What's Left for Us?

Well, sniffing around at underlying assumptions [in my 'quite contrary' way] I see a couple of things I wonder about: "nothing brand new to discover"-- that's one.

"to reconcile the science of mind and our meditative experience. In
essence, to explain what's going on and thus eliminate the mystery"-- that's another.

Numero uno: what, aside from the abstract notion of history giving me credit, is the difference in my personal discovery of anything-- sex, altered states, or the inherent perfection of reality-- that countless generations before me have discovered, and discovering something that no one else has named before?

Numero dos: do I, or you, or anyone else here, REALLY want to 'explain away' the mystery of meditative experience? [Supposing that such a thing is possible; I'm not convinced it is.] Do we want the butterfly pinned to the killing board, neatly classified as to species-- or bopping about the woods lighting the whole place up? And who really knows the butterfly: the guy who can reel off all the data in the best scientific Latin, or the kid who watches, breathless, as one emerges from the chrysalis, unfurls itself, pumps up its wings, and wafts off.

I think we are in danger, we postmodern types, of failing to understand that 'science' is just the story that suits us in our time; mythologies are the stories that suited others, in earlier times. All stories are edited-- they leave out the parts that 'don't fit.' The criteria for what doesn't fit, and why-- that changes over time.

And maybe numero tres, or dos-and-a-half: buried a bit, the assumption that 'knowing' is to be desired because it puts the knower 'in control.'

Yes, r.e. Science, seems to me best to take it as a network of ever-revisable systems of pragmatic descriptions of systems of phenomena. Systems of phenomena seem to arise in an apparently wide-open field of unbroken matter-energy-consciousness-meaning.

Every system of which we are aware is composed of systems and contextualized by systems. Universe is not a totally encompassing single meta-system, which it would have to be for science to "explain" reality (or anything).

Universe is apparently an unbroken field of unpatterned energy (consciousness-matter-meaning...) which spontaneously gives rise to ephemeral dependantly-arisen patterns. Science studies the patterns so we can work with and within them more effectively in terms of meeting human needs; it is a human mode of inhabiting Universe. The notion that Science can "explain" Universe is an outdated superstition IMO!! And to assume that it is "Objective" is to miss the point entirely.

"BTW - the underlying assumption I was referring to is materiality. If we assume, as I do, that there is nothing going on with the mind that cannot be explained as some form of material process, then my assumption about someday "getting" the mind is at least possible. If you believe, as some do, that the mind has some truly non-material component to its working then my assumption could very well prove to be impossible.

(By materiality I am referring to physical and electromagnetic phenomena, including things from quantum theory like non-locality, and the effects observation has on reality.)"

-cmarti

First, I appreciate your use of the word "assumption" here. Whether we think that consciousness arises from materiality or vice versa, we're working on assumptions. These either/or kinds of questions result in our having to take sides on an issue that we just aren't sure about.

Take, for instance, the following philosophical problem:

The body is in the mind/awareness/consciousness (in that I am conscious of my body).

The brain is in the body (basic anatomy and physiology).

In summary, the brain is in the body, which is in the mind/awareness/consciousness. This makes it very difficult to explain how the brain gives rise to consciousness.

I'm not even saying that consciousness gives rise to materiality. There's no way I can verify that. It would be just as much an assumption as saying the brain gives rise to consciousness. In the end, one decides which theory they like best and identifies with it (this is what "I" believe). And there is usually a great deal of evidence from a particular kind of inquiry (phenomenology, biology, physics, philosophy) to support just about anything we want to believe.

Chris, I think it's reasonable to want to explore the relationship between neuroscience and enlightenment. If they are found to be related somehow, it might make awakening that much more realistic for others. Not to mention the boost in PR that science would bring to contemplative studies. And that's what "theories" are for. A theory is never "true." It's supported or not supported. And a theory is only worth its contribution to further study. It should explain and then predict future behavior/patterns/events/etc. Otherwise it's of no use. To build theories about how the brain and awakening are related, and how influencing one area may influence another, could be quite useful, so I'm all for it. I think what most of us would NOT like to see is for Scientism to continue its rein as the king and sole heir of the Truth. That's why this science and spirituality stuff gets under some folks' skin.

