Are you saying that that isn't the case? What is your account of Schrodinger's cat from the perspective of coherence? That the cat is alive, or dead, but not in a "superposition", because the atom has either decayed, or it hasn't?  

You say that "consciousness doesn't cause collapse", and that we're looking at "occurrence". Well, doesn't this disprove the idea of "superposition" to begin with? How can something exist only as a probability if every single moment probability collapses into reality? I really don't understand this bit. 

XXXXXXX

Again, thank you so much for this question, I'm not even kidding.  It's so wonderful to get someone really getting deep inside what I'm saying and coming up with some killer questions that lead deeper into the core of this thing.

Yes, I've done some work on trying to make sense of what you're talking about here.  First things first, the issue you raise about probability and orbit are bang on the money, that is a brilliant way to describe it.  The only thing I might add is an idea I had which I suppose I'd call 'historical coherence'.

The universe is, obviously, inconceivably old, 13.8 billion years to be precise.  That's when time 'started', according to Stephen Hawking who had a brilliant way of summing this up, he said that asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what's North of the North Pole.  There is no before.  There is no more north.  That's the hard limit, just because of the nature of the thing.

Now, say we take the idea of coherence.  This is a hugely important idea for the Edinburgh Interpretation, in many ways the heart of it.  It's the way that reality has no 'break points' or 'fracture lines' in it, much like a fluid.

This is the idea of water flowing over a rock.  Two streams can separate but when they reconnect they become one totally coherent stream again.  There's no join-line, no seams, no contradictions, no paradoxes, it's just one flow.  There can be things like eddies and whirls and currents within it, it's not necessarily static, but it is necessarily coherent.

If a stream of water is split in two, and one stream of water sloshes down a steeper incline, moving faster than the other, when they meet they fit seamlessly, so much so that they immediately once more become one thing.  They create a new coherence together and the flow is united again.

That's what I suppose we could call 'lateral coherence'.  Side-to-side coherence.  The streams are side to side with each other in our 'God's eye perspective'.

But what about up and down stream?  Just in one single flow?  That as the flow of being moves, reality occurs in certain ways that it cannot then later contradict.  This could potentially account for the shape of the fundamental laws of the universe, because if we think very early on in the universe's history, even just a few million years after the Big Bang, things are occurring and resolving themselves, but in doing so setting precedents for how reality works, precedents that no later actuality can violate.

Is this making any sense?  That something that happens now can't contradict something that happened in the past, and so the laws of physics – such as we understand them – is the way the coherence of the universe itself has unfolded, and, perhaps, formed.

This is also a good philosophical link with relativity because it gives a very different perspective on why relativity works in the way it does.  Very much like your example of probability crystallising into a planetary orbit, but on the scale of the whole universe, and acting on the fundamental laws of physics.  It would be extremely, extremely fruity, but there might be a possibility for deriving something like the light-speed limit as the fastest possible rate at which something can become, due to the Quantum limitations of the probability flow.  That's pretty out there, but then all of this is pretty out there, so I felt I'd include it.

So there's that.  I know that's pretty abstract, hope that makes some sense, but you definitely have a very strong grasp on the central idea of being flowing into probability.

The second thing is this – how does this relate to superpositions?

Well, the whole Edinburgh Interpretation could basically be understood as a way of describing a way for superpositions to occur in a way that is not contradictory.  The key is that a superposition cannot occur in reality - it would be a contradiction - but it can absolutely occur in possibility.

This fits neatly in to the idea of the future as possibility.  As in, literally, possibility is what the future is made of.  It's right here, right now – the sea of possibility that collapses into being, forming the now.  That this is our direct, personal experience of time, and that it is largely an accurate description of the shape of time itself.

This kind of cresting wave.  So the idea of Schrodinger's Cat isn't actually that problematic.  A real-life experiment would be one example of the 'branching' we spoke about with lateral coherence – time inside the box passes normally for the cat, and it dies or doesn't.  Time passes normally outside the box and the experimenter doesn't know which it is.  The box is opened – the two flows interact and resolve themselves into a state of total coherence for both.  No paradox, no contradiction.

There's another absolutely key element to the Edinburgh Interpretation that almost everyone misses.

The act of observation does NOT collapse ANYTHING.  Observation, from the point of view of the Edinburgh Interpretation, literally does not exist.  This is where it opens up a new line on understanding the nature of human consciousness, because it makes the claim that there literally is no consciousness at all.

This is very jarring, but please look it in the eye.  Face the weirdness, it is key.  The way to understand it is that what it's saying is that what we experience as consciousness and call consciousness is in fact not consciousness at all.  It's not a human thing, it's not produced by the brain, it's nothing like that.  It's the actual being of reality itself, the flowing reality of the present moment.

When we think of consciousness, we refer (I believe) to the 'field of awareness' in which things happen, in which experience happens, in which life happens.  For all the ways that people criticise him, this was brilliantly described by Eckhart Tolle in a way that dramatically reduced any metaphysical baggage.  Not to zero - but his work was a huge step in the right direction.

The thing is this - that what we refer to as 'the now' shares EXACTLY the same properties as what we think of as consciousness.  We just use two different words for it, and the second one, the word 'consciousness' has this assumption embedded in it that this is the product of the human being, not the actual place in which the human being, body, mind, identity and all, occurs.

So when we look at the seeming collapse of probability functions by consciousness, the only reason that seems kooky is that we have laid claim to this thing that we have nothing to do with, and because it has the effect it does we look like we're magic.  We're not.  It's not consciousness, it's occurrence, and the collapse of probability functions into occurrence isn't physically or philosophically problematic at all.  It's just a short, punchy, sentence length description of the shape of being itself.

