Subud Vision - Discussion

flow. From Merin Nielsen, May 2, 2008. Time 13:51

Hi, David,

On April 25th you wrote:
>> ........ just practicing being in pure flow will not by itself get you anywhere. You still need that outer training. For instance, if you want to develop ethical flow, where you naturally and spontaneously treat people well, you need an outer ethical framework, as well as this practice in flow: just as it is with learning to play a musical instrument.

The phrase “if you want to” has been bugging me. You’re motivated to do whatever.... BY WHAT? The background of socially shared practices is so full of potential stimulants of motivation, but you don’t entertain them all. Is there any objectively useful method of responding to them -- any overall should or shouldn’t with respect to resisting this one or embracing that one? WHY want to develop ethical flow, for example, rather than dastardly flow?

Of course, you are whoever you are, according to how you’re motivated. But discovering who you are actually changes you, through changing what motivates you, by degree.

Getting to know who you are is a kind of ‘master project’. It means developing a meta-framework in terms of capacity to know yourself more thoroughly and act on that basis. It increases the chance that you’ll be pushed or pulled by more ‘fully informed’ motivations. Generally, knowledge offers the best available reinforcing of your own survival prospects within your local environment. But in developing your self knowledge, various motivations will change, along with your identity.

The familiarisation process involves reflective thinking, which starts development of flow in the respective domain. Flow happens in relation to practices with which you’re familiar. Familiarity with the depths of your own being and heart and mind -- this permits flow at the existential level -- interacting with fellow components of your socio / eco / geo-system. It’s about compassionately living in support of that co-existence. Likewise, you may navigate among socially shared practices through the flow-application of knowledge of who and what you really are.

This inner familiarity can be increased via contemplative attention. The latihan is another practice that seems to help. In any case, I think this particular kind of flow develops only if you can accept transformation of your identity. This occurs as old motivations are exchanged for ones that emerge from the broader context of greater knowledge, which may or may not thus enhance the survival prospects of the expanded, co-existing, socio / eco / geo-systemic you. If nothing else, however, such knowledge optimises your options for action, and maximal options are objectively good.

Cheers,
Merin

From David Week, May 3, 2008. Time 7:23

Hi Merin

"The phrase “if you want to” has been bugging me. You’re motivated to do whatever.... BY WHAT? The background of socially shared practices is so full of potential stimulants of motivation, but you don’t entertain them all. Is there any objectively useful method of responding to them."

In short, I would say "no". This constant search for some kind of meta-frame which will tell us what it true and what is right, seems just like the Cartesian project -- which explains why it seems to infect so many of us white folk. It's foundationalism. But what I think that many postmodern authors (and Buddhist ones) is that this project has no end, that it is a project that is fulfilled when you have therapised away your own perceived need for such a thing.

"WHY want to develop ethical flow, for example, rather than dastardly flow?"

Why love your girlfriend? Why have a beer with friends? Why have sex? Are you, at heart, motivated by "rational" factors -- i.e. by reasons. I would say that all of the important things in life don't need reasons.

"But discovering who you are actually changes you, through changing what motivates you, by degree."

Ah... finding yourself. When did you lose yourself? And where did you lose yourself? And if you are finding yourself, who is doing the finding? Something other than yourself? What leads you to think that such a project makes any sense at all, is feasible, or is a worthwhile one? The Buddhists might say your are pursuing a shadow. We postmoderns might say the same.

"Getting to know who you are is a kind of ‘master project’."

Why do you want to be consumed by a 'master project'? Why not let go of such goals?

"It increases the chance that you’ll be pushed or pulled by more ‘fully informed’ motivations."

What I'm talking about, in all my talk about flow, though, and is the notion of the Heideggerian background (other philosophers have other names) is that the most important things cannot be known. That we are as in a vast universe, with a torch. We can illuminate some things, but every time we move our flashlight, something else falls into darkness. And that the illusion of illuminating everything in order to know what is "really" going on is not only illusory, but ill-motivated, and not helpful in practice.

Does the rest of your post about the benefits of reflective knowledge have any support in the literature, or is this your own personal cosmology? (That's a question, not a challenge.)

