Conditioning The Present

Furthermore, it is always possible to argue not that we are conditioned by the past, but that we use the past to condition ourselves in the present, and for reasons which are not historical but deeply inward and unknown."

Alan Watts

This one struck me like a koan. How about you? Isn't that interesting? In one striking statement, reasoning is inverted, and pointed directly at the 'ego,' crushing its game by revealing its secret workings (which are all so very obvious at this point). 

Imagine the effect this attitude could bring to psychology, sociology and the rest of the sciences? Religion?

Wonder

For you nerds out there (I guess - is a sociologist considered a nerd?) I'd just like to take a moment to reflect on my chosen major - Sociology. I have been taking classes for about two semesters now, and hopefully am gaining somewhat of an idea of what it's all about.

What is it, essentially? The study of the human collective. It's psychology, plural. Heavily tied into anthropology (that's very similar, with an empirical twist). Since I'm starting this major late into my college career, I'm actually going backwards and taking the introductory class this semester. We're learning the basics: how to do research, research ethics, culture, class, economics, Marx and Weber - all that good stuff.

Now, in my more particular socio classes, we seem to be focusing on these general topics:

1. Class Struggle

2. Gender

3. Globalization

4. Statistics

5. Suffrage

6. Race!

7. Gender!!

8. Class!!

Yes. Something definitely repeats in that list. We are heavily interested in, it seems, class and gender struggles throughout the world. How do the oppressed battle the oppressors? How does matriarchy struggle for a presence in patriarchy? How does race bias affect societies? It seems like, in other words, we're going over the major developments of the last century: gender, class, and race. These are really important issues because they are still issues. In many of my classes, the professors urge us to try to understand the delicate and complicated problems we face, even in the industrialized world. All in all, I'd give the focus a hearty B+.

The only thing I would really like to see more of, and so far am not, are other issues that may be harder to distinguish if we're looking on the surface. It takes a little digging, and a little remembering - but whatever happened to wonder? Or C. Wright Mill's "Sociological Imagination?" I don't want to sound idealistic, but can't we enchant our research with this wonderful tool? We have a great set of lenses to utilize: empirical research, statistics, data, sociological terminology. But what of wonder, adventure, thinking outside of the box? From dabbling into sociological books and talking with my professors, it seems they too are quick to admit you will not find such a spirit hidden readily in scholarly jargon. 

In fact, one of my professors even admitted that many books often tend to be a show of intellectualism over any honest, heartfelt questions. So I ask this one: Why can't we wonder? The answer of course, is redundant. Of course we can! There are a few gems in sociological research (Sidewalks) which attempt to narrate the research and make it accessible for everyone to learn from. It's in this spirit that I guess I am writing, too.

And in that case, let me wonder a little with you. These questions, right now, I'd like to ask without imposing concepts, and thus a bias:

1. What makes us tick, really? Not just economics, biology- those are a part of it. But really, what makes us tick?

2. What fundamental assumptions to we use to create how we see our realities?

3. Or even, can our basic assumptions about the world, and our relation to it affect every aspect of our reality - from individual actions to entire civilizations?

4. What discoveries has wonder brought us?

5. Because we believe we are born into the world, and not out from it - does this make a difference? Can it describe why things are the way they are? (Not in good shape for civilization, it seems.)

6. Let's allow ourselves to just wonder, and see what arises.

These and so many questions have arisen during my classes, but alas - they are never 'satisfied' or rather, no meaningful answer is given. To add to the starting point of criteria in our classes, I'd love to see us crack open Alan Watts' book, "Man, Nature and Woman." It explores our fundamental assumptions about humanity that run deep into culture, history and pour out in the present. The belief that there is a "self" and "other" for instance, creates a duality that seems to birth every opposite in the cosmos. These points, risen by Watts and many eastern philosophers (and sociologists in their own right), could do wonders for helping us understand ourselves, singular and plural. Why not start sailing the inner-cosmos, as well as the outer? To borrow the shamanic label, it's time for sociologists to embrace the psychonaut. 

Top 4 Writers Who Should be In Classrooms

Even though modern education can easily stuff our minds to the brim with intricate servings of "thinking critically," we never seem to apply that knowledge to ourselves. To top it off, most of the education we learn here in the West is heavily euro-centric, taking years to update and embrace new modes of thought. So, what if education were to begin to assist students in self-knowledge, and explore different worldviews that radically contrast, perhaps at surface level, traditional western values? What if east and west met? And then, what if east, west, north and south all found a congregation in the classroom, providing a mirror of both self-reflection and knowledge in the classroom? Man, we'd have one bad-ass educational system. Don't you think? This "top 4" is in no particular order, and I suspect it's the beginning of a long list of often-neglected writers would stir hours of conversation and thought in universities and high-schools across the world. In particular, the U.S. is in desperate need of new and dynamic education.