Haha. No, you're not coming off that way. I just like talking about this stuff. Actually, I just had a conversation with a co-worker about this very topic yesterday afternoon. It's fresh in my mind.

That is the classic argument against Dualism. How can something immaterial affect something material? It's the same kind of argument as a common one used against out of body experiences (OBEs). If one's immaterial self is outside of the body, how do they see without eyes, or hear without ears? A big problem, indeed. So, the rational case for materialism is compelling... until we try to figure out just where consciousness comes from. From what I've read (which I'm sure is far less substantial than what your scientist friend has studied), no one seems to be able to locate consciousness to any specific area of the body or brain. This has lead some scientists and philosophers to think that consicousness is somehow inherent to matter, only to verying degrees based on the level of evolved complexity. But this can't be supported empirically (yet), so there really isn't much of a case for this outside the realm of philosophy.

A lot of the arguments against materialism are based on the implications such a view has on morality. The belief that human beings are nothing but soul-less matter is scary to those who believe that human being have intrinsic worth due to their being "made in the image of God." That, and if there's no God there are no ultimate consequences for wrongdoing.

It's not such a big deal for many Buddhists, who see very little problem with the idea that there is not inherent soul/spirit/self to anyone or anything. Instead of being a source of everlasting grief and despair, it is used as a vehicle to freedom. An interesting twist, no doubt, but a powerful one.

It can be very easily demonstrated, especially in relation to the crazy part of quantum theory that says there mere act of observing a thing changes that thing, often in inexplicable ways.

-cmarti

The way observation affects outcome was found in a specific setting. In trying to make a case for Determinism, researchers thought that if they could observe the exact position and velocity of the smallest known particles, they could then predict its next position, and then the next one, and so on. Well, the way to observe extremely tiny particles is to bounce light off of them. A problem arose when they discovered that the kind of light they had to use to observe the particles was in fact affect the velocity of the particles. The more precise they got with the light, the more the velocity was affected. So, they found that there is no known way to observe a particle without influencing it. Thus, there is currently no way to predict outcomes with absolute precision. Determinism is just a fantasy at this point.

It has to do with light - not so much with conscious observation. In that sense, it doesn't apply to regular physics at grosser levels. In other words, if you look away from your computer monitor it doesn't term into quantum soup. It's still there.

Of course, I may not have understood what I was reading. I'm no theoretical physicist. I think this info is in Stephen Hawkings A Brief History of Time, which I've attempted to read on occasion. My wife is actually pretty good with this stuff. She's a big Michio Kaku fan. but I digress...

I'll read the links. I don't know as much about non-locality - just anecdotal tidbits.

I was mostly just addressing the "crazy part of quantum theory that says there mere act of observing a thing changes that thing," which has Uncertainty Principle written all over it, IMHO.

While important and influential, science and talking about what enlightenment is -- are all thoughts and concepts and can never touch or know actual insights into our true nature.

The mind in the opening quote just said a bunch of stuff that rolled around in its brain and will now roll around for a while in our brain and will never mean anything beyond that.

From the second link you (Chris) posted:

"If you take some property of a particle, the equivalent of color, say the spin of an electron, it doesn’t have the value pre-programmed. It has a range of probabilities as to what the answer might be, but until you actually measure it, there is no fixed value. What happens with a pair of entangled electrons is you measure the spin of one. Until that moment, neither of them had a spin with a fixed value. But the instant you take the measurement on one, the other immediately fixes its spin (say to the opposite value). These “quantum socks” were every possible color until you looked at one. Only then did it become pink, and the other instantly took on another color."

My question is, how is the spin measured? It's not like we can just look at it, like we would a tree or a flower.

Implication?

I'm not sure, but the quote is a mind thinking thoughts about thoughts and that isn't what enlightenment is so I guess the implication (which is incorrect) is that humans can somehow codify and pin down in words and concepts what enlightenment is, which is just NOT possible. So, the whole quote makes itself moot.

Hey guys-- fun conversation! As for the points about dualism vs monism and so on, I just find the simplist thing is to assume that Universe "is" a field of conscious-matter-energy which gives rise to forms/patterns which evolve (in the broadest sense of the term-- see general systems theory, especially Erich Jantsch) into increasingly complex and reflexive patterns.