The idea of testing the moment of what I suppose we could call 'prime coherence' would be something that might be amenable to experimentation.  One of the big unknowns is that you can't predict where a particle would 'resolve' itself on observation – there's a probability range.  A lot of the most interesting experiments, like the Delayed Quantum Eraser do, I feel, demonstrate this extremely well – that you can interfere with the resolution of photons into reality by setting up interference blocks and information scramblers along the path of an entangled beam.

To directly answer your question in a sentence, the Edinburgh Interpretation allows for the existence of superpositions in probability, but not in actuality.  Possibility can contradict itself, because it isn't real yet.  You can have the possibility that you would be sitting there reading this, or that you're about to get hit by a meteor at the end of this sentence.  Pow.  Nice work, you survived – because in actuality you can't do both.
Live, reading you and dead meteor-faced you can both exist as potentials.  But they can't both occur at the same time.  Occurrence is the moment where reality becomes.  Where it becomes real and resolves itself in total coherence, that's what the present moment physically is.  Pretty fruity use of the word 'physically' there, but I hope you see what I'm trying to get at.  That the actual human experience of being that you are literally having right now actually is the flow of time itself, and that this is something that is the same regardless of scale.

It's how the motion of the universe is playing out, it's how our personal lives are playing out, it's how probability collapse in individual electrons and photon packets is playing out.  It's all one shape, one idea that could serve as the basis for a physics that doesn't have these jarring disconnects over issues of scale.  That's a big thing to say though, it might not do this, or this might not be possible for all sorts of reasons, but even at worst I still think it's a very interesting, very illuminating way to look at this whole thing that has a real simplicity and elegance to it, while giving a much clearer and non-conflicted account of some very weird phenomena.

There's one last side-issue to all this, which is that one of the (potentially testable) claims that the Edinburgh Interpretation makes of reality is that the only reason these effects seem to 'dominate' the world of atomic and subatomic particles is that the systems are so basic that there only ARE a few possible ways something can be resolved into coherence.

That's the way it explains the “Quantum” element of Quantum Mechanics – that something can only ever resolve itself in a certain number of discrete states.  Because the system is so basic it lacks the smoothness that characterises probability collapse on a macro level because of the incalculable complexity of the systems involved.  So the 'jumps' from one state to another are far more visible, and far more dominant of a feature in the system.

But on the macro level we can change the probability profiles of our future – for instance, in a negative way you could be in a car crash and lose the use of your legs.  If that were to happen, it would severely limit the possibility of ever being a professional triple-jump-athlete.  It wouldn't destroy it completely, as Oscar Pistorius has shown us, but then he's managed to drastically alter the 'probability trajectory' of his life in other, somewhat less positive ways.  Not to belittle that situation, it's obviously a terrible tragedy – but you can see that the ways things resolve themselves can drastically and unpredicably change the probability profile of a person's future.  On a wider scale, something like what the Holocaust did to the Jewish people changed the profile of their probability trajectory.  Can you see?  Putting blocks and polarisers in the path of a photon, thus changing the ways it resolves itself into being, is this exact same process in action.

The point of this new interpretation is that this is not a metaphor.  That's what I'm trying to say.  That instead of trying to make the Quantum realm 'fit' to our expectations of how physics should work, we flip the whole thing on it's head and rework physics itself within a paradigm of arising from the Quantum realm.

Again – the direct response to your question regarding superpositions is that superpositions are only contradictory and problematic if they exist in reality, they can, do, and must exist in potential, they're what potential is made of.

I hope this isn't too weird to understand, I wanted to go into some depth with it.  I have no proof for this, I have no research funding for physics experiments and even if I did I wouldn't know what to do with it.  I think that the best I can do is showcase what I've done so far, the new sense that I think this perspective can make of physics, and see if anyone else who specialises in this more than I do will be up for some collaboration.  I have tried explaining it to serious physics people but I sometimes find it hard to get deep enough underneath their understanding of the subject because it's so detailed and technical.  The big answers here are not to be found, I think, in the minutiae, but in stepping back and seeing the unity that strikes the big picture clean through the middle.

Quantum Mechanics has some very, very dodgy philosophical work being done around it.  Some really irresponsible, incurious, artificial and frankly, ethically dubious ways in which ideas from it are plundered to buttress some new self-help bullshit.  That is a very real problem - one of the more immediate ways I know this is that if I send or receive any email referencing Quantum Mechanics, the google ads on the side of my Gmail start trying to sell me some nasty, mass-packaged, glossy new 'magic' remedy.  I don't condemn the people who do that, although I find it impossible to respect them intellectually, and I deeply understand the anger that rises up when real scientists are confronted with such a disrespectful perversion of the work they do.  I get that it would piss someone off a lot, and I'm not in any way criticising that.

With that said, I do feel it's fair to say that the heat around the issue of Quantum Mechanics has scared many philosophers away from what is an absolutely fascinating and extremely profound new set of perspectives on humanity, time, being and life.  If we cede the ground on this to the marketers and the hucksters, we are missing a huge opportunity.  The ideas coming out of Quantum Mechanics are a fascinating resource that are so radical and strange and have such profound and weird implications I think any philosopher who doesn't engage with them is living in a dreamworld.  They are the cutting edge of strangeness in experimental physics, and because of that, the cutting edge of physics itself.  Philosophers need to treat that discipline with the respect it deserves, it has demonstrated amazing and revolutionary power and insight.  But part of that doesn't mean treating the ideas with kid gloves, or saying that philosophy has nothing to give to physics.

I read something last week which made a really interesting point.  That Einstein was not a man who made his name by producing new research or new information.  He didn't collect any extra data.  His breakthrough was, in the truest and most straightforward sense of the world, a reimagining of the meaning of existing data that brought a new simplicity to things, and suggested new, radical and previously unimaginable lines of inquiry.

That's what this is, or at least what I think it could be.  But it is work, serious work that needs to be done.  The deeper meaning of things is not some little side-issue for people who 'aren't real scientists'.   It's the whole point of science itself, in it's highest, most ambitious and most dangerous form - which is, to me at least, the coolest part of the whole thing, and the only part worth working on.

