Meditation is the key for opening the doors of mysteries. In that state man abstracts himself: in that state man withdraws himself from all outside objects; in that subjective mood he is immersed in the ocean of spiritual life and can unfold the secrets of things-in-themselves. To illustrate this, think of man as endowed with two kinds of sight; when the power of insight is being used the outward power of vision does not see.
I have embarked on sequences of new posts which examine a number of ideas from books I have recently read. These ideas relate to where our society is heading and what we as individuals might be able to do about that. I decided that I also needed to republish other posts from the past that related in some way to that basic theme. This sequence of two posts was first published in 2010 and is preparing the way for a lengthy consideration of Jeremy Rifkin’s book on empathy and civilisation.
Recently I have been falling over books that reveal sceptics turning a bit mystical, agnostics extolling empathy and scientific therapies rooted in developing kindness. What on earth is the world rising to?
Tim Parks is the sceptic I referred to. In his intriguing book Teach Us to Sit Still, the title of which is taken from T.S. Eliot, he unfolds his journey from debilitating pain to relative health via Shiatsu and meditation. He only needed a more explicit touch of McGilchrist to complete his account of his journey.
He describes his obsessive trawling of the internet in search of insight about his condition, which he at first thought might be to do with his prostate, and reflects upon his situation as he leans exhausted against a stone column near his home:
The Pilotòn is about two feet in diameter and ten feet high and dates back to Roman times. . . . . .
Since the operation, I get a kind of tickle and fullness, but I haven’t been able to achieve a proper . . .
This is silly. Like when I started thinking of the waterseller’s fig as a prostate. Yet I notice that my mind is more at ease with these eccentric analogies than with the information onslaught of the net. I have the impression they bring me closer to some truth about my condition, but in the way dreams do. Something important is staring you in the face, only you can’t decode it. It won’t come out in words. That’s the fascination of dreams. And certain paintings. There is truth that can’t be said, knowledge you can’t access or use. My mind wanders off in these enigmas and after a while I find I’m feeling a little better. Is it a placebo effect? One day, I suppose, I will discover the meaning of Velázquez‘s painting. Or may be that would spoil it.
(Page 105-6)
I could produce many other quotes from Parks that reinforce McGilchrist’s depiction of how the world of the right hemisphere differs from that of the language-based left. One more will have to suffice for now:
Words can describe a mental experience, after the event, but had the same words been spoken to me a thousand times before the experience [of letting go/unquestioning acceptance], I would no more have understood them than a child born in the tropics would understand sleet and snow.
(Page 238)
McGilchrist makes precisely the same point.
One conclusion that Parks draws from his experience concerns our relationship with our bodies.
Finally, when [a moment of intense insight at a meditation retreat] was really over and I could go to the bathroom to wash my face, I was struck, glancing in the mirror, by this obvious thought: that the two selves that had shouted their separateness on waking that morning almost a year ago were my daily life on the one hand and the ambitions that had always taken precedence over that life on the other. I had always made a very sharp distinction between the business of being here in the flesh, and the project of achieving something, becoming someone, writing books, winning prizes, accruing respect. The second had always taken precedence over the first. How else can one ever get anywhere in life?
(Page 241)
This insight paves the way for what Rifkin has to say in his book The Empathic Civilisation. While determined to keep himself grounded in the body, he takes off into the ether of global empathy on evolutionary wings. The idea of embodiment is central to his thesis:
Both the Abrahamic faiths . . . . as well as the Eastern religions . . . either disparage bodily existence or deny its importance. So too does modern science and the rational philosophy of the Enlightenment. For the former . . . the body is fallen and a source of evil. . . . . For the latter, the body is mere scaffolding to maintain the mind, a necessary inconvenience to provide sensory perception, nutrients, and mobility. It is a machine the mind uses to impress its will on the world.
(Page 141)
Rifkin defends the body against these attacks.
The notion of embodied experience is a direct challenge to the older faith- and reason-based approaches to consciousness. . . . . The idea of embodied experience takes us past the Age of Faith and the Age of Reason and into the Age of Empathy, without, however, abandoning the very special qualities of the previous world-views that continue to make them so attractive to millions of human beings.
