Falling under the spell?

Ever notice how easy it is to find a particular view about the world utterly convincing? How we tend to adapt particular attitudes, some of them passionately and thoroughly, and at times find ourselves alienated from our own potential to understand another's viewpoint? Like finding ourselves at the driving end of an ideological spear, we suddenly realize we are defending a view, exploring how it works itself out in the real world. Take race and gender as an example; you notice how it permeates society, so you begin to (if it has been sufficiently imprinted on you by the university, or a particular interest of yours), see how it all plays out. You play the conquistador of equal rights, the bringer of multiculturalism. Seeing a real problem, a part of you sympathizes with the efforts, and wishes to play a part in the on-going war "against" ignorance, injustice and inequality. 

Or, in the case of the new atheists, part of you actively takes on a personal effort to immerse yourself in rationalist thought, watching dialogues between the greater ideological spokespeople, reading books and joining forums. You identify with the cause. Your forum tag becomes Dawkins quotes or Sam Harris, or any particular rationalist for that matter. Your identity, at this point, has immersed and linked itself entirely, or at least strongly with the movement, the effort, and the ideas involved.

In both of these cases, we allow ourselves to be strongly shaped by our passionate interest for a subject that we agree on. It seems natural for humans to bind together and identify with groups, be they larger or smaller. Yet it also seems at least a little dangerous in that by giving our minds over to be, in a sense, conditioned by an ideology (fanatic or not) is to limit our ability to understand another. By building the mind for specific tasks, we allow it to be less open to the receptivity of others (Not always, but frequently).

I find in many of the debates online, no matter what particular argument is going on, both sides fail to make the jump to a common ground in which one begins to thoroughly understand the other. Mistakes in interpretation, or simple strong identification with a viewpoint clouds the debaters judgement so that he or she may often miss a critical and interesting point about the "opponent." On the same token, the debater may even make poor arguments based on not thoroughly seeing what the oppositional view is. The fact that we disagree, conceptually, is not something that can be avoided. It goes almost without saying that to disagree is almost natural for us, but the inability to perceive another's attitude, to see through their perspective is something that is so far and few between, yet so important as the information age progresses. Unless we really do wish to see fragmentation, it's important for us to accept that perhaps we cannot entirely understand another's view, but maybe that is not necessarily important. Even agreeing or disagreeing, it may seem, may not be terribly important - save some vital issues and decisions.

In fact, that's the main point trying to be made here: Our agreements or disagreements, our theories and attitudes and ideologies we often follow are more about identification, emotional attachment and willing self-conditioning rather than objective "arguments" or clearly grounded perspectives.

Our ideas are ingrained into our psyche. They are rooted in our conscious and our unconscious, our battlefield, or playground of concepts in which we identify, and this occurs through various environmental and internal factors. The more we understand it's less about "I disagree!" and more about, "I identify strongly with this concept, and since this is who I am, I must defend myself!" We essentially allow our conceptual mind and emotional unconscious to continually shape our identity through time.

Perhaps more often than not debate is little more than ego battling ego, identity versus identity, using the other's defeat to build up your own. In many cases, our interests are sincere. They are not outright selfish, but to observe how we identify with a particular cause, it would greatly help us to not be so blinded by our own belief systems, and so arrogant with others.

End of Scientific Method?

In Wired, a recent article "The End of Theory" popped up. I decided to check it out, but found myself too distracted to read it until I bumped into it again through a link on Digg. I'm glad I took the time. To summarize, the author describes how the new information age enables us to view exponentially large amounts of data, gathered from clusters of computers, whether they be in our homes or super-computers in laboratories. The new age of technology has seen the beginning of a literal neural network, a complex digital brain that is already a super computer. Because of the seemingly infinite amount of data, and the super-computers that help crunch the numbers, we are able to easily see correlatives. The numbers speak for themselves. Up until recently, information gathering was a slow process, but these days, we can't get enough of it. In fact, some argue there is too much data to swim through. But this vast sea of information affords us the ability to see bigger pictures, tendencies and correlations first, and theories second. For instance,

There is now a better way. Petabytes allow us to say: "Correlation is enough." We can stop looking for models. We can analyze the data without hypotheses about what it might show. We can throw the numbers into the biggest computing clusters the world has ever seen and let statistical algorithms find patterns where science cannot.

