To the guest reader

Monday 22 August 2011

V: Thanks for “The World”: a penance


I have found myself slipping back into adversarial mode, endlessly finding fault with what you say, nitpicking where there has been nothing more substantial to pounce upon. This despite spotting this tendency in myself previously, and openly abjuring it. Such persistent behaviour has a simple reason: that your view of the world has important differences from mine. Instead of accepting difference, I let my emotions perceive it as a threat as a threat to my own world-view, a cobra poised to strike, which must be instantly scotched. These emotions reacted to the thought, “Bryan is trying to edge me into a corner: every time I give an inch of ground, he gains strength. I’ll find myself checkmate if I don’t fight back.” So I miss the gift you are offering, and in sniping from the metaphorical rooftops without revealing my own position any more than necessary, I oblige you to more vigorous defence and counter-offensive.

So now, I don’t just call a truce. I don’t surrender. I don’t claim victory. I shut my eyes and count to some adequate number. When I open my eyes again, I realize that there is no insurgency. It’s true that we’re armed to the teeth with words, but these skirmishes are merely exercises, and I don’t mean aggressive military ones: more like exercises for the good of our health.

By way of penance and reparation I intend to summarise in few words what I have learned, and not even bother with further wrangling. (Let us see how long this lasts!)

In “The World”, you elegantly and persuasively expounded a notion of Reality. Writing before dawn, you took your examples from immediate experience. A bird was singing. You didn’t know the name of its species but visualised that it predated man, so even before it was ever observed by man and given a name, it still had its unique form, part of an ongoing reality which didn’t need human observation to validate it.

You explored the contrast between reality and illusion, whilst pointing out that if we merely trust in subjective perception to give us a continuous feed of reality as it occurs, we easily fall victim to illusion.

You used the example of a road and vehicles on it as “evidence of the co-operation between reality and the mind”: demonstrating that reality is not just there to be observed, but can have intimate relations with mind, from which viable & useful offspring may be born.

You consider what happens when you doubt the authenticity of inferred reality. Some of it you cannot personally vouch for, but you rely upon the testimony of others. You don’t just rely on them not lying. You rely only on facts which have been used as building blocks over time, tested over again in so many ways and never found wanting.

Finally you devise a metaphorical thought experiment for dealing with doubt. You attempt to flee from the room through a door marked “doubt”. The room is the world. You go out the door but it leads back into the same room that you exited from, every time. (I think René Descartes visited you in a dream to teach this!)

I applaud the piece. I confess that I drafted a riposte, one which sniped from the rooftops at what I thought were suspicious military exercises threatening my future strategy. I may use them some time, because taken out of the adversarial context my sword might make a good ploughshare.

I shall continue with your other posts, working backwards, extracting the juice from what you have written, to take advantage thereof, as continuation of the penance.

16 comments:

  1. Yes, I am not trying to push you into a corner, and I'm sure you're not trying to push me into a corner either. I'm only looking for firm ground for the sake of my own feet, as I'm sure you are in your own way too. The "sniping" begins when we start to worry that the other's ground is threatening the integrity of our own. For the sake of defense, we resort to offense.

    This post is a nice step towards common ground, which really should be the goal here (easy said than done though). I sincerely appreciate your olive branch here. Quite possibly you may not agree with all the ideas, I've laid out in my "world". I may have to reconsider some of them myself. But you have at least reassured me that I conveyed those ideas adequately, and you have done a fine job of representing them honestly and accurately. Thank you for that. A good step in the right direction. I'll do my best in turn to follow your example here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent.

    Obviously there will be some common ground, as in a Venn diagram.

    Beyond that, I could see us each specializing, with territories whose boundaries at best will match and mesh like a zipper, and thus become common boundaries.

    Not that I would expect the result to be neat. God’s world, even, is not neat. It’s more messy than we are, at least in our idealized imaginations. (When I mention God, it is in deference to a shared culture, not any religious beliefs.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, I figured that. The poetic God. The figurative God. The God that Einstein insisted doesn't play dice.

    I had a few thoughts this morning, nearly apropos of nothing, but I'll share them anyway. After I had woken up at one point, and as I was drifting off into that hypnogogic state you've referred to before, I was was thinking that if this were the Middle Ages, the king would put together a group of knights to go on a quest for "objective reality." I pictured objective reality as a smoothly polished, black stone, rectangular slap standing upright in a field, nearly obscurred by the tall grass. I've always loved the quaintly naive way that people in the Middle Ages projected metaphysical concepts into the form of concrete objects that they could saddle up their horses and going searching for. It's so characteristic of their mind-set then. Naturally, it's impossible to recapture that mind-set in a literal sense in this modern age of of ours, but the magic of it is almost enviable.

    Later, I was thinking about your Mexican fisherman. I think I've heard variations of that story before. It seems quite familiar. The thing about that story is that it proceeds from the premise that the fisherman is content with his life, and the businessman is merely meddling and interjecting his advice where it wasn't asked for. Certainly the fisherman's life has undeniable appeal, and as the story goes, he certainly seems to be happy with it. So much the better for him, and if I were on the beach with him I would say, "Go catch your fish and be satisfied. You have found what you want from life, the marrow of the bone, the meat of the fruit."