(Page 143)
His take on embodiment, which is centred on the notion that all embodied experience is inherently relational, comes to some surprising conclusions:
The embodied experience philosophers, by contrast, suggest that understanding reality comes not from detachment and exercise of power but from participation and empathic communion. The more deeply we empathise with each other and our fellow creatures, the more intensive and extensive is our level of participation and the richer and more universal are the realms of reality in which we dwell. Our level of intimate participation defines our level of understanding of reality. Our experience becomes increasingly more global and universal in character. We become fully cosmopolitan and immersed in the affairs of the world. This is the beginning of biosphere consciousness.
(Page 154)
Much of what Rifkin writes is impressively thought-provoking but it needs to be approached with caution as he is also capable of producing strings of statements that are breath-takingly implausible such as:
Oral cultures are steeped in mythological consciousness. [So far, so good.] Script cultures give rise to theological consciousness. [Problems creep in. For example, why not the other way round, I find myself asking? Do I smell a touch of reductionism here?] Print cultures are accompanied by ideological consciousness. [Apart from anything else, is it that easy to distinguish between a theology and an ideology? We can make a god of almost anything or anyone and determining where the god of an ideology morphs into the God of a religion may be a matter more of degree than of kind.] First-generation centralised electronic cultures give rise to full-blown psychological consciousness. [As a retired psychologist I’m not sure I have the energy to start on this one except to say that it could only have been written by someone who had momentarily forgotten or never known the highly impressive sophistication of Buddhist psychologies. I am not aware that you can get more full-blown than that. If he had said wide-spread commonplace psychologising I might have bought it.]
(Page 182)
This example is fairly typical of the traps he falls into as an enthusiastic manufacturer of his particular theory of everything social. In spite of these caveats his book is a major achievement and raises issues of great importance in a clear and compelling fashion for the most part. I find I believe him when he writes:
The more deeply we empathise with each other and our fellow creatures, the more intensive and extensive is our level of participation and the richer and more universal are the realms of reality in which we dwell.
How exactly might we put such an insight into practice? There is a way, explained in a recent book, whose discourse appeals to me both as a psychologist and as a Bahá’í (as if those two things were essentially different in any case).
But this will, I’m afraid, have to wait for the next post.
His dividing history into three Ages reminds me of Postmodernism.
Age of Faith: Pre Modernism
Age of Reason: Modernism
Age of Empathy: Post Modernism
“Two major shifts in perspective have occurred over the past centuries: one is the ‘premodern’ (characteristic of the Western world prior to the seventeenth century) to the ‘modern’ (beginning with Descartes); the second is the move from ‘modern’ to ‘postmodern’ (whose first major exponent was Friedrich Nietzsche in the last quarter of the nineteenth century). Take the following as an example of the three shifts, others of which we will see below. There has been a movement from (1) a ‘premodern’ concern for a just society based on revelation from a just God to (2) a ‘modern’ attempt to make universal reason as a guide to justice to (3) a ‘postmodern’ despair of any universal standard for justice. Society then moves from medieval hierarchy to Enlightenment, universal democracy to postmodern privileging of the self-defining values of individuals and communities. This is a formula for anarchy. It is hard to think of this as progress, but then progress is a ‘modern’ notion. The ‘premodern’ Christian view had too clear a view of human depravity and the ‘postmodern’ mind has too dim a view of any universal truth.” Pages 318-319, Chpater 9 The Vanished Horizon: Postmodernism, The Universe Next Door Fifth Edition, James W. Sire
As opposed to pre modernism and modernism, postmodernism and such people who hold it aren’t able to articulate specifically what they stand for or what platform they have or anything below vague slogans. I would rather say that it is a formula for tyranny by majority rather than anarchy as the author said.
Tyranny By Majority Liberal:Tyranny by Bourgeois Conservative:Thieves Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Populism Overview:Pure democracy without civil rights.
Authoritarian Democracy Liberal:Mouth-Breathing Creationists Conservative:Slightly Oppressive But A Little Discipline Never Hurt Anyone State Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Centrist Ideology:Semi-Populism Overview:Citizens have little freedom except some say in the government.
Psychotic Dictatorship Liberal:Fascist Dictatorship Conservative:Communist Dictatorship Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Dictatorship Overview:Corrupt, authoritarian state, where everyone is the government’s toy.
Liberal Democratic Socialists Liberal:Open-Minded Education State Conservative:Ivory Tower Reality Disconnect Zone Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Centrist Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Socialist Democracy Overview:There is a centralized economy, but with more democracy and political rights than Democratic Socialists.
Democratic Socialists Liberal:Ordinary Caring Intelligent World Citizens Conservative:Hell Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Centrist Politics:Centrist Ideology:Communism Overview:Average political rights, while the government is omnipresent and the government has much say in the economy, with citizens having few economic rights.