1. Alan Watts:

Why? Alan Watts is one of the few classical, yet easily accessible writers of eastern philosophy. Considering himself primarily an entertainer, his way with words, as well as book titles: "The Book: On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are"  provide both an intellectually stimulating and interesting read. He often gives readers an easy way into understanding the concept of the self, and how it is truly embedded into the world. We blossom out from it, not descend into it, he might say. This would provide students both younger and older, a freshly alternative view of the universe and their place in it. The often euro-centric classes would be shattered by a playful, creative and intelligent author. Watts is also the author of a huge collection of books, documentaries, lectures and essays. The possibilities here are endlessly fruitful.

2. Daniel Quinn:

Why? While Watts would help us ask big questions about who we are, Quinn will wittingly pose the deep, societal questions about aspects of civilization we take for granted. His work, particularly the underground classic "Ishmael," would force us to question the fundamental belief of civilization as a myth. Why are we? Why do we live like this way? Did human beings ever live another way? Aside from generating discussion, it would stir the cultural sediment and perhaps inspire a student or two to take action and openly explore alternate modes of living and subsistence. Quinn explores the lifestyles and culture of tribal societies vs. civilization. Tribal societies were, and still are, capable of a balanced and long life within nature, while civilization is always looming in the face of disaster, collapse. Quinn poses this theory: That perhaps our civilization was flawed from the very beginning, 10,ooo years ago. Check out his site.

3. Jiddu Krishnamurti: 

Author, philosopher, teacher and mystic. Why the pick? Krishnamurti is a system-buster, plain and simple. Systems are practical, but having a system buster is in itself healthy for a check-and-balance lifestyle, where nothing gets out of hand, and culture, let alone learning does not become like stagnant water. He raises the big, awkward questions: Why do we have religions? Are they escapes? What are ideologies but security fences to dwell within? He forces us, once again to question ourselves. It's not just a matter of thinking critically "out there," but what about "in here," in you and me? Self knowledge extends to world-knowledge. If we accept our insecurities and are in a constant process of self knowledge, then the lifestyles we will lead will reflect that. To Krishnamurti, the world's conflict is in fact an extension humanity's inner-conflict. In the library of books, essays and lectures he gave, the one resounding teaching was that of an inner revolution. 

4. Ken Wilber

Why? Well, he's been around long enough at this point to have both introductory books and in-depth and heavily detailed explanations of integral theory. He, like his predecessor Alan Watts, is deeply concerned with exploring the relations between east and west. What you will find is his ability to tie to the two together, finding east and west and west in east. Not only that, the cultivation and development of the integral theory provides a method and a philosophy that will help students see a "bigger picture." That is, see underlying patterns in seemingly different theories: psychology and art, sociology and quantum physics (Weird, eh? I'm sure there's something...), religion and science. The concepts and methods involved stimulate the analytical side, as well as the creative and explorative side of our minds. His works will raise deep questions, and ask students to ponder a world not only of horizons but of heights and depths. It explores consciousness in ways that are not usually emphasized. It takes the huge array of theories about everything, and makes a coherent "map" of them. Whether or not this map is effective will be up to the students to discern, but it is the vast library of material, of the general integral philosophy, following in the footsteps of the perennial philosophy, that will tickle the students minds and spirits. Not to mention, he is a fellow, at least part-time, blogger.

That's it for now. These list-blogs are fun to make, so anyone who reads this site should expect some more...

Of Monkeys and Typewriters

I was just reading Alan Watts on the train today with my girlfriend, who we will call Siamese Dream. We were talking about how, no matter who you are reading, it seems that many of these teachers resonate with the same meaning, from Wilber, to Krishnamurti, to U.G. Krishnamurti, to Thich Nhat Hanh, to even Eckhart Tolle. Even those who disagree, who may have metaphysical or intellectual disparities, resonate the same understanding; that there is more than bickering, that there is a greater awareness, consciousness - or all pervading spirit in all things.

"Why is it that, with all of these teachers, nothing has truly shifted? You'd think that with all of these individuals, something would have changed by now in the general culture."

"True," she said as the Brooklyn train came to the next stop, "But it gets no coverage. The media chooses to ignore it."

She brought up a good point. No matter who we read, and how we read it, it is often very difficult to bring about change without the assistance of media coverage. Especially today. A minute later, after the train picked up again, I looked up to find a lady reading Eckhart Tolle. We smiled at the synchronicity, and continued reading.

"What's that?" My Siamese Dream asked, looking at a picture in the Watt's book. It was a picture of, literally, squiggly lines, or as Watts calls them "Wiggles." The universe, he points out, is just a bunch of wiggles. You don't know where it starts, where it ends, and nothing is outright cut and dry. 