    Yet, I find myself in a similar position as the fisherman, and I an not satisfied. I spend 40 hours a week working in a miserable factory, that would be indistinguishable from Hell in my mind, if not for the fact that I get to leave there and do...well, this. I know that many other people feel the same way. We find ourselves having to do things for the necessity of survival, but they distract us from the things which truly fulfill us. Perhaps our fisherman is only fishing for his own survival and the survival of his family, and his fulfillment lies in the music and the wine, but this is obviously enough for him. For me, contentment would be finding fulfillment and not just survival in my work itself. In other words, writing for a living, making enough from it that I could leave the factory and commit myself to it full time. That would be my "business plan." I'm trying my best.

    Again, apropos of nothing, but I figured I'd share.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, "indistinguishable from Hell" may be a wee bit of an overstatement. There are some days I almost enjoy it, and definitely some aspects of the job I like, but given half a chance, I'd rather be home writing (but then perhaps it wouldn't be quite as sweet if I didn't have it as something to look forward to other than work. In fact, I get a lot of my ideas while I'm at work.) Still, I don't quite feel like I'm living the idyllic life of your fisherman, but then maybe no one truly is. Or maybe it's all in how you look at it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have the life of that fisherman already, not literally of course, because we are many miles from the sea. But I do what I enjoy, and until recently I supplemented my pension with a little freelance work. I rather feel that may have dried up. Karleen is overworked in her clerical job at the National Health Service, with another eight years to serve, so it's my dream to earn enough by writing to let her retire without delay. I can't think of any other work now that I would be fitted for. I used to do the computer work but I'm too wild and awkward now, not hungry enough to say yes sir no sir.

    So let's see this as a commercial venture. I don't think that changes anything though.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I see no reason why you can't fulfil your business plan, anyway. I'll co-operate any way that I can.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You know, it occurs to me that the hypnagogic reveries about the Middle Ages that I mentioned above might not be entirely irrelevant, but might be somewhat useful to you and your ideas.

    You see, it seems to me that in a sense the Medieval mind approached reality as though in this hypnagogic state, where abstract ideas and the imagination co-mingle without distinction. They saw metaphysical truths as literally out there waiting to be discovered in the form of physical objects, The Grail, The Tree of Life, The Philosopher's Stone, ect. They saw seeking for the truth as literally traveling across land in search of it. In short, they approached the world in a frame of mind that we would consider half-asleep. It's almost as though more awake, more lucid frames of mind hadn't been invented yet.

    This isn't to say that I put the medieval frame of mind on equal footing with our own. I do believe our understanding and mind-set is more lucid, but at the same time I think it suggests that our frame of mind isn't the final word on lucidity. Perhaps, 500 years from now our descendents will shake their heads at our "half-asleep" perspective. In fact, I can almost guarantee it.

    I admit this idea is as half-baked as it gets, and I can already see possible holes in it that I don't feel like pursuing at the moment (abstract thought goes back to Ancient Greece, at least.), but I think there is something useful to the lucidity concept if you feel like picking up the ball and running with it.

    (Or maybe I'll run with it, if you're not interested. It just somehow seems more up your alley than mine.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. And if I could take this idea further for a moment, let's say that, hypothetically, you tried to graph perception. Lucidity along the vertical axis; time along the horizontal. Let's say there's a watermark along the lucidity axis called "objective reality." This would be the theoretical point where lucidity would coincide perfectly with objective reality. However, as we graph our line of perception over time, we find that it rises gradually in lucidity but at an ever finer curve, so that it never completely reaches the watermark of perfect lucidity or is ever completely parallel to it. It would infinitely approach perfect lucidity in much the same way matter infinitely approaches the speed of light without ever reaching it.

    Meanwhile, for everything gained, there is also something lost. As science and reason, or whatever in the future might conceivably even supersede science and reason, are the mechanisms driving this upward trend of lucidity, they are at the same time driving it away from another watermark that lines below the curve. We could call this watermark "dreaming reality", and it would represent the point at which perception is at its most disassociated state from "objective reality." Dreaming reality, as we both know, holds it own kind of truth and value. Science and reason take us closer to objective reality, while mythology and religion return us closer to dreaming reality. In this manner, religion and mythology can find some validation without completely discarding the concept of objective reality or science and reason's relationship with it.

    Anyway, just a little scheme I'm throwing out there for your consideration.

    ReplyDelete
  9. By "time" here, I mean the time-line of human history, the generalized "progress" of mankind. I didn't make that very clear.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Of course, "Dreaming Reality" in this scheme could just as easily be called "Subjective Reality." I just called it "Dreaming Reality" to give flavor to the scheme, and because the dream-state is the closest we come to an ideal of subjective reality. It is an imperfectly realized ideal, because dreams are always going to be partly informed by the objective world (i.e. memory material, outward stimuli like alarm clocks and hunger pains and songs on the radio and so on.) So just as we can never fully realize objective reality because of the inherent limitations of our knowledge and perspective, we can never fully realize subjective reality either, because you can't completely escape the world. There will always be a blending of the two.