Corrupt Dictatorship Liberal:Well-Meaning Dictatorship Conservative:Corrupt Liberal Dictatorship Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Centrist Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Stalinist Communism Overview:A totalitarian state in which the government will interfere with everything, lowering economic and political rights, and adopting a fluctuating civil rights policy.
Conservative Democracy Liberal:Conservative Hell Conservative:Conservative Paradise Economy:Centrist Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Religious Democracy Overview:People are free to vote, but people use it to outlaw civil rights.
Moralistic Democracy Liberal:Narrow-Minded Backwoodsy Bigots Conservative:Ordinary Decent Hard Working People Economy:Centrist Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Centrist Ideology:Theocracy Overview:The people have a say in government, but choose to ban everything.
Iron Fist Consumerists Liberal:Imperialist Pig Dog Oppressors Conservative:Champions of Commerce Economy:Centrist Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Fascism Overview:This is an oppressive state that focuses on the economy. Supply and Demand are the two commandments.
New York Times Democracy Liberal:Corporate-Dominated Sham Democracy Conservative:New York Crimes So-Called Democracy Economy:Centrist Personality:Centrist Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Democracy Overview:Liberal democracy, but with elections heavily influenced by the media.
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy Liberal:Fascists Conservative:Communists Economy:Centrist Personality:Centrist Politics:Centrist Ideology:Republicanism Overview:The people have a mix of political and civil rights as well as security.
Father/Mother Knows Best State Liberal:Suspiciously Conservative Democracy Conservative:Suspiciously Liberal Dictatorship Economy:Centrist Personality:Centrist Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Monarchism Overview:The government allows moderate freedoms, but has final say like a parent.
Left-Wing Utopia Liberal:Utopia Conservative:Drugged Out Hippies Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Libertarian Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Egalitarian Democracy Overview:The democratic government grants broad civil and political rights but keeps a tight lease on business.
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise Liberal:Normal Conservative:Gay Marriage State Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Libertarian Politics:Centrist Ideology:Egalitarianism Overview: High taxes and civil rights, but a weak economy without economic rights.
Iron Fist Socialists Liberal:Equality and Tolerance Society Conservative:Inevitably Bloody Results of Liberal Ideals Mugged by Reality Economy:Authoritarian Personality:Libertarian Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Communist Dictatorship Overview:The state is omnipresent and will provide everything for its people except political and economic freedom.
Free Market Paradise Liberal:Randriods Conservative:Paradise Economy:Libertarian Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Conservative Democracy Overview:People are free to vote and make money, but have few civil rights.
Right-Wing Utopia Liberal:Corrupt Thieving Uneducated Fascist Fundamentalists Conservative:Utopia Economy:Libertarian Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Centrist Ideology:Conservative Republicanism Overview:A conservative state where little change is desired or put into action. Religion plays the role of the media.
Corporate Police State Liberal:Halliburton Conservative:Entrepreneurial Freedom Zone Economy:Libertarian Personality:Authoritarian Personality:Authoritarian Politics:Libertarian Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Authoritarian Corporatism Overview: The government is big business. Individuals have few rights and have to buy from the top corporations.
Civil Rights Lovefest Liberal:Brave Progressives Conservative:Nation-Hating Hippies Economy:Centrist Personality:Libertarian Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Anarcho-Socialism/Anarcho-Communism/Anarcho-Collectivism Overview:Libertarian rule, but with less emphasis on the economy and more on civil and political rights.
Left-Leaning College State Liberal:Paradise Conservative:Deluded Tax and Spend Hypocrites Economy:Centrist Personality:Libertarian Politics:Centrist Ideology:Liberalism Overview:What if college students ruled the world? Civil rights are the main priority, followed by political rights.
Libertarian Police State Liberal:Slightly Overzealous Peoples Democracy Conservative:Government Enforced Political Correctness Society Economy:Centrist Personality:Libertarian Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Benevolent Monarchism Overview:The state doesn’t do anything to interfere with your private life, yet will require you to register everything down to your sneakers with a bureau of some sort.
Corporate Bordello Liberal:Blood-Sucking Capitalist Leeches Conservative:Patriotic Business Zone Economy:Libertarian Personality:Centrist Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Capitalist Democracy Overview:Free market, free elections, and not-so-free merchandise. Civil rights are moderate; Political rights are generous.