It's not for everyone, of course, and the amazing data We should have the space to speculate, propose experiments, fail, get things wrong and develop something truly revolutionary, because I honestly believe there is something revolutionary here to be developed.

Sorry, got a little bit ranty there, hope this is ok.  I really believe there's something to this, and I look forward to any other things you might like to raise.

Thanks again for subscribing, and speak soon!

Monday, 12 May 2014

Exciting Quantum Question



Got a great question from someone in the comments - it was on some of the work I've done in the area of Quantum Mechanics.  It's a great question, so I wanted to go into some detail on it, and I'll leave it to you to check out.  Do forgive a starving philosopher the shameless plug at the start, the commenter really did ask about subscribing, I promise, hand on heart - but they're other question was also extremely cool, so I'll hope you'll soldier through.

Here's the question:

In One Song you wrote "What we're really looking at is occurrence, and everything that exists, occurs at the same time. That is what it means to exist. To occur. And to occur at the only time. Now." 
How does that gel with Einstein's notion of time dilation as a result of relativity? If you travel fast enough away from and then back to Earth, while 5 years may have passed for you, 100 years have passed on Earth.
Doesn't this indicate that there is more than one "now"? How can everything happen at the same time if you only age 5 years whereas everyone on Earth ages 100 years?
I can't get my head around this in any case so I'm wondering what you make of it. I noticed you said comments for subscribers only, I'd like to subscribe, how much is it?

It's £25 a month.  For that, you basically get to comment with impunity and be guaranteed a response.  I'll answer as much as I can and in as much detail as I can, time permitting.

My subscribers really do make this possible, I live on a shoestring just barely keeping my head above water while I dedicate all my time to this, so please understand that if you sign up as a subscriber it is deeply, deeply appreciated, and makes a very real and serious different to my ability to continue my work.

Please do subscribe, you wouldn't imagine the difference it makes.  You get a direct line to me (as much as possible, I am working quite long hours trying to make sure this book gets written in a timely fashion) and I'll help you in any way, just as much as I can.

To subscribe just click here and follow the onscreen instructions.  Thanks so much, and I look forward to getting to know you better.

I do want to address the issue you raise though, because it's a brilliant question.  The exact same thing occurred to me.

As I see it the bigger issue is this - that in physics there has never been a successful fusion of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.  Quantum Gravity stalled, and String Theory took it's place, but String Theory is a godawful mess philosophically - it's very hard to see it as anything other than a kind of 'retreat into complexity'.

What I mean by that is that if you just keep adding complexity and complexity, you can make anything fit anything.  The whole point (and revolutionary power) of Einstein's relativity is that it brings extreme simplicity to a massive multitude of often seemingly conflicting data.

Here's the thing.  All attempts to stitch the two together, to create a united physics, have been purely mathematical.  The ideas about what all these numbers could actually mean are wholly secondary.

A lot of this comes down to the fact that it's almost impossible to comprehend, in a clear and simply way, what is happening on the Quantum level.  Relativity is a bit weird, but you can picture it - not so with QM.  The various interpretations are pretty wacky - Copenhagen is the best, but only because its flaws are really obvious (such as the Schrodinger's Cat idea).

More than anything else this new perspective does seem to open a doorway to fitting the ideas together.

The idea of time is right at the centre of relativity, and one of the most interesting things about this new idea regarding QM is that, totally separate from anything else, it also centres around the idea of time.

This puts them both in contact with each other philosophically.  So when we're talking about things like the speed being distance over time, that 'time' element of the equation could be where the QM equations either fit or can be derived.

I am not a mathematician, and a mathematician would be necessary.  I've taken it to a few physicists - I'll be honest, I find it quite difficult to find one who seems able to get their head around the core simplicity of what I'm trying to say.

Basically, the new interpretation, what I call the 'Edinburgh Interpretation' is based on a very strange idea of time itself.  It's like a kind of cresting wave of probability collapsing into being, as opposed to a 'straight line' with past and future.

From this new way of understanding time relativity looks very strange - but it does raise some very interesting questions, which could potentially be the subject of exploratory experiment.

It might well be impossible to get a relativity time-dilation effect acting inside a Quantum experiment - or vice versa - but it would definitely shed a lot more light on the link between the two.

The holy grail in all this would be a chance to unite QM and Relativity into a new physics, but that's way beyond my ability.  I'm out on a limb enough as it is with all this stuff - to go further I'd need some serious, dedicated collaboration from a physicist who not only specialised in these areas, but was a deeply daring and curious individual who wouldn't mind taking a few serious intellectual risks, and looking at things in some very weird new ways.

For now, the book I'm writing is about the personal/social/revolutionary aspects of the insights into suffering and freedom that are, and will always be, my core interest.  Once that's done though, I'll probably come right back to this, give explaining it to some physicists another go because the idea seems very interesting indeed, a lot of potential, and a very strong new way to comprehend Quantum Mechanics that make new sense of it in a way that might, potentially, lead to a new connection with relativity.

In a totally, totally speculative way, the most interesting line of inquiry I would first follow in connecting them is this -

The passage of time in the Edinburgh Interpretation of QM is much like a kind of fluid.  The now is that fluid, and it flows, like fluid, into being. The 'probability profile' of the future seems to behave much like the physical terrain of a rock or other surface - if you pour liquid onto it, it flows through the path of least resistance.  The 'Now' flows through the probability path of least resistance.

The moment of being is the moment of total coherence between probabilities - whenever you get a probability that meshes perfectly with 'the now', that probability 'occurs' and the now flows into it.

There's only really one 'rule' to it, which is that reality can never contradict itself - but this is sacrosanct and is never violated, much like the principle of light speed in relativity.

