Philosophy, Dichotomy and Going Beyond Dualism

A vs B and why that model’s time has passed.

I started my classes again today. The first up was “Philosophy of Mind.” The professor seems to be very into this topic, and for starters made it very intimidating. It’s not that the material is un-readable, but his harsh grading system (A/F) is a little disconcerting. Nevertheless. What is the philosophy of mind? From what I heard today, it’s the study of the mind/body “problem.” That is, how does consciousness arise in the body? Does it? Do we have free will, or if everything is physical, then is choice an illusion? There are many other questions that come up with this topic. We are going to be focusing on the “mind-body” split and how many philosophers chose (no pun intended) to answer it. Some go for the determinist view, the physicalist argument (No free will). Others go for the opposite view: All is mind. Then there are others who attemp to create a middle way, or balance between the perspectives. I personally agree with the third way, but the philosophy of integral has definitely had an influence in me in this respect.

While in class, I couldn’t help but remember the name of a chapter in Grace and Grit by Ken Wilber, “Mind-Body Drop!” A buddhist teacher used this as a koan, or a pointing out instruction for his students. The third topic I’d like to see in this class (though it wasn’t in the syllabus), would be- is there anything more? When mind-body drops, what is left? Or, as the Zen masters might say, what is your original face, before your parents were born?

So this is what we’re focusing on: The mind/body problem. I’d like to think of us as mind-bodies. We are both biological and mental. Being a fan of quantum physics and all related research, I’m somewhat aware that we are learning more about the mind potentially (pun not intended, again) being quantum-related. That is, some aspects of our consciousness can be explained through quantum science. I need to look up the article, but I recently read that protons move roughly around or beyond the speed of light. This would have profound insights into consciousness and how we experience it. 

But, back to the class, “Philosophy of Mind.” I’m going to try not to raise too many questions based on things I’ve read outside of the class. For instance, we know with quantum science that the universe is certainly not deterministic. In fact, it’s all about potential and probability collapsing into our experience. The mind is as much a creator of reality as it is a subject to it. That is, we are biological indeed, and all laws of the universe apply to us, but the brain helps create the experience of reality. It’s our way of interacting with the world, and it has gradually adapted and complicated over the eons. 

I wasn’t aware of this, but the term “science” was hardly used before the scientific revolution. Before then, it was called “natural philosophy.” Philosophy was a part of science, and vice versa. So, I see that as an example of yin-yang relationship that I’d like to see in mind-body theories. 

From what I know, the problem with the ‘physicalists’ or extreme ‘reduction’ is that it cannot yet account for the very basic experience of consciousness. It just can’t explain why on earth we’d have this awareness. 

So, to express my final thoughts on this subject (for now, of course), seeing modern philosophy as a series of “dichotomies” has inherently limited it to dualism, when it has so much more potential. The “problem” of inner mind and outer world can be dispelled, I think, with a third view. Instead of “either/or” let’s look at how “both/and” is possible. Instead of night or day, we have night and day. Life and death are intrinsic, and so why not body-mind? These are all just words, but they point to something more. I think this could be seen as an evolution from traditional philosophy (of dichotomies) to eteology, or the study from beingness. It could be said, the phrase, “I think, I am,” is not digging deep enough. Instead, “I am, I think, I feel, I see,” could help us gain more insight. The space between the words gain importance in an “integral” attitude. The connectivity, the complimenting of once opposing views are deeply valued. Seeing the flex-flow evolution of memes, consciousness and perspective- this is the future of so many things, including philosophy. 

And so, maybe I’ll mention these ideas in class, but either way, I hope to see them in our lives. The tool of stepping back from dualistic thinking does not leave us with idiocy, but the profound silence of transcendent and transrational consciousness.

In the Present

Staying in the present with "who we are," but are we really staying? If anything, all we can do is recognize the moment non-conceptually. It's before action, and before thought, so it's non-action, non-thought. 

There's no remaining, only training this little "self" to see, simply. Presence is, existence is. You can rest at the bottom of this ocean like the gently rolling waves, but you are not the currents, nor are you the ripples and bubbles that flow through. You, somehow, slip between the spaces and the concepts, somewhere elusive. Not even the term "somewhere" would signify or help us understand you, for this is no-where. Krishnamurti often said that total-negation is the essence of positive. And what does this mean? That to understand "nothing" as "no-thing," (relativity, objects, ideas, concepts) is our true nature. Far from being a barren wasteland, for such a notion would conjure an idea desert or an empty shell of a soul-which is still conceptualizing! True emptiness is the essence of all being- and actions, light, dark, relative and conceptual and yes, you and me as objects arise from it. Take the metaphor of a blue sky. In Dzogchen Buddhism, a meditative practice is to simply "sky gaze." Note that when watching a clear blue sky, you cannot see where it begins or ends, simply that it is without limit in any direction. You lose yourself in this, and that is nothing more or less than what I am trying to say.

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. 

Th-eism, Ath-eism, Trans-eism

 I guess you could call it a rant of sorts. Definitely fits that description. It's also my intake on the atheism/theism debate that's going on in our culture right now, and a heartfelt attempt to dig little integral bits from the ideological wreckage that's going on between both sides. I wrote this after watching a debate between Hitchens and D'Souza. No matter how this fight will turn out, I think we need a call for integralists to start offering, if only subtly, a 'third' way of sorts.Posing a question to everyone: Should I attempt to host a 'debate' at my university, in which an integral "side" (hehe) would also be represented? What do you think?