Capitalist Paradise Liberal:Corporate Slave State Conservative:Decent Hard Working Self-Starters Economy:Libertarian Personality:Centrist Politics:Centrist Ideology:Capitalism Overview:No restrictions whatsoever are placed on trade; civil rights and political rights aren’t repressed, but economic rights are central.
Compulsory Consumerist State Liberal:Consumerist Wage Drones Conservative:Aspirational Workers State Economy:Libertarian Personality:Centrist Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Corporatism Overview:Like Capitalist Paradise, but the government doesn’t allow dissent.
Anarchy Liberal:Post-Revolution Embryonic Society Conservative:Lawless Wasteland Economy:Libertarian Personality:Libertarian Politics:Libertarian Ideology:Anarchism Overview:No state actually exists.
Capitalizt Liberal:Self-Congratulatory Merchant Bankers Conservative:Freedom-Loving Libertarians Economy:Libertarian Personality:Libertarian Politics:Centrist Ideology:Anarcho-Capitalism Overview:It’s all about business. Civil rights are generous.
Benevolent Dictatorship Liberal:Temporary Liberal State of Emergency Conservative:Temporary Conservative State of Emergency Economy:Libertarian Personality:Libertarian Politics:Authoritarian Ideology:Feudalism Overview: A dictatorship run by someone who pays no attention to the people and allows them to do whatever they want, except challenge the government.
The above 27 types of government are specific and don’t rely on vague slogans, but specify the nature of what they stand for and what their platforms are. Generally, a centrist amount of political freedom is assumed across the spectrum while liberals favor personal freedom, conservatives flavor economic freedom, libertarians favor both, and Communitarians favor neither. Thus the favored forms of government are Scandinavian Liberal Paradise, Right Wing Utopia, Capitalizt, and Authoritarian Democracy. Centrists, a fifth group favor Inoffensive Centrist Democracy. You can add and subtract political freedom by looking at each group of three. Then, you have in between options as well like Democatic Socialists, Capitlist Paradise, Left Leaning College State, and Moralistic Democracy. The point being no one really sees Religious Democrac as being much better than Theocracy despite all the poltical freedom in such a system, but it defines democracy as simple majoritarianism with no conern for liberty beyond that.
Theology is based more on faith and religion while ideology is based more on reason and secularism. That’s the difference. Also, pre modernism versus modernism. Though, unless you’re talking about Egoist Anarchism, Communism, or Objectivism, ideology is non religious rather than anti religious.
Values and their opposites
Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others. Equity Matching and Liberalism/Progressivism/Social Modern Liberalism
Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Alternate name: Proportionality) Equity Matching and Liberalism/Progressivism/Social Modern Liberalism
Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny. Rational/Legal and Liberalism/Libertarianism/Market Classical Liberalism
Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Alternate name: Ingroup) Communal Sharing and Conservatism
Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Alternate name: Respect.) Authority Ranking and Conservatism
Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Alternate name: Purity.) Communal Sharing and Conservatism
Similarly, Stephen Pinker assembles other works that come to define systems for moral thought used by humans, namely Communal Sharing (including in-group loyalty and purity/sanctity), Authority Ranking (obey your superiors), Equity Matching (sharing), and Rational/Legal (markets and laws). Each of these has a different neural pathway in the brain and each normal human uses all of these. No system is strictly better or worse. Each has its moments in different situations. He then establishes that a person understands a moral issue by applying one or more of these systems. Anyone who uses different models than you then becomes Blue-and-Orange to you. For example, a restaurant is governed by Rational/Legal morality. No one goes in and after the meal offers to repay the chef by hosting his or her family in the future (Equity Matching). Applied to real dilemmas, consider same-sex marriages. Conservatives view it through the purity/sanctity aspect of Communal Sharing and Authority Ranking with religious authority as the authority figure, while Liberals tend toward a Rational/Legal point of view. The two sides literally do not use the same brain system to examine the issue.
An important point is that all of the systems are valid at times and anyone using a different system will seem to just “not get it” in a blue-and-orange way. Imagine paying for a parking spot on a busy street when a cop comes and orders you to move your car because an ambulance needs access where you parked. Most of us bow to Authority Ranking and believe moving our car is the right thing to do. Someone who engaged in Equity Matching by asking the officer if he could park in front of the cop’s house sometime or stopped to argue with the cop about the legality of forcing you to move and when you’ll be compensated for the cost of parking (Rational/Legal) seems blue-and-orange to us.
LikeLike