Now, to mix the two - time dilation in relativity and what I suppose you could call 'flow coherence' in the Edinburgh Interpretation - is a tricky thing, but not impossible.  It could be that you would - from a kind of 'God's eye perspective' get two 'nows' - inasmuch as because of relativity's time dilation two different situations would be flowing at different speeds.

However.  Once one 'interacts' with the other, they 'resolve' themselves in the only way they can - total coherence between the two.  Which is to say that, like a fluid, they just kind of merge together into one pool.  Like if you get two water droplets that touch, they just flop together creating a single water droplet.  Like that, but with being itself.

That is pretty far out on a limb.  Without (I hope) being too brash about it, that to me doesn't sound anything like as convoluted or far-fetched as the ideas coming out of string theory, and is something that - in principle at least, might - potentially - be amenable to experiment.

As with so much of this I wouldn't really feel safe going too much further on it, but I feel there's enough here that it's definitely something worth looking at - a good solid potential theory that might perhaps be used to unite physics' two noble houses.

That's all for the future though, but again - great question, and I hope this goes some way to answering it.

Sunday, 23 February 2014

Why The Arizona Gay Jim Crow Law Is A Good Thing

Hello dear readers,

I've been moved to come down from my Ivory Tower and comment on things happening In Real Life, to whit, the passage of a law in Arizona that legalises descrimination against gay people, on religious grounds.  Every business in the state can now, legally, refuse to deal with a gay person, just because they are gay.

Any business.  Water, power, gas, housing, grocery stores, fast-food restaurants.  Presumably even those homeless people who wash your windows at traffic stops in exchange for a handful of nickels can refuse to do so if  your car is painted pink, or something.  It's been compared, with some justification, to the laws that enshrined legal segregation on a State level, and made black people second class citizens, in the wake of the American Civil War - those are the Jim Crow laws, so if you hear people talking about that, that's what that means.

Anyway, so yeah.  It is now legal to refuse service to gay people for a private company, just as it was legal to refuse service to a black person as a private company during segregation.  The political power of state's rights in action.

I think this is good news.

Really, really good news.  As in, the best news I've heard all day.  When I heard that similar legislation was defeated in Kansas just a few days ago, I was all like, dammit.  Wish that had passed.  And now it has passed in Arizona, and I'm like - good.

This is why.

The Civil Rights movement of the 60's was stalling, hard, and mainly because the white authorities weren't stupid - they weren't going to beat black people up on camera, and so they just calmly waited it out.

Then King took things to Birmingham, Alabama, which was run by Eugene 'Bull' Connor.  Connor hated black people, like most of the Southern establishment, but unlike many others in the Southern establishment, was not a man of restraint.  King organised thousands upon thousands of black people to march, so many that the jails were all filled up in the first hour - the police couldn't arrest them, there was nowhere to put them.

Then they kept coming, kept marching, kept blocking the roadways - all for one goal.  To make Connor tip his hand.  That's a quote from MLK to his key deputy at the time - "'you've got to find the means to create a crisis, to make Bull Connor tip his hand."  

Make him loose the dogs, make him order the police to beat the protesters.  And he did, and the photos of it went out, and all of a sudden people were confronted with the true horror of Southern Racism.  And even those with passive racist leanings didn't have the stomach for that.  And the country just rejected it as monstrosity.  This 'hidden side' to the Civil Rights movement was brilliantly detailed in Malcolm Gladwell's latest, David And Goliath, which is well worth checking out.

Anyway, point is this.

The point at which a bigoted establishment tips it's hand on a massive, public stage, is the entire thing that non-violent resistance aims for.  Without it, it cannot win.

Think for one second what this looks like to anyone who isn't a card-carrying member of the gay-hate brigade.  Even many Christians oppose this vehemently, which splits the 'Christian bloc' clean down the middle.  The hard core is left, but much reduced.

This is one of those moments where the zen truth that failure is success and success is failure just shines like the sun.

This looks like the total success of Christian bigotry.  Look at us, we have succeeded in bringing in genuine laws enshrining discrimination.  Look how strong we are.

But it's not strength, and it's not success.  I think this is that 'Alabama moment' for gay people in the US.

This will rip the right apart.  This will rip apart the liberal and conservative wings of American Christianity.  This will mobilise allies for gay rights that we don't even know exist right now.  But more than anything, more than all this, it will crystallise the issue in the minds of the apathetic, and like rats, they will flee the sinking ship of homophobic bigotry.

Bigotry can only exist in the shadows.  That's because in the shadows people can pretend it's moral, pretty, decent.  In the light of day, when you actually see this thing up close, dear Christ, it's an ugly motherfucker.  And ugly motherfuckers get dumped.

I think the gay rights movement just won.

Friday, 13 September 2013

Dreaming And The Secret World



Here's an interesting problem sent from a subscriber, I thought I'd give it a bit of space to itself here.

This is an interesting one, because it speaks to a lot of core issues, a lot of core assumptions, about a lot of basic things we take for granted.  These basic things are things like time.  Thinking.  Stuff like that.

Of course, normally we very rarely question such things, because normally they seem totally solid.  The assumptions we have about the mind, about the basic nature of what it's doing, the basic nature of time, what time actually is - most of the time we just wouldn't even think about such things.  It would be like digging up the ground beneath your feet when you're trying to go for a walk... or so it would seem.

But every now and then, there's a glitch.  Something slips - and it can be something very small, and seemingly irrelevant.  Some tiny little contradiction that just niggles at you, almost, one might say, like a splinter in your mind.

The thing about reality is that reality is consistent.  It doesn't have glitches, it doesn't do contradiction.  So any glitch, any contradiction?  It has to be in our understanding.

As a philosopher, when you find a contradiction or an inconsistency, a good rule of thumb is to treat it like a massive glowing neon sign saying "DIG HERE".  You don't know how deep you're going to get with it - but it'll be deeper than you are right now, anyway, so there's that at least.

