Is Everything We Know About the Universe Wrong? is another excellent BBC Horizon documentary.

Cosmology is undergoing a great shift. The traditional Standard Model is unsatisfactory because it does not explain dark matter or dark energy. And the modifications to the Standard Model that do are unsatisfactory because they are inelegant add-ons. Something is missing from our understanding of the universe, and it is either new forms of matter and energy, our understanding of the basic habits (natural laws) of the universe, or a combination of both.

It is another reminder that what we think we know about anything, however elaborate or useful it may seem, is vanishingly small compared to the infinity we do not know. Our experience is always very limited. (*) And our interpretations of this experience is just one of an indefinite number of possible interpretations, some of which would make equally much or more sense to us than the ones we are currently aware of.

Whenever we have a story about something, there will always be something that doesn’t fit. And if this is something that appears significant to us, or if many smaller things that do not fit keep cropping up, it requires us to reorient, to reorganize how we look at ourselves and/or the rest of the world.

It is a continuous process for us at individual and collective levels.

Science is a good reminder of this. We have what appears to be a good theory or map. It is refined and tested in great detail. It seems to work well. And yet, new information keeps cropping up that does not fit, or require us to modify the model in ways that are inelegant and clunky. There is a period of confusion and struggle to make sense of the new information. A new model is created that seems to incorporate the new information. This one works well for a while. And it all repeats.

This reorganization can happen in several different ways. For a while, we may be able to keep the model and enrich it with new viewpoints and perspectives. The context may change, requiring us to reinterpret the model. Or a dramatic and thorough reorganization may be required, sometimes turning our view upside down and inside out.

As someone said, we are all equal in the infinity we don’t know.

Note: They seem to have run out of visual ideas for this documentary, unfortunately, but the content is good.

(*) There is always indefinitely more we can explore and learn about of any terrain, and indefinitely more terrains available to be explored. Much of what we discover would fit our current views and maps, but some would require a dramatic reorganization.

………………..

• everything wrong?
  • what we think we know, is nothing compared to the infinity we do not know
  • always revised, sometimes dramatically
  • a continuous process
  • at personal and collective/cultural levels
  • always something new that doesn’t fit, require us to reorient, reorganize how we look at ourselves/the world

Some say models are “approximations”, but that is accurate in only a very limited sense. They may work approximately well, in a practical sense. But they are still just models, maps, stories about the world. They are vastly different from what they (apparently) are about, in type and form. They are only guides for attention and action. Nothing more. There is no “truth” to them.

From Premonition (Giant Empty Iron Vessel) by David Sylvian and Holger Czukay

From Plight & Premonition

When I look at the type of spirituality I am most familiar with, I find three facets. And one, two, or three of them can be present at once, in any combination.

First, there is fascination. We can be fascinate by many things, including the idea of what we may get out of spirituality (awakening, healing, peace, good rebirth), our own path and experiences (insights, dreams, glimpses), the stories in the tradition (cosmology, teaching stories), the teacher (personality, what they represent), more peripheral aspects such as reincarnation, supernatural powers, and auras, or even more peripheral things such as astrology, foreseeing the future, reincarnation, and also anything unexplained and weird such as UFOs, crop circles, ghosts and so on.

Fascination can be very helpful. It can make us feel good, hopeful, and inspired. It can help us stay with a path. It can be a needed temporary escape from problems. And it brings up projections, inviting us to find here what we see over there.

There are some possible drawbacks here as well, such as getting caught up in wishful thinking, using it as a long-term strategy of escape, and taking leave of common sense.

And there is a remedy: Noticing and working actively with the projections behind fascinations. Perhaps the easiest tool to use is The Work. I can look at where I experience stress, find the belief behind it, and then inquire into it. And I can also find beliefs by asking myself what do I hope to get out of this? Which beliefs do I have that creates this fascination? Why is this (whatever I am fascinated by) important to me? What I am afraid would happen if I didn’t have this (the idea of reincarnation, the teacher, the experiences)? What am I afraid may happen in general?

The second facet is maturing. The aim of healing and maturing as a human being in the world. For me, this is the most important facet. It is realistic. We can all do it. It is here and now. It is a process rather than a specific goal in the future. We find satisfaction, well-being, and a sense of connection and meaning through it. And we live in a way that is of more benefit to ourselves and the wider world. Almost everything we want from spirituality can be found through maturing. It fills the holes we try to fill through almost any hole-filling activity in our life. It satisfies the neediness that often lies behind spirituality and many other slightly compulsive activities.