It is the "Net" or "Web" or "Grid" which we have imposed on the world which allows it to start to make "prickles" or straight edges. The wiggles are made sense of. Yet, even this "grid" is another image imposed on the world. The stars, he notes, are not perfect geometric shapes, but rather like drops of water splashed randomly across the sky. It is our minds that creates and maps out the universe, making "start charts" and grids to help us navigate. I looked around, at the subway train, at the buildings outside, the tracks, the cars, the roads, and didn't find one wiggle at all. The only wiggly parts, it seems, are the people themselves. We're quite Wiggly, as Watts points out, and with our minds we make "prickles" to shape the world and make sense of it. That's all right of course. Our brains are developed in such a way as to promote this. But if we are to truly transform, or at least be able to get along better, we have to understand inter-dependence on everything, and the very nature of "prickly" making vs. the natural wiggly world.

So that all really means - self knowledge. Understand your own being, how you come into being, who you are, and how you "are." Part of this is questioning and openly exploring your own nature, and your own assumptions about the world.

As we got off the train, we discussed the last lines read in Watts. One being - given infinity, all random things will happen. This myth explains away all 'meaning' behind life, existence, love, beauty, etc. And the bleakness of this theory is meant to be embraced, toughed out. We both eyed this scientific myth with a skeptical eye. I feel that it is better to be skeptical, to be open to the possibility of "randomness" being wrong, just as much as we are open to it being right. 

Given enough time, would a monkey on a typewriter create Shakespeare? Even if they did, what would the gibberish be after it is finished? There seems to be more "consistency" in our consciousness, for me to outright embrace this example.

As we walked toward the school, we entertained one last thought: Although the theologians defend the faith in deeper, more meaningful ways - it is the stereotypical images of faith, it is the general mentalities that people embrace and utilize. As much as we like to look to the defenders of the faith, or any belief or system in general - we must not forget the general, surface levels, because they are what effect the culture, the consciousness, the collective, perhaps at an ironically deeper level than the deepest of theologies.

Bringing it to light, "Perhaps that's why these great sages haven't deeply affected us - because every shallow surface is shinier and more attractive, and the public takes the bait." They dare not take off the swimmies and dive deep. This doesn't make any kind of superiority in anyone who does, it just shows that, generally speaking, if we want change, it has to affect people on a massive, surface level - the media. A look at Kucinich is a great example. He is an excellent thinker, politician and has great plans for the U.S. Yet, the media willingly chose to discredit him, and then outright reject him. The effect? No coverage, no mass support, no voice.

To end on a good note, I have hope for the future, and am excited to see more sages getting a louder voice in a world that is increasingly filled with "white noise."

Check out what Alan Watts says about "Prickles and Goo"

"This Is It," Alan Watts on Integral

"Psychologists with a slant to materialism therefore argue that mysticism is nothing more but sublimate sexuality and frustrated fleshliness, whereas the spiritists maintain that the love-imagery is nothing but allegory and symbolism never to be taken in its gross and animal sense. But is it not possible that both parties are right and wrong, and that the love of nature and the love of spirit are paths upon a circle which meet at their extremes? Perhaps the meeting is discovered only by those who follow both at once. Such a course seems impossible and inconsistent only if it can be held that love is a matter between alternatives, if, in other words, love is an exclusive attitude of mind which cleaves to on object and rejects all others. If so, it must be quite other than what is said to be God's own love, 'who maketh his sun to shine upon the evil and the good, and sendeth his rain upon the just and the unjust.' Love is surely a disposition of the heart which radiates on all sides like light."

-

This is It, Alan Watts pg 119

Yeah! That's what I've been thinking. It's an excellent metaphor for what it means to be 'integral.'  We simply observe any side, extreme, point of view in our awareness without demonizing it or rejecting it out right. It's accepted for what it is, just like when light shines, it does not shy away from the shadows, nor build fences to defend itself against the dark places. It simply resonates. We can do our best to reflect this ability in our lives. Applying this practically, Alan Watts was describing mysticism and the opposing views it had with his contemporaries. It still holds true today, however, when we look at magazines like Psychology Today, which typically reduce all spiritual and 'inner' experience to outer, empirical phenomenon. In that sense, and as Watts says, both sides are right and wrong. 

"The Integral Movement,"

Writing a paper about modern movements for my sociology class, and in my research I stumbled upon a wonderful quote by Alan Watts. He describes, perhaps inadvertently the nature of what it means to be integral:

“I have been realizing more and more that partisans to opposed philosophies share the same premises, which are usually unconscious. Furthermore, as the structure of language and the learning of roles, influencing us in ways of which we are hardly aware. Thus the conventional saint and the conventional sinner, the ascetic and the sensualist, the metaphysician and the materialist may have so much in common that their opposition is quite trivial. Like alternating heat and cold, they may be symptoms of the same fever.”
-Alan Watts, "Nature, man and Woman"

And so I'll keep burning up and writing this paper. Stay tuned for more folks!