And on top of this - all roads lead to Rome.  After a while you start to see connections between the inconsistencies - and connections between where they lead.  And that's when you really do start getting a far clearer view of the secret world.

And on top even of that... well.  As any detective can tell you, the smallest inconsistencies can lead to vast breakthroughs.  Sometimes it's just a little thing, but more often than not, there's a king-sized iceberg under that tip.

Here's the question:

XXXXXXXXXXX

An expected surprise

Sometimes you are woken up from a dream by an interruption from the waking world, for example a knock at the door, the dream seems to somehow take this in its stride and incorporate it seemingly effortlessly into itself. 

The curious thing is that when you are woken up by the interruption, it seems to come at the end of, and as the conclusion to the dream. 

If you are like me you are initially left thinking – that’s odd! How did the dream know that was going to happen? Weird….

However, upon waking the dream as a sequence including the apparently conclusion-forming interruption is then (re)experienced within the waking state. 

Or the experience somehow drifts as on state arises and the other subsides.  

When we have properly woken up, in the waking  state we like to think, “ok the dream appears to have 4 dimensions, 3 of space which we know are not real (I was in bed not flying through the air!) and 1 of time - which is real (it definitely took time for the dream to progress)”. i.e. from the waking state perspective, we take dreams to be one-dimensional. 

However the above interruption-conclusion example might suggest that dreams are actually non-dimensional. i.e. The dream might apprehend all the ‘objects of the dream’ ‘concurrently’ or, more accurately, eternally (outside of time). 

Then somehow  a story or sequence of events is experienced by the waking state at the moment of waking or re-presented shortly afterwards. Without the existence of some kind of 'metaphysical swap space', we must be talking about the same consciousness here. What is going on?
XXXXXXXXXXX

Now, this is a little bit of what I call a 'high-order' problem.  It's quite abstract, and can be a little tricky to get your head around, but well worth doing if you can.

The issue is this - you have a dream, and a loud noise interrupts it.  Within the dream that noise becomes a key part of the narrative, the story of the dream.  Say, you were in a car, and the dream ends with the car crashing (which incorporates the noise of the slamming door).

You half-wake, and the dream is still there, still there as a fading experience.  As part of that experience, the car crash, complete with appropriated sound effects, is still quite a tangible thing.  And yet the noise, the slamming of the door, gets re-experienced as what it was, the slamming of a door.  

The two states 'slip by' each other, so to speak, the two narratives of the same sensation.  

Now here's the thing - if we experience things in linear time, and interpret them in linear time, how can these two things coexist, within one consciousness?  Is this consciousness like a kind of space in which experiences are exchanged - even linear narratives which occur at the same time?

How can one sensation (the slamming door) lead to two utterly divergent experiences that are complete as chains of cause and effect, when the sensation which they centre around occurred simultaneously?

Well, if you're a long-time reader to this blog (or if you just read the introduction to this article where I said this), you'll know that one of the central tenets of the new kind of philosophy that get done here is that reality does not contradict itself.

What that means in practice is that knots like this, strange weirdnesses and paradoxes and such - they are completely artificial, all of them.  This means that solving the problem is a waste of time.  There is no problem to solve.

This is true of all paradoxes.  The analysis of paradoxes is a big part of contemporary Western, and some strains of ancient Eastern thought - but in the way it is normally approached has literally no value of any kind.

What does have value is realising that all contradictions, inconsistencies and paradoxes are apparent contradictions, apparent inconsistencies and apparent paradoxes (for some reason I want to write paradoxii, but that's not right).  

Anyway, point is this.  There's a way to approach these kind of things that pays off, and a way that doesn't.  The way that doesn't is to delve into the complexities and try to make it all fit inside our current understanding of what all the elements in this are.  Narrative, linearity, mind, self, dreams, waking.  

That's what everyone does - it's not just a disease of modern philosophy, it's a human disease, it's just that modern philosophy is more elaborate about it and uses bigger words.  There's no fundamental difference in what's being done.

What is fundamentally different is this new way of doing philosophy, which is that we never try to solve paradoxes, because we know there aren't any.  Instead, we take apparent paradoxes for what they are - a demonstration that some or all of our basic assumptions are fundamentally wrong.

Once you start looking for the assumptions that give rise to the apparent paradox, you're doing something very different from any mainstream kind of philosophy.  

So.  Dreaming.  Narrative.  Metaphysical swap-space.  Re-experiencing.  What is going on?

The first big assumption that we can kick away right at the start is the idea that we are experiencing.  

This is, in fact, the total inverse of what is actually going on.  Experience is occurring - and the 'we', the 'I', the 'you' that is doing the experiencing is just a fiction.  A compelling fiction, yes, but a fiction nonetheless.  It's just not real.  

What you have is a flow of experience, and within that experience, things are happening.  One of those things is this constant projection of 'you' as the 'person' who is 'doing the experiencing'.

This isn't true.  It's just a projection, there is no you.  You could ask 'well, who is doing the experiencing then?' but then, I could just shoot back "who is necessary for experiencing to occur?"

This is something that, interestingly enough, is completely visible.  You can actually see it, so spare me the arguments, and take a look, there is literally no you, there's just the illusion of it.  And of course you can say "who does the seeing then?" to which I would respond "nobody is necessary for seeing to occur, no you has ever been necessary for anything in your life to occur, whatever it is, ever, because there is literally no you in real life."

Those of you brave enough to look will be in for something of a shock, but I'll leave that to the curious and the bold.

Ok, so that's assumption the first.  Where does this leave us?

Well, if there's no you experiencing anything, just experience, which includes thoughts and narratives and such, all of which claim to be experienced by you, then all of a sudden, this really isn't that big of problem at all.

Especially when you take a closer look at what's going on with this 'illusion of self'.

A big chunk of the article One Song was about this - the actual nature of the illusion, what it is, why it is, what it's doing and how it's doing it.

Let's just focus on the very last element of that for a second.  How it's doing it.