The best practical example of this is the shotgun gene sequencing by J. Craig Venter. Enabled by high-speed sequencers and supercomputers that statistically analyze the data they produce, Venter went from sequencing individual organisms to sequencing entire ecosystems. In 2003, he started sequencing much of the ocean, retracing the voyage of Captain Cook. And in 2005 he started sequencing the air. In the process, he discovered thousands of previously unknown species of bacteria and other life-forms.

Afforded this new technology, science may at last be aided by the fruits of its labor. The digital brain, the super computer may assist us in this data overflow, helping direct more appropriate causation. The author seems to go out of his way to insist the old method is now superfluous. I doubt he is correct on this one, for the sole purpose that causation helps us deepen our understanding of correlation. It's nice to see the acknowledgement of correlation though. For instance, if there is some form of psychic phenomenon, the traditional scientific answer would be: There's no way to prove it, it's probably not real. However, if we take correlation into account, we might see the numbers at least prove it is a significant phenomenon, whether it be social or truly parapsychological. 

Learning to use a "computer" of this scale may be challenging. But the opportunity is great: The new availability of huge amounts of data, along with the statistical tools to crunch these numbers, offers a whole new way of understanding the world. Correlation supersedes causation, and science can advance even without coherent models, unified theories, or really any mechanistic explanation at all.

I agree with Wired on this one. Correlation has the backburner too often. It may end up shining the light where science traditionally takes ages to finally illuminate. With this new and rapidly developing tool, the possibilities of science, technology and at last handling the information age will be even more fascinating. It makes me wonder: Does this open us up for a future integral age? We're beginning to see less traditional methods in science, adapting to new technological possibilities. Will data summaries, connections, underlying themes and patterns start to gain significance? I suppose we are going to have to wait and see what the future will bring.

Roots Intwining

This morning I was reading Eckhart Tolle and walking around my background (Big trees surrounding a grass center), and I look up and notice that, our ancestors were lucky to have experienced nature in its expansiveness. While nature is still form, it forces us to come out of our me-ness and look at a world that exists without "me," and probably has given birth to me. It lets me see a perspective somewhat outside of my ego, to see how I am a whole-part of the universe, one blossom. The roots in my feet entangle and expand with other roots, and all at once I am back within nature, not going into it. I am blossoming from it, ego included. Call it nature mysticism, but it's a wonderful start for many of us to recognize who we are on our spiritual path.

"Me"

I'll make this as short and sweet as I can: 

When browsing the new age sections, whether in forums or in bookstores, I noticed a surprising trend: Me. 

Sure, the ego appears everywhere anyway, but there's a particular emphasis. Self-love, self-empowerment. I definitely agree it's good to have some degree of self-love, but when flipping through all of these books I noticed another tend: Instead of exploring our 'self' through the eyes of spirit, we simply explore our selves to find a cozy spot to settle down in. Bluntly, it's just another escape from true growth. Instead we just find aways to bloat our ego even bigger than it was before. Instead of being self-loathing, we become self-gloating. We're ego-enablers, but not in a healthy way. 

Now many a sage or teacher would tell you that the ego is a tricky creature. In essence, "I" am insubstantial, and this is terrifying. So I search and yearn for meaning and self-importance. Yes, maybe this is a stage of our spiritual journey, but I feel that a new problem today is we've created a spiritual-dead end for the ego to settle down in. Instead of pampering ourselves, why not love unconditionally? Love of all things, including your own ego, another object that arises in this grand universe. Love is. Being is. Ego is a part of that, but it is not the whole.... 

Sometimes silence is all we truly need in order to learn. And it's already there. Instead of running to escapes and building up new ideals, why don't we just listen? Why don't we just 'be' and not 'be for' something? How many new age books tell you that? Instead there is always purpose, mission, becoming. There is nothing to become. For once, just look at the world without labeling it, look at yourself without labeling 'you' anything. Just be aware.

Breaking the Spell:

Dennett's book is good. There's no working around that. In fact, his writing style is so lively written that I can actually feel the energy he put into the words, the desire for them to make sense and be as reasonable as possible. I think that's what I may be enjoying the most, honestly, over the ideas he conveys. But he does make sense, and the picture he paints is a very pragmatic one. Impassioned logic, I suppose. From his demeanor in the videos, this would not be apparent. 