At some point these conscious mattergetic eventities, the flow-patterns Universe gives rise to, become complex and rich enough to represent themselves (that's us, and some other mammals, at least). Then when those self-representations become sufficiently rich (us) there are seen to be a lot of unasked questions, a lot of built-in assumptions and automatic limits in the very process of re-presentation. So-- contemplative inquiry, digging back in to the nature of experience.

I see science as a pragmatic endeavor, a way humans have devised to facilitate our inhabitance. The "objectivity" of science, and ideals of "pure science", seem more like fading myths to me than anything else. Science is technological, and technology is (from our point of view) there to facilitate ease of inhabitance. Science is just emerging. With the developments in psychology, cognitive science, sociology, anthropology and all these refracted through the emerging physics, the mathematics of chaos and complexity, general systems theory and other harbingers of 21st century science, things look very different than they did at the close of the 19th or even halfway through the 20th.

Phenomenology and its greatest critics/evolvers, like Derrida and Heidegger, open up whole vistas of understanding which make mind/body, matter/consciousness, and other "traditional" dualities or "so-called philosphical problems, transparent and somewhat silly. So authentic post-modern philosophy, the emerging mathematics and physical sciences, and the developing human sciences offer such a striking contrast to the old ways our culture has approached these issues, that I find it difficult to remember what it was like to care about mind/matter, mind/body, is there an outer world, can we know it stuff.

Meanwhile, the possibility that neuroscience has something incredibly insightful to say about the correlations between various brain states and structures and phenomena of lived experience, is FASCINATING! James Austin-- fabulous stuff. Also, at the cutting edge I would say check out Daniel Siegel, MD. He's a clinical psychotherapist and brain researcher who's pioneering brain-based psychotherapy based on getting directed attention to change the brain via neuroplasticity. He points out that alot of what we thought we knew about neuroplasticity was changed by research on long-term meditators.

Great discussion here. Jake, glad to see another Dan Siegel fan. I am blown away by his work, every time I hear him talk it gets my mind spinning in many directions. That he describes his understanding of the world in terms more familiar to mystics/contemplatives, but came to these understandings from a purely psychological/scientific background fascinates me.

His talks over at the Upaya Zen Center are a good place to start for anyone interested, as is his interview with Tami Simon over at IATE:
http://www.upaya.org/dharma/tag/dan-siegel/
http://www.upaya.org/dharma/mindsight-and-personal-transformation/
http://www.soundstrue.com/podcast/dan-siegel-what-makes-a-healthy-mind/

I agree with Kate's idea that science is really best understood as the mythology of our time. Jung used to say we were a society devoid of myth, but I think we all are unaware of the stories we live in. I'd say what were more in need of is a relationship with the transcendent, something that both mythology and contemplation have provided for us in the past, but that science is woefully short on.

And yet, as Jake points out, much of what we call "science" would be better labeled "technology". True science is really just the scientific method, to look at data, create a hypothesis, run experiments, test the hypothesis, and state a conclusion based on those tests. In the end, this is really just the refinement of understanding, the processing of information for whatever purpose was inherent in our original hypothesis. It's a pretty simple and open-ended system, but obviously a powerful one.

Most science nowadays doesn't really pass the test, but the original idea was simply to take a clear look at data and make an attempt to state only facts as clearly as possible. The underlying assumption here being that the examination of data will lead to truth.

Contemplatives and mystics, however, have a different kind of truth, that which is beyond conditions. Meanwhile, science, as an objective pursuit that requires repeatable effects, is heavily reliant on conditions and is dismissive of the lived personal experience, which is exactly where all the action is for us contemplative/mystic types.

As such, trying to reconcile science and the transcendent can never really result in any final summation. It's like pushing two poles of a magnet towards each other. It creates some furious movement, but no final summation.

Which is my long winded answer to the question "what's left to us?". Just more of the same, at ever more complex levels, until (if) we get something massively wrong and society collapses back down a few levels and we spend time building it back up again.