The pioneering recent work done by Iain McGilchrist on the nature of the brain hemispheres allowed me to put together a new kind of understanding, a new paradigm, if you will, about the nature of the brain, and what the human self fundamentally is.

Not just that it is an illusion, but what kind of illusion it is, how it works, what the elements of it are.  I don't want to repeat too much of that here, but a quick sketch of it would look like this.

The right hemisphere exists to authentically map contour and quality.  That's basically what it's doing - it includes things like emotional quality, but also all other kinds of quality, like colour, taste, that sort of thing.  The stuff that's not easy to describe in language, or concepts, but is very distinct and specific nonetheless.

The left hemisphere exists for one very strange and very interesting reason - to create and project an illusion of fictional narrative, fictional cause and effect... and a fictional mind that is experiencing all this.

The left hemisphere has the reins of power in the skull.  It rules the right, and so it can (and does) rope the faculties of the right hemisphere in to filling in the structure it projects.

The resulting experience is all linear narrative of all kinds, all 'rationality' - all filled in to one united experience, which we experience as being human.  

Of course, technically, we don't experience it at all - what's far closer to the truth is that the experience occurs.

Now, there's just not enough time in the day to dig in to the other big thing in One Song, which is a new paradigm concerning the nature of time, but suffice it just to say this regarding your question on sensory overlap in dreaming and wakefulness.

There is no contradiction, and we're not looking at a special case of the waking experience of the door slamming being 'backward rationalised' into a new narrative.

The waking experience of the door slamming is being 'backward rationalised' into a new narrative - but it's not special.

Backward rationalisation into superficially coherent narratives is what the brain does.  These rationalisations are often quite accurate - the noise happened because the door slammed - but only incidentally so.

Accuracy is only relevant inasmuch as it helps the core purpose of what the brain has evolved to do, which is to make and sustain a compelling narrative of you, your life, the world around you.

That narrative exists to provide a support structure and context for the illusion of self - and that illusion is the point of what the brain is doing.  It's why it's there, it's why it's so big, it's why it uses so much energy.

You can see this very clearly when you get blamed for something - especially something you actually did.  All of a sudden accuracy is thrown out the window, and you have a list of excuses as long as your arm, almost all of which have only slight and tenuous connections with what you're being blamed for.  We're human, we all do it - but that's the point.  We do all do it.

Accuracy is wholly expendable to the normal operation of the human brain.  It's useful for as long as it doesn't interrupt the vivid display of a moral self - but the second it does, it becomes punishingly clear where the brain's priority lies, which is why truth is rightly seen as the first casualty of war.

The brain backward rationalised the slamming door noise in the dream - as a car crash.  It discarded and reworked that interpretation when you fully woke, because of it's desire for continual coherence.

But - and pay attention here - the way in which it did this was in both cases to invent a linear narrative that moved from past to future.  

This narrative was experienced - but experienced how?  As the memory of having had a linear experience.

There was an experience, for sure - but the meaning of the various parts of it, the labeling of those parts in general - this kind of thing is fleshed out after the fact, but presents itself as if it were the true order of events.

This isn't a special case, it's just special insofar as it makes the true operation of the brain much more visible than it otherwise is.  The illusion of self, the illusion of story, the illusion of cause and effect, the illusion of linearity.  All of this is the brain just working normally - this is what it does, this is all it does.  It has one goal, one agenda, one task, just as the heart has one task, which is to beat.  The brain's task is to project backward rationalised narrative, as a foundation for, and as the body of, the illusion of self. 

This is obviously a radical new paradigm for understanding the workings of the brain.  That rational processing is in fact not real, that the brain is not doing this.  What it can do is use it's skill in pattern recognition and skill generation (which I talk about here) to mimic rational process.  But then, that's not really very surprising - it can mimic almost anything, develop almost any skill.  The ability to effectively mimic rational processing... even to the degree where dizzyingly advanced mathematics become possible... isn't that crazy.  

That mathematics has this kind of basis (making it far more like learning a musical instrument than pumping an innate rational faculty) is something that I think would be very fertile ground for further study, and is something that this new paradigm of mind could make very clear predictions about.

That's something I don't really have the resources for, but would love to take part in.  Either way, I think that effectively answers your question - or at least opens up the situation from a perspective where there is no contradiction to be seen, which, as discussed, is the new way of the philosophical future.

Friday, 6 September 2013

The Goose And The Golden Egg

Got a little email from a subscriber who hasn't been using their monthly questions, so I thought I'd do a bit of a piece on it.

Here's the email:

I've recently been applying great effort to learning things I've had difficulty learning in the past, fuelled by the 'music pattern discovery' which we discussed.

I seem to have a tapped a pool of enthusiasm for things which makes things I couldn't do previously (but attempted), suddenly become the most fun and engaging experiences I've ever had.

I didn't know PHP but I wanted to, so I sat down at my PC and decided I wasn't doing anything else until I'd made something in PHP.

18-hour days of continual coding, from waking until sleep followed, and 3 days later I completed something functional that people are using.

I was so engrossed that I had no desire to do anything else whilst coding it. It was neither stressful nor boring. It was certainly difficult, and challenging indeed. So... that sorta raises some points.

I honestly find applying myself to something that I really urge to do, far more enjoyable than procrastinating.

I'm not really sure what drives the urge, but I'm certain it's something that can be honed.

Most importantly though, I'm sensing an 'unspoken effortlessness' that underlies all the effort. It's sort of like...

When you first drive a car, it's mental. Pedals, gears, wheel, mirrors. All this stuff going on and so much concentration despite moving at 2mph. Beads of sweat as you stall and roll backwards down a hill.

5 years later, you just jump in and don't even think about any of it anymore. It just happens automatically. You're like 'okay let's drive to work' and 15 minutes later, there you are.