"Generally, knowledge offers the best available reinforcing of your own survival prospects within your local environment." Empirically not true. Just the other day I saw a documentary about a guy whose car was hit by a train. The guy was a trained emergency response worker. Up to that day, he thought that his ability to stay cool under pressure, and his training, were sufficient for any situation. But the moment he saw the train bearing down on him, his limbic system, including his amygdala, took over. Nothing to do with knowledge. There's more to a human being than symbolic reasoning, and more to a human being than the cerebral cortex.

"But in developing your self knowledge, various motivations will change, along with your identity."

I want to see that there is such a thing as "self knowledge", rather than just another mental construct.

"Familiarity with the depths of your own being and heart and mind -- this permits flow at the existential level -- interacting with fellow components of your socio / eco / geo-system."

Let me propose that the idea that things have "depth" is again part of your Cartesian conditioning, and that there is another possibility, which we might call the WYSIWYG universe: that everything is exactly as it appears. And that the idea of finding out the reality "behind" appearances is a motivation which is useful in engineering and physics, but if you allow such a motivation to take over your whole life, it's not good. (Actually, it would be impossible.)

I suggest: forget knowing your own "depths". You already know yourself, fully.

"If nothing else, however, such knowledge optimises your options for action, and maximal options are objectively good."

I must remember to behave maximally, next time I see my beloved, laugh with my children, and tuck into a gado-gado.

I'll let you know if it improves my life.

:-)

David
founding member (in full self-conscious irony)
Foundationalists Anonymous

From David Week, May 3, 2008. Time 7:49

Hi Merin

An afterthought: There is a basic flaw in what you trying to do. The problem is that all that you are presenting (meta-frames, ecosystems, optimalization) is all itself set within another frame. Human life encompasses all frames. No frame encompasses all of human life. That's because the capacity to frame is just one part of our total, organismic potential for understanding and action. So whatever frame you choose (including the one you outline in your post), it will have a limit. Outside that limit will lie (a) human situations with which it cannot cope, or copes poorly, and (b) human capacities which it does not enable, or enables poorly, or which are beyond the horizon of any frame. (I mean here not that we can't for instance, study the limbic system, but that no amount of rationality will help us or hinder us or substitute for when the limbic system (as an example) really kicks in.

Best

David

From Philip Quackenbush, May 3, 2008. Time 11:0

MN : Of course, you are whoever you are, according to how you’re motivated. But discovering who you are actually changes you, through changing what motivates you, by degree.

Hi, Merin,

Well, I spent a while once or twice looking for myself (not like all those women these daze who go off by themselves to "find themselves"), and it didn't take long to realize there was no self, or "me" that I could find, so I had to agree that Da Boo Da was right at least in that particular. The nice thing about realizing that there is no "me" or "I" or "myself" (eliminating the Hole-y Trinity simultaneously) is that, with no self to suffer, there's no suffering (we're talkin' psychological suffering here; the body still feels pain until either the stimuli stop or the supply of neurotransmitters is exhausted along the affected nerves, or both).

Realizing that fact (of anatta, or no self) is one thing: to feel its reality, with the ego, or false self, constantly nattering away that yes it does, too, exist (well it does, or did, for a picosecond, maybe, before getting replaced by another false self, and so on and so on, in an endless parade of illusory selves that is so colorful and fascinating that the hypnotic effect is virtually inescapable) is another thing entirely. So, rotsa ruck on your quest to find out who you are. Maybe YOUR self exists. Who am I to say it doesn't? You could get lucky.

The great paradox: I exist but my self doesn't. The solution to the paradox: My "self" is a memeplex that I've developed over the years in my mind that sort of has a life of its own and has been running mine for far too long. So I just tell it to bugger off when it becomes too uppity (howzat for mixed metal fores [short drives for a Cockney and an African-American golfer]). It works pretty well most of the time.

Peace, Philip

From Merin Nielsen, May 3, 2008. Time 11:37

Hi, David,

>> I would say that all of the important things in life don't need reasons.

Yet everything has a reason.

>> Ah... finding yourself. When did you lose yourself? ..... And if you are finding yourself, who is doing the finding?

My self has always been partly hidden from my conscious mind, obviously, and partly hidden from the rest of my mind, in all probability. Here I'm taking my self to be whatever this human being is comprised of. It includes my conscious mind, which is right now discussing the finding, and the rest of my mind -- although both, in likelihood, are doing the finding. Doing the finding makes the discovered knowledge accessible to flow.