    I don't know what you'll think of this, but it seems to me that I might be on to something here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Since "Lucidity" is a key concept here, exploring and defining it will be crucial, perhaps even central. At this point, the most that I can possibly say is that it is a dynamic of how we approach the relationship between the abstract and the concrete. I won't say that an increase in lucidity means a further and further extraction of the abstract from the concrete. 1.) That's too simple 2.) It leads to empiricism which, as I've already established, leads to a cataclysmic failure of the world. So, we don't want to do that. No, it's more complex than that.

    (Well, as you see, I'm already done some running with this. I can't help it. I keep laying down to take a nap, and a new idea about it occurs to me.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I’ve had a chance to mull over what you’ve said a little, and at least I’ve read it all properly and got an initial grasp of the possible scope here. Enough to say: “you run with it Bryan, because what I would say would take it from an entirely different angle!” So I shall for now just make the following comments:

    I’m glad you refer to dream reality and not subjective reality because I think the two are distinct. A rainbow looks like an ethereal bridge floating in the air, its two ends touching a part of solid ground. That is subjective reality. In a dream reality which includes daydreams and fantasy, you could imagine digging with a spade to find the gold at the end of a rainbow. Only a child full of magical hopes would confuse the two modes, because an adult would instantly see that the end of the rainbow moves (relative to its apparent position on the ground) as your viewpoint moves. Rainbows might be the very symbol of dream reality. But they symbolize subjective reality too: for millennia our ancestors admired them without benefit of Newton’s Opticks. (Looking at Wikipedia’s article on rainbows, I see that the quest for objective reality about rainbows goes back to Aristotle, but none of this changed the way the man in the street or meadow saw them.)

    I think your reference to the medieval mind is an interesting speculation well worth mentioning but not one to be taken too far. One would have to research it and that could take years. Since we are not academics, the value of these ideas would be in illustrating your perspective of the past and future from where we are in 2011, and hypothesize an ongoing progression from dream-reality to lucidity. And then to make clear what advantages and dangers you see arising from such a one-way progression.

    I find that implicit in your way of looking at things on this point is a set of generalizations about “them” and “us”. They thought that in those days; we think this today. It implies a conformity to some kind of cultural imperative, which dictates that for example I can’t go on horseback (or equivalent) looking for the Holy Grail (or equvalent) today. Cervantes was on to the same idea when he wrote Don Quixote, laughing at a medieval man still pursuing his knightly quests in the late Renaissance, where everyone else was seeing things in bright lucidity. I magine you’ve already considered (perhaps subconsciously) an SF tale to make your points. In any case, I don’t know that the tales of knightly chivalry ever had any close relation to reality. I suspect they were myths even then, and that King Arthur and Camelot didn’t map on to history at all.

    I’m a little puzzled by your remark that empiricism leads to a cataclysmic failure of the world. Surely not in the sense that people speak of global warming? In your “Preliminary Notes II” you merely say that empricism leads to a cataclysmic failure of itself, which is something else entirely. But that observation belongs to my series of summaries of your main essays to date.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, you're right, empiricism leads to it's own failure. I was being a bit metaphorical, and not quite lucid myself at the time when I wrote that.

    And you're right as well about the lucidity not being uniform. Reminds me of that movie The Fisher King, when Robin Williams goes searching for the Grail in modern day New York. Or course, his character was deranged, but still...point taken. I guess I was speaking more of our general understanding of the world as a species being more lucid. I guess.

    There are definitely plenty of bugs to work out in the idea. I'll be the first to admit that. For one thing, I think I confused the matter a little by bringing in actual dreams the way I did. I wasn't so much after the artificial reality of dreams, as much as the idea of the state of mind you're in when dreaming (although the artificiality is clearly connected to that in some way.) You know how it is when you're dreaming. You're conscious of things, but yet it's like you're mind has shifted to a different gear. When the cavemen woke up in the morning they were confronted with the same reality we are, and their eyes were just as open, perhaps even more so. I definitely don't think they went around in a daze or were less alert. I guess I just mean that there wasn't as radical a shift in gears between their dreaming state of mind and their waking state of mind as there is in ours. I guess I'm saying that their approach to reality would seem dream-like to us. I'm not sure if that makes any sense.

    Anyway, sorry if it sounds like I'm addressing points you didn't make. I'm also just kind of thinking out loud some thoughts that I had about this last night. You raise some good points, especially the rainbow thing. I'll need some time to mull all this over.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It also occurs to me that there are even modern day people on a quest for the Ark of the Covenant, and Noah's Ark, and there's probably some kids somewhere looking for a collector's edition of the Atari game Cosmic Ark, so I'm not sure where I was going with any of this to begin with. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  15. But there was something there that you wanted to express. Perhaps it will go in a new post, then you have every right to address points I didn't make, precisely because I didn't make them!

    ReplyDelete