The same applies with lots of things I can think of. Drawing, music, reading, 3d modelling, photography, football, coding. All have relative initial degrees of perceived complexity...

And yet, the more time you spend doing any of them, the more undone they become, revealing the simplicity that lies underneath.

Correct me if I'm wrong but... it doesn't just seem like an 'accumulation of knowledge' that is responsible either. It almost seems like the opposite is taking place, like the tension that mentally says 'I don't know X' is falling away and being replaced.

Not being replaced by 'advanced knowledge' (like knowing every hotkey for instance), but by a... clearer understanding. One which doesn't need every hotkey, every guide, advanced features or even an explanation.


XXXXXXXXXX

Yes, this is a very interesting email, lots to talk about here.

Firstly, it's great to see you putting this stuff to use.  The ability of human beings to develop any skill of any kind to a very high degree really is the single most powerful faculty that humans have.

We're all taught that talent is what counts, but I can honestly say that it's so massively overblown.

It's almost as if (were I to be being ruthless about it, which of course I never do) we love to think in terms of talent.  That the idea that some people are just born naturally 'good' at this, or 'good' at that is a very seductive one - especially if we feel, as we often do, insecure about our own successes... or lack thereof.

It's a great excuse when we look at someone doing something amazing - that person is talented, and so I don't need to feel like I'm to blame because I can't do this or that as well as they can.

I sometimes wish I could just wave a magic wand and just say something like "now see how massive and vast and deep that attitude dominates all of the ideas about success and excellence that we experience in our whole lives" and you all would.

Of course, that's impossible - only those precious few (yes, I'm talking to you, don't be coy) who really do take the time to deeply consider things - to work that muscle, to build that skill - are even going to be capable of that.

The killer, of course, is that we like the idea of 'talent' as an explanation for human excellence because it means we never have to feel like it's our fault that we're not that good at things...

...but....

...and watch closely, this one has a ruthless edge to it you could cut diamonds with....

...accepting that excuse cuts us off from the actual ability to ever really get good at anything.

And it really does.  People - and not just some, but massively the majority of people - never get really good at anything.  It's like an uncharted realm to them, an undiscovered country.  Few know, and few will ever know, what it's actually like to be genuinely good at something.  Anything.  Anything at all.

But of course, it's not our fault... we just don't have the talent.

The only people who ever make a difference with their lives, ever, under any circumstances, are people who discard that lie for the ridiculous and facile excuse that it is.  And it is.

And those who don't?  Well, the ruthless train just keeps on chugging, because life is not a kind place for the powerless.  People are not kind to the weak.

We drift through oceans of storied morality, tales and vignettes about how kind we are, how good we are, how decent.  But if you scratch that surface you'll find something quite different beneath - that our stories of how moral we are almost always have an eerie parallel with the balance of power in any given situation.

Everyone looks kind, all the time.  Even when people are being cruel, they'll have their moral fig-leaves, they'll have their tales of compassion.  The reality is that those who treat those weaker than themselves with genuine consideration, when nobody else is looking and when they do not have to, is vanishingly rare to a degree that is genuinely shocking when you see it from below.

And yet, to spare our blushes, we leap to an excuse that cuts us off from the most potent resource that we, as humans, have.

And you could say that it's the faculty to generate skill.  And if you're a long time reader to this blog, you'll discover that it's also (if my strange, uncredentialed, widely derided and ignored philosophical skills are to be believed) the core process that underlies science itself.

But then, really?  We're not talking about science, and we're not talking about skill.  There's another word which underlies both, which makes both possible - finesse.

Skill is finesse in a task, science is finesse in understanding.

Finesse is the key - the ability to develop finesse.

Now here's the thing.  Just as people love to think of excellence in a task as being down to 'talent', because it takes the blame away from them, there's a parallel with understanding too.

I really think it's credible that one of the main reasons - and perhaps the main single reason - why the idea of 'accumulating knowledge' is such a persistent way of thinking about understanding.

It's not that it's absent, it's there, to a degree.  There are technical things to know about any task or any subject.

But what makes you a master of it is only incidentally connected with accumulating knowledge.  What makes you a master of it is finesse.

I noticed many years ago the incredible parallels  that exist between the ways in which anyone who has achieved mastery at anything talks about what they do.  Athletes, scientists, musicians, playwrites, novelists - perhaps, God forbid, even the occasional philosopher.

It's because they're all doing the same thing.  And the same very specific thing - it's not vague or woolly.  It's the same thing that works in the same way, and no matter how much it is buried beneath excuses of convenience, it will always rise again, as long as there is even just one human left who takes an interest in actually getting good at anything, whatsoever it may be.

Finesse is zen.  It's that simple.  The trying and failing, the stepping back, the seeing deeply, the diving in deeply.

Every time you fail, you break, you fall.   But what falls?

The ego, the self.  Literally, the self breaks when it fails at something.  That's why failure hurts, it's why we run from it.

But failure gives us something - it reveals.  Failure is never random, and if it is honest failure, the fact that it is not random means that we're discovering something we do not know, and that we could not have discovered any other way.

And what happens when we 'try again'?  It's a new 'ego', a new self.  It gets thrown up, but this time taking into account that new information from the last failure.

And this goes on and on, failure breeding more sophisticated projection, more sophisticated 'selfing', if you will.

And then, after a while (10000 hours, if you listen to Malcolm Gladwell, which I do), you've done this so much that you are totally in tune with what you are doing.

You have 'hit zen'.  Not zen as the wan, empty, serene peace of the sage, but zen as in the razor-edged cut of the samurai.

You can do it with anything, and it is genuinely incredible how good people - anyone, yes, you (don't be coy) get at doing anything.

But then....

....we don't have that many 10000 hours, do we?  That's a lot of time.  A lot of time to invest.

And so we have to, as men and women, ask ourselves, if we are to take a wider concern for this world and for the future (and I hope we sometimes do) what is the skill that the world needs most right now?