There are not many drawbacks of this approach. Usually, there are benefits all around.

Finally, for those with a special interest, there is awakening. What we are - or rather, reality - awakening to itself. This is for those who cannot help it. For those where there is that quiet longing for truth, God, or Reality. It may be a more technical facet to work on. It requires more precision. More dedication.

It comes with an obvious drawback. It can become too focused on the awakening, to the exclusion of the ordinary healing and maturing mentioned above.

And the remedy is as above: Working with projections. What do I hope to get out of awakening? What am I afraid would happen if it doesn’t come to pass? What do I see in the ones I think of as awakened? Is it true it is not already here?

It is a path with many possible twists and turns, and yet, we are fortunate since many tools helps us work at all three facets simultaneously. The ones I am most familiar with is various forms of inquiry, such as The Work and exploring sense fields. Various ways of working with projections, such as The Work. Allowing experience, as is, in everyday life (can I be with what I am experiencing now?) and through sitting practice such as shikantaza and choiceless awareness. Prayer, contemplative practices, and visualization. Practices for stabilizing attention, which is a support for any other practice we engage in. And living from more integrity.

…………………

• types and effects of spirituality
  • fascination
    • feel good, hopeful, inspired
    • projections
    • possible drawbacks: wishful thinking, misguided, leave common sense
  • maturing
    • maturing as a human in the world
    • most important - find satisfaction, sense of connection and meaning, live more for the benefit of oneself and the wider world
    • possible drawbacks: not many, usually benefits all around
  • awakening
    • what we are noticing itself
    • for people w. special interest, if cannot help it
    • more technical
    • possible drawbacks: if becomes all-or-nothing, if overlook the human side (healing/maturing)
  • three facets
    • one, two, or three may be present at once
  • limited to one tradition, or not

…………….

When I look at the type of spirituality I am most familiar with, I find three facets. And either one, or a combination of either two, or all three can be present simultaneously.

………….

Fascination comes from projections, and there is no problem there. But if we get blindly caught up in strong projections, it

For instance, The Work and exploring sense-fields have a great deal of similarities, and there is also some cross-fertilization there.

In The Work, I explore the effects of taking a story as true, and find what is more honest for me than the initial belief.

And through exploring the sense-fields, I notice gestalts made up of image overlays on sense fields, what happens when gestalts are taken as real and substantial, and what happens when the images are recognized as a simple overlay of images.

The questions and sub-questions of The Work guide my exploration of the sense -fields. The sense-field exploration helps me notice the mechanisms here now, and in more detail. And through The Work, I get to see how beliefs play themselves out in my life in more detail.

…………………
…………………
…………………

• the work and sense-field exploration

I can explore what is here in sensation, either as an open exploration of the sense field.

Or if a specific symptom, emotion, mood, or anything else draws my attention, I can explore that.

What do I find when I bring attention to sensations? How does it show up in sensation? What is its sensation facet?

What is here as images overlaid on those sensations?

How do they combine? How do I experience the combination of the two?

What happens when I recognize the two as separate? What happens when I bring attention to the plain sensation?

What are images made up of? Are they substantial? Stable? Insubstantial? Fleeting? An object in space? Made up of space itself?

What are sensations made up of? Do they appear substantial? Dense? Real? Insubstantial? Ephemeral? As space itself?

This can be used on any symptom such as pain or nausea. It can be used to explore emotions or moods. It can be used to explore the sense of doer/observer.

It is easy for me to take my image overlays - my interpretations - as real and substantial, and then think, feel, and act as if these are true. When I explore the sensation facet separately, by bringing attention to plain sensation, it changes. I recognize what is here in simple sensation. I get curious about what sensation is. I may find that sensations are as space itself, ephemeral and insubstantial.

Something appears as pain. When I take it as pain, I get caught up in my images of pain which tends to create stress and stress thinking, feeling, and behavior. No problem there, but also good to notice. I recognize it as simple sensation. The effects of getting caught up in my images of it softens or falls away. I recognize sensation as temporary play of space itself.

By exploring this way, I notice what is already here. Sensations. Images.

I can also follow curiosity further.

How do I experience time? Where do I find it in the sense fields? Is this too images of past, future, and present, and images of continuity among these? Can I find time outside of my images?

What about space? When I close my eyes, do I see images of extent? Images of space used to map other images and whatever happens in the sense fields? Can I find space outside of my images?