>> What leads you to think that such a project makes any sense at all, is feasible, or is a worthwhile one?

Contents of the last post. (Pun unintended.)

>> Why do you want to be consumed by a 'master project'? Why not let go of such goals?

The better to exist, by expanding my options for responding to the things in this world -- although 'consumed' is way too strong.

>> What I'm talking about, in all my talk about flow, though, and is the notion of the Heideggerian background (other philosophers have other names) is that the most important things cannot be known. That we are as in a vast universe, with a torch. We can illuminate some things, but every time we move our flashlight, something else falls into darkness. And that the illusion of illuminating everything in order to know what is "really" going on is not only illusory, but ill-motivated, and not helpful in practice.

I vaguely recall reading this in Heidegger. I think the image involved 'horizons', and I can't remember what I felt in response, but I disagree with the notion you present. I say that of course it is helpful to shine a flashlight around, while recognising the limitations of a flashlight, and of the conclusions about 'reality' to which it may lead. Yes, it's impossible to illuminate everything, and you could spend forever in the attempt, but that's not the master project I'm talking about. What I'm talking about may very well have no endpoint -- it's about continuously developing and refining a knowledge base, as a model, to progressively increase its predictive power. On this basis, engaging in flow, how you live dovetails better with how the world works in terms of preserving it, of which you're part.

>> Does the rest of your post about the benefits of reflective knowledge have any support in the literature, or is this your own personal cosmology?

Personal cosmology / conjecture / rant / fantasy.

>> "Generally, knowledge offers the best available reinforcing of your own survival prospects within your local environment." Empirically not true. Just the other day I saw a documentary about a guy whose car was hit by a train. The guy was a trained emergency response worker. Up to that day, he thought that his ability to stay cool under pressure, and his training, were sufficient for any situation. But the moment he saw the train bearing down on him, his limbic system, including his amygdala, took over. Nothing to do with knowledge. There's more to a human being than symbolic reasoning, and more to a human being than the cerebral cortex.

It was apparently an edifying experience for the guy. But "generally" and "best" are my qualifiers. If a rock falls from the sky upon my head, knowledge won't save me, but thank heaven that thick skulls are among human beings' ingredients. On the other hand, if the guy had known more in advance about the train, he'd could have avoided it. Given a more suitable opportunity, I would be happy to argue that, all things being equal, knowledge is the overall most powerful resource available for 'harvesting' by human beings and societies.

>> I want to see that there is such a thing as "self knowledge", rather than just another mental construct.

There's a human being, and it can (howsoever arduously) acquire further knowledge about itself. There's nothing surprising about this. Sure, it can't do so without being changed in the process, and some of the knowledge acquired therefore becomes immediately obsolete, but not all of it. 3 steps forward, 2 steps back, is still forward.

>> Let me propose that the idea that things have "depth" is again part of your Cartesian conditioning, and that there is another possibility, which we might call the WYSIWYG universe: that everything is exactly as it appears. And that the idea of finding out the reality "behind" appearances is a motivation which is useful in engineering and physics, but if you allow such a motivation to take over your whole life, it's not good. (Actually, it would be impossible.)

While I'm extremely fond of the WYSIWIG view, your engineering / physics reference is apt. There's a great deal to discover about the human brain -- so much more than a cerebral cortex, howsoever that functions. But it sounds like you might be attributing a fever-pitch to this 'master project' that it doesn't have. The point of the discovery process is flow. A good tennis player never stops discovering more about how to play, through ongoing practice, and their style of play changes in the process, but there's no such thing as perfect or imperfect flow, so you just have to go with it whenever it presents itself. Being open to change among your motivations is a central aspect of that.

>> "If nothing else, however, such knowledge optimises your options for action, and maximal options are objectively good."
I must remember to behave maximally, next time I see my beloved, laugh with my children, and tuck into a gado-gado.

And don't forget when you play tennis (if you play tennis). Optimal options for action are in the context of flow.