How can I get the most bang for my buck?  The buck is time - you don't have forever, just one human life.

To make the impact the world desperately needs, to move beyond what it has historically meant to be a human being, to step forward into a new kind of humanity, to step past the apathy and sneers of this most cynical of ages?

Well now.  PHP isn't going to hurt.  But is it a game changer?

If you can be world-class at anything, make a world-class decision of what specific skill to take to that level of zen.

And to the subscriber who wrote this, I don't think I need to say what I'm about to say, but for anyone fresh to my work, I certainly don't mean to in any way belittle what you've done.  It's an amazing achievement - but what's more important than the results, is the process you've now got a really good handle on.

The goose is more important than any individual golden egg.

Because guys, guys, guys.  Let's not get too excited by trinkets when we're sitting on the motherlode.

I'll leave you with that to consider, and also a video.  This was sent to me by someone I worked with in the past.  He mentioned that he'd found the stuff I'd written about skill to be helpful, and very accurate to his experience, and he sent me this, where he showcases a skill he himself has developed.

One last thing.

A skill taken to the level of zen is something that can never be taken away from you, like a normal possession.  It is always there, always incredible, and always wide open as a gateway to that place whenever you want to immerse yourself in the flow of the real.

There is a world of chaos and a species in torment, howling out it's misery and damage, wallowing in superficiality because it knows no other way.

Humanity can be more.  If, that is, you are prepared to be more.  To be something greater and more difficult than you have been.  And I hope you consider what I have said here, and I wish you all the very best.

And really - it's not just the fact that this stuff can change the world, or that it's an awesome, challenging and exhilirating way to live.

It also can, on occasion, look absolutely phenomenal.

Enjoy.


Thursday, 15 August 2013

The Buck

It's so easy for us to shrug our shoulders and play helpless.  It's not my fault, or it's not my problem.  Or even if it is my problem, I don't know how to deal with it.  I'm too small, it's too big.

And in that lies a choice, a choice that really will decide if you're one of the people who really might change the world.  And like a lot of real choices, it's not just something you say once, and it's done.  It's something you say in your heart, every day.

The buck stops with me.  I'm not just a consumer.  I'm a citizen.  A citizen of earth.  I take responsibility for this world, and I'll do what I can to make things better.  Whatever it takes.

And every day you make that choice you also choose to live an adventure far beyond the imagining of all the many cynics who would mock your passion and integrity.

I for one salute you for it.

Thursday, 1 August 2013

Hiatus

Hey guys and girls,

Just taking a brief pause in the daily updates.  I need to get some research done for some bigger pieces/projects I'm working on, and something's got to give.

I'm still available to answer any subscriber comments, also if anyone wants to commission me to do a piece, or hire me for a consultancy, just get in touch.

Should be back on air soon, and if you want to make sure you don't miss the return, sign up for the email updates on the sidebar, and avail yourself of a free audio as well.

Monday, 29 July 2013

The Pit And The Jigsaw


When you're stuck in a pit, how many ropes do you really need to get out?

Say you're there, and a rope gets chucked down.  Then another, then another.

This rope looks shiny and pretty.  This other one looks glittery.  That one there looks like it's made of tinsel.  That one there looks pretty strong.  That other one looks quite modern, like a hi-tech rope.

Surely if you connect them together, you'll have a super rope.  And that's the point, right?  We just want the best possible rope, so it makes sense to just keep collecting them, keep trying to combine them all.

It is so easy to think in these terms, and almost everyone, myself included, does it sometimes.

Perhaps what might be of more use though, is if we start - just start - to approach this whole situation in a slightly different way.

If we start to think of ways we can question, just to ourselves, when we're alone and nobody's watching, whether 'getting the whole thing understood' is really a wise thing to have as the one single, central goal of what we're doing with all this.

To get the 'grand theory' that pulls it all together.  If we can just get that, then surely, we'll be fine, right?

It makes so much sense to think in these terms, but perhaps we should start thinking a little more about the pretty obvious fact that nobody who has ever thought in these terms has ever had a happy ending.

Because the fact is, we're not trying to solve a puzzle.  We're trying to escape a pit.

So instead of waiting for all the different pieces of rope to be brought together perfectly into one perfect rope that perfectly makes sense to you and everyone, and perfectly lifts us up with no slips, no setbacks, no falls, nothing, perhaps it might be wiser to grab a length, pull, and don't stop until you see daylight.

The point is not to get out in a perfect way.

The point is to get out.

So you get it wrong, fine - get it wrong.  Get it wrong and try again, try something new, try a new way of doing it.

So this bit makes sense but that bit doesn't?  Stop trying to make sense of it all, grab the bit that does make sense to you, use that.

And are we really being as clear with ourselves as we can possibly be about this?

Are we taking the time to see this in what we ourselves are doing?

And if the answer is anything less than 100% yes, you might do very well to think about how you can check yourself, and make sure you're not, even for a moment, slipping back into that autopilot response of being passive, and sitting there like a tame consumer, at the bottom of the pit, collecting all the answers you can, and waiting for the magic to happen.

Life is waiting at the top.

Saturday, 27 July 2013

It All Comes Round In The End....


It's seductive, isn't it?  The perfect analytic answer, the equation that makes sense of it all.

We reach for that, hunger for it.  In fact, we hunger for the analytic answer to a problem far more than we hunger for a solution that works.

Get a solution that works, and you've just got no more problem.

Get an answer, and you've got an answer.  Clean lines, straight edges.

The thing is though, if you just try and actually get real about whatever issue it is you're facing, and then the next, and then the next, after a while you find an incredible elegance that you would never have been able to work out just, kind of, is.  It's just there, through it all, an elegance and clarity.

It's only noise because we're only listening to part of it.  Everything makes sense on its own terms.

And the crazy thing is, if you're really good, you can start charting that elegance, that simplicity.

So it all comes round in the end.