If anything I can see a sort of two pronged approach, where the original scientific method of analysis, hypothesis, experimentation, and conclusion is turned toward the data collected by mystics throughout the ages, and that data is refined over and over. Back in the day, mixing spiritual paths was frowned upon, and rightly so, I think. After all, if you were raised in Japan (or India, or Judea, or whatever), what better Path is there than one that sprung out of the very culture you did?

Yet we westerns don't have much when it comes to a viable spiritual tradition of our own (which might just be a blessing in disguise, in the long run). We just have everyone else's to turn to and try to make sense of for ourselves. As I believe some yogi once said "we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to spiritual practices" (perhaps not an exact quote, but my memory fails me). I think it's our job, as modern "mystics" (or whatever term you prefer) is to engage this data using a scientific method, to purify it and make it speak to the multicultural worldview that seems to be America's biggest export. The connections are all there. We just need create some good stuff to pump through them...

Anyway, that's my incredibly wordy 2 cents on the matter. More a work-in-progress than any kind of final answer (however opinionated it may sound, which after reading it over, I admit it does). Hope it is at least entertaining. : )

Ian, not to disagree, but maybe to supplement what you said:

Perhaps we westerners do have a viable spiritual tradition in Christianity. While, maybe, less and less of us are practicing that religion in any committed way, many people still are (really I know and talk to an awful lot of them), and, for many centuries it was definitely a big part of western culture.

Also, Christianity as practiced now and in the past includes much mystical or spiritual activity, it just isn't quite the same (for the most part) as the practices of buddhism or yoga.

I can expand on this if you want.

Science is the mythology of our time.

That statement is haunting me right now... in a good way.

Mike: Yeah, I agree with you. I think more meant (and its only becoming clear to me now, in light of your comment) that in the West nowadays, Christianity is suffering from centuries of "Enlightenment" era thought (or decades of "Modernist" thought, perhaps) , where Spirituality and the Transcendent were disregarded as unimportant because they were not provable. But for a long time, Christianity was a valuable and powerful spiritual tradition in its own right. And all of that is still there, it just needs to be dusted off and put back into use. I think my bias against Christianity as a valid religion comes from having been raised a Catholic and leaving Catholicism in search of a spirituality that felt genuine.

I was just speaking with a newbie at the Zen Monastery I went to over new years about this. He's new to buddhist practice, and he was marveling at how people would show up to the Zendo early, or sit when they didn't have to, and how different that was from showing up to Mass. I joked I never went out of my way to show up for Mass early, but in a way, its not a joke. Weekly church meetings never fed the seeker in me. I know now that it does genuinely feed others, but I forget about that when I make my grand sweeping statements on the state of western culture.

Jackson: That's the best compliment I've received in a while! Thanks.
May it continue to do so, and to that end, here's some fuel for the (ghost) fire:

http://page2rss.com/p/9cdcb76d0a4ccf434d5e56914c28ad64_5270082_5271081
(a bit out there perhaps, but an interesting perspective)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all
(and he links to this article, which I am in the midst of reading at the moment...)

From that New Yorker article:

Before
the effectiveness of a drug can be confirmed, it must be tested and
tested again. Different scientists in different labs need to repeat the
protocols and publish their results. The test of replicability, as it’s
known, is the foundation of modern research. Replicability is how the
community enforces itself. It’s a safeguard for the creep of
subjectivity. Most of the time, scientists know what results they want,
and that can influence the results they get. The premise of
replicability is that the scientific community can correct for these
flaws.

This right here illustrates the problem at the heart of the "lets unify science and mysticism" idea. Replicability. Sit two people down in the same room, give them the same meditation instructions, and see if you can get them to have the same experience. Good luck.

The problem though, is more that there is simply too much data to take into account. Each person brings with them their entire subjective universe to that room and to those instructions. If we could sort through each person's life-data enough, we could maybe tailor the instructions to suit their "life situation" and perhaps one day be able to create similar experiences in each person.

But, as with the Uncertainty Principle, every attempt to make sense of someone's subject experience IS yet another subjective experience they are having, and their relationship to their past experience changes every time you talk about it. So, in theory, I see very little chance of this every happening without some kind of radical re-envisioning of just how science and mysticism can be made to fit together.

I'd love to be proven wrong though!