From an integral point of view, I'd like to believe Dennett is one of the most comprehensive out of the "New Atheists," despite the fact that Sam Harris isn't truly an atheist. There are times when yes, he reduces everything to the physical world, and yes, he doesn't necessarily address the deeper, mystical religious experiences, leaving many people like me wondering if there even is a good scientific, rational-based answer to them yet. (I'm not looking for an answer, just curious what they have to say about it... I don't think they'll find an answer). Harris mentioned this deeper, mystical state and related it to consciousness, but did not make a case against it, in fact he outright said it was elusive and not truly related to religion as a majority. Dennett doesn't appear to address it yet. What he does address is the mythical attitudes, their origins, and a call to question them, if for a moment. He proposes a means to view religion: aesthetically, like music art and literature. Things we appreciate and that enrich our world.  He then asks whether the pros of this aesthetic view outweigh the cons (This is what I'm at). And that we must be daring, brave and mature enough to question it, to break apart the aesthetic piece. 

In a metaphor, he compares it to music. He argues that by analyzing it thoroughly and critically, he is not going to destroy its value. Not anymore than understanding the science behind a musical composition destroys the beauty of the song. If anything, he hopes it will 'break the spell' on religion, and help us truly appreciate its place without blowing it up to such an unquestionable and blinding level. This I can understand is necessary, for the majority of the world's population, to undergo.

So, if he's writing exactly what the mythic-based majority needs to hear, and as carefully and comprehensively as he can, what's wrong with that? I don't feel that the new atheists are necessarily beating a dead horse and cashing in by repeating the story of past scientists and philosophers regarding religion. If anything, a rebirth of critique on the mythic world religions needs to be done in order to help "break the spell," which, for all intensive purposes, has not yet been broken.

If you're interested in him, here are some more videos:

The Science Studio: Interview with Daniel Dennette

The Four Hoursemen: Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins at one table.

Darwins Dangerous Idea

School is Out

I'm home for a while now. Classes are done!

I'm sitting in my living room by the back door. In the morning, the sun comes in through the back door and windows, in the afternoon it streams in through the front. It's nice being right int he middle. I sit at the living room table, and I'm currently reading:

Dawkins: The God Delusion
Dennett: Breaking the Spell
Eckhart Tolle: A New Earth

Coming up- Watts, Krishnamurti

I started The God Delusion. Dawkins writes eloquently, yet there is a verocity in his language that reveals an inherent emotional bias. Understandably so, he's writing in defense of reason, scientific method and a world where we do not need to strap bombs on our chests to defend an ideology. Yet, this emotional content clouds his judgment. He begins with the idea that we can, if but for a moment, "Imagine" the world without religion. Without suicide bombings and crusades. He cites John Lennon and uses him to enhance the metaphor and the mentality. It worked well, but I think it is not organized religion, per say, but humanity's inherent ability to seek and create ideology. We wish to make things known, to build castles of identity. We do this through science as well as through religion. The difference is, science is a deeper, greater more accurate 'version' of translating the world than old-age myth. To recognize this would be the most humble of acts Dawkins, or any other scientist could do. I'm not giving up though. It is his view, I don't condemn it or embrace it. Reading on!

Boundaries, Not Really

Even though we may become numb to the outside world, our connection with it never ceases. The level of awareness and sensitivity we have to the universe, inside and out, is always present. This isn't even meant in a theoretically way. We never truly lose that boundless, vibrant state. We can always move beyond our boundaries because, they're not truly boundaries, not really. They exist, sure, and it's our own willingness, our own action of blockage, yes, but to move past them is as direct as moving your arm forward, opening your eyes, or, no, even easier: breathing. It's just there. Feel the air inhale, exhale.

It's difficult to describe it but, our sensitivity to the subtle bodies, including our own, is heightened when we are less inhibited by our own conditioning. "I can't feel this, I can't connect to another's soul, feel their emotions, No way! What am I, a sage?"

Personally I often forget about it, I drift back into a normal, bounded state of affairs. Where we must pick up what others think and feel by clues they give. Where we often hold up our personal fortress and interact with the world through a fence. Sometimes it's so easy to forget that's all artificial, and not realize that being open and boundless is actually a release from such heavy, convoluted mannerisms. It's already, always present. Your fear, your will, your "i" shouting in the night is the only act of refusal. Release, open, and swim a little in the river. For in truth, "simply being" is closer to you than your own breath.