>> An afterthought: There is a basic flaw in what you trying to do. The problem is that all that you are presenting (meta-frames, ecosystems, optimalization) is all itself set within another frame. Human life encompasses all frames. No frame encompasses all of human life. That's because the capacity to frame is just one part of our total, organismic potential for understanding and action. So whatever frame you choose (including the one you outline in your post), it will have a limit. Outside that limit will lie (a) human situations with which it cannot cope, or copes poorly, and (b) human capacities which it does not enable, or enables poorly, or which are beyond the horizon of any frame. (I mean here not that we can't for instance, study the limbic system, but that no amount of rationality will help us or hinder us or substitute for when the limbic system (as an example) really kicks in.

Good comment. I might be merely assuming that some frame is all encompassing -- sophistry to consign to the flames? Sure, framing is something which humans do, but there might still be a certain 'real' frame corresponding to this 'construct' frame. Being a construct doesn't make it necessarily unreal, and I think there's a fair argument for its reality, considering its generality -- highlighting the commonality of all interactive entities as self-preservers, and identity being transitional, depending on context.

Hey, I definitely plan to enjoy more time mulling over these issues!
Cheers,
Merin

P.S. May the fourth be with you.

From David Week, May 3, 2008. Time 12:51

Hi Merin

"Being a construct doesn't make it necessarily unreal, and I think there's a fair argument for its reality, considering its generality -- highlighting the commonality of all interactive entities as self-preservers, and identity being transitional, depending on context."

I think that this where we diverge. When I imagine a person developing a frame or worldview, I revert to the tool metaphor: it's just a tool. So I imagine a person, say, lighting a match. Now, all tools are finite and contextual. Let's say I build myself a flamethrower. That makes it bigger and better at igniting, but does it make it more universal? Not if I want to light a cigarette, or play matchstick puzzles.

In the modern world, we have developed what we feel are very generalisable tools. But we are caught up in a socio-technical world in which more and more of what surrounds is composed of just such tools. We build an orderly world, and it seems to us orderly, just as if we built a white world, it would seem to us white. We ignore and discount and explain away that which is not reliable and repeatable.

That's okay. I like this world too. The difference I think between you and I is that I see it as A world, and you see it as THE world.

To me, "Everything has a reason" is a myth. It is not a tested or testable hypothesis. "You can construct a reason for almost anything" is such a hypothesis. In particular, "everything has a reason" is a religious myth, and it comes from our Enlightenment history, that God constructed a clockwork universe which operates according to (divine) laws, and our job is to discover, through science and mathematics, those laws. "God does not play dice," sayeth St Albert the Einstein.

BTW, would QM be happy with the statement, "everything has a reason?"

Reason: a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

Best

David

PS: I didn't know the flashlight metaphor was H's. The metaphor I like the most -- and I can't find the source -- is of a man cutting clearing in the forest, and as he cuts, the forest grows up behind him.

From David Week, May 3, 2008. Time 13:53

Hi Merin

The third post down in this discussion summarises a lot of my cog sci background:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=119854

It also weaves some of the themes of our discussion together: tennis player, embodiment, metaphor, cognition...

For me, what I like about this path of enquiry is that it explains my experience of the latihan, which is:

- does not create superior human beings
- does not generate answers from God (unless God is amazingly ignorant)
- involves the body
- can create insight

Here are is some material from edge.org re "Philosophy in the Flesh". In it, there is a brief interview with Lakoff, and then a number of responses from other edge authors.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lakoff/lakoff_p1.html
http://www.edge.org/discourse/lakoff.html

Best

David

PS: Here's a Subud question. How come Subuh never talked about latihan exercising your brain? How come all the 'body testing' is about arms and legs and such, and never about testing the brain? Is the activity of your brain no less important than the wiggling of your feet?

From Sahlan Diver, May 3, 2008. Time 14:46

In answer to David's question:

I remember one testing session where he said, this was just body testing, but later, when we were more experienced, he would exercise our feelings and thinking also. Sorry, I can't remember the occasion. There was no "later", of course, because he died.

From David Week, May 3, 2008. Time 15:5

Hi Sahlan

And that ties in with another (uncited) story I heard, that before the aborted Asuhan, Subuh planned to divide Subud into two classes of member: beginners, and advanced, the latter being those who no longer moved in latihan.

Best

David

Discussion continued on this page