Q: The Universe is too perfect, too intricately constructed to simply just "appear" out of nowhere. Where do you, a non-believer, think it came from?

A: Why are you so sure that the absence my reason is the presence of yours? Are you sure that your interpretation is correct? Couldn't it be man's attempt to interpret the apparent void we came from? The mythic god in the bible is no different than the mythic deities of Ancient greece, in that they were both imagined to explain spiritual experiences and the world.  Emerging from a patriarchal civilization and thus bearing such royal names such as "King of Kings," "Lord of Lords," with such honorary titles and reverence are common in Judeo-Christian culture. This made monarchal society reflected in their own view of the universe, kingly, divine and monotheistic. Is it any wonder that a culture ruled by a single, dominant male figure who is the king of all the realm, divinely appointed, would create a religion which also has a monarchy on top? This is not some ultimate truth, but a reflection of monarchal worldview. Other cultures of the east, north, south, shamanic, oriental - have dramatically different worldviews and their religious beliefs were effected in a dramatically different way.

If we must pose the question: What did all this come from, then? If not from God?

I would ask to first define which interpretation of God you have?

A monotheistic, biblical deity?
A non-dual, "Big-Mind?"
"Suchness?"
"Noumenon?"
"Witness?"
"Great Spirit?"
"Brahman?"
"Void?"

What interpretation, what level? What depth? To answer you directly,

I denounce the reality of the mythical, Biblical God
I reject the atheist vs. theist war of ideologies
I embrace the possibility of spirituality, but only question the interpretation of it by religious groups.

We attempt to understand the divine, but we interpret it depending on our own background and conditioning. Can we appreciate this? Can we sort through, beyond the boundaries of conditioning, to touch the divine without claiming it for our culture? 

The Great Sages; Revolution vs. Evolution

A sage, "world teacher," and mystic; Krishnamurti will take all that the small self holds to value, and toss it out like a bit of dust on your sleeve. He will take value, ideals, "thought," and ego, and let it slip into the void, visibly forcing you into confrontation with fear, shadow, and the possibility of silence; love has no opposite, he would say, and indeed; the mind must be quiet in order to comprehend, not just rationally but totally, directly, what that means.
He was raised by the Theosophy society, expected to be a World Teacher and usher in a new age. But, the coming had, "gone wrong," as Krishnamurti dissolved the Order of the Star (The society built for his coming), and went off to teach without doctrine or dogma. "Truth is a pathless land," he would often say.

Looking back, we can now ask: Was Krishnamurti's teaching effective? Or did it backfire? Looking at his teaching through a veritcal scope, we can at least see where he was coming from. Non-dual, peak experiences. The silencing of the mind. The transpersonal states. Coming from this perspective, he often tossed anything less -dogma, creed, paths, time, aside for the pathless, creedless and timeless. But, was this effective? Some argue yes, other no. I'd say, a little of both! We are all at different states, different stages, different depths. One individuals receptivity to such powerful teaching that literally shakes all conditioning off of you, could be awesomely transformative. Another person? Nothing. Like a bad koan, or perhaps an over-technical prose, some of us get swept away by the language and the meaning behind the words. And that's Okay! But, doesn't that also imply that depending on where we are on the map of this evolution of consciousness, we will need different teachers? And different teachings? For exploring the non-dual states, teachers such as Krishnamurti and many others are wonderful.

Yet, depending on where we are on the spectrum, we will experience the same objective "its," subjectively. That is, we mold the experience according to our own level, state and trait. It's no wonder some of us will be blown away by the mystics, while others bored, dismissive, or perhaps indifferent. What strikes your cord? What lights your fire? Dance between perspectives, but do it to find out what resonates. Find out what energizes you and tickles your consciousness into the next wave.

So, is there any meaning to a "path," or must we discard all "means" to the pathless? Yes and yes! Ultimately, the path is released, dropped, and all of "what is," is. Non-dual, ever present, already, between the words and thoughts and before the first breath. What contemplative practices do, then, is move the mind forward, prepare it for new capabilities. What must be acknowledged is we need both evolution and revolution. Instantaneous transformation is only possible if the mind is ready to let go of it all. The mind has the potential to recognize its true nature - always! And it's always there. It's not a matter of becoming truth, becoming this or that, eventually achieving something. Nope! None of that. It's a matter of slowly, patiently, honing the body, mind, spirit to unravel itself, to release its perspectives and discover the now it's been sitting on all along.

Contemplative teachers will help you do this. Whether you're reading Krishnamurti, the Tao, Buddhist texts, Zen Koans, counting your breath, performing tantra or buying a teriyaki sandwich at subway. You start to see the buddha-state in everything. So, read on, dive in and move forward into timeless and spaceless, always and never, that is already you.

"The True Path"

No words for this really. I just wanted to share a favorite Zen Koan of mine:

The True Path

Just before Ninakawa passed away the Zen master Ikkyu visited him. "Shall I lead you on?" Ikkyu asked.

Ninakawa replied: "I came here alone and I go alone. What help could you be to me?"

Ikkyu answered: "If you think you really come and go, that is your delusion. Let me show you the path on which there is no coming and no going."

With his words, Ikkyu had revealed the path so clearly that Ninakawa smilled and passed away.

Zen Koans- AshidaKim.com