Is there a sense of doer/observer here? Where is it located? How does it appear in sensations? What happens when I recognize its sensation facet? Does the doer/observer shift in space as this is happening? How does this one appear in sensations? How does the doer/observer appear as sensations combined with images? Is it content of experience? Is it different from any other content of experience? What happens when it is taken as “what I am”? What happens when it is recognized as content of experience?

Note: It can be helpful to include several more steps here to guide attention. Also, curiosity is what is behind all of this. A genuine curiosity about what is here in the sense fields. And this curiosity is the most valuable guide.

It is also very helpful to leave this open-ended. Whatever I find is what is real for me here and now. There is no need to try to fit it into expectations. To make it happen a certain way. When I explore, it is a new exploration. It will happen differently, and I don’t know in what way. Curiosity is my guide, also here.

……………
……………
……………

• sensation facet
  • explore what is there in sensation
  • what is there in image
  • how combine
  • and what happens when recognized as separate + focus on plain sensation
  • can be used for any symptom, including sense of doer/observer

…………..

I can explore what is here in sensation.

………

Sensations and images combining. What happens when this combination is taken as real and substantial. What happens when they are recognized as distinct. What happens when they are each recognized as made up of space itself.

EACH year some 30 million American men undergo testing for prostate-specific antigen, an enzyme made by the prostate. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1994, the P.S.A. test is the most commonly used tool for detecting prostate cancer……

Prostate cancer may get a lot of press, but consider the numbers: American men have a 16 percent lifetime chance of receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer, but only a 3 percent chance of dying from it. That’s because the majority of prostate cancers grow slowly. In other words, men lucky enough to reach old age are much more likely to die with prostate cancer than to die of it.

Even then, the test is hardly more effective than a coin toss. As I’ve been trying to make clear for many years now, P.S.A. testing can’t detect prostate cancer and, more important, it can’t distinguish between the two types of prostate cancer — the one that will kill you and the one that won’t…..

So why is it still used? Because drug companies continue peddling the tests and advocacy groups push “prostate cancer awareness” by encouraging men to get screened….

I never dreamed that my discovery four decades ago would lead to such a profit-driven public health disaster. The medical community must confront reality and stop the inappropriate use of P.S.A. screening. Doing so would save billions of dollars and rescue millions of men from unnecessary, debilitating treatments.

Source: The Great Prostate Mistake, op-ed by Richard Ablin who discovered PSA in the ’70s

A reminder of one of the many reasons why universal health care makes sense.

In the current US system, doctors prescribe tests and treatments they - quite often - know are not needed or are likely to not work. They do it because of pressures and benefits received from interest groups, and because they expect their patients to feel better if something - preferably elaborate and expensive - is done. And how do they get away with it? The insurance companies pick up the tab.

In Europe and other places with universal health care, there is a much stronger incentive to use procedures that are appropriate to the person and situation, and known to work.

The years from 1957 to 1962 were a golden age of science fiction, as well as paranoia and exhilaration on a cosmic scale. The future was still the future back then, some of us could dream of farms on the moon and heroically finned rockets blasting off from alien landscapes. Others worried about Russian moon bases.

Source: NY Times, Reaching for the Stars When Space Was a Thrill

It doesn’t get better than this if you have a fascination for science fiction, early space exploration, cool retro-art, and the futurism of the 50s. Another Science Fiction: Advertising the Space Race 1957-1962 is published in a few weeks.

It all depends on our perspective, from when we look in time and the time span we use.

If we look exclusively from our vantage point in time, and at a human time span, then - yes - it may appear that some species were evolutionary dead ends and failed experiments, and whichever species are alive today “made it”. But that is obviously a very myopic view, and not aligned with the vast time spans of evolution.

All species are born and die, this earth was born and will die, this universe was born and will die (heat death or big crunch). So in that sense, all species - including humans - are evolutionary “dead ends”.

Or we can say that all species are wonderful and awe-inspiring expressions of the amazing creativity of the Earth and this universe.

Seeing species as “evolutionary dead ends” are myopic and perhaps slightly cynical. And seeing it all as expressions of the creativity of the universe is more accurate, more aligned with the large time spans, places humanity right in there with all other species, and much more inspiring.

…………….
…………….
…………….

• evolutionary dead ends
  • find amusing when hear those terms
  • all depends on our perspective - from when in time we look + the timespan
  • all species, this earth, and the universe itself will die (heat death/big crunch)
    • so in that sense, all species are “evolutionary dead ends”
    • or wonderful expressions of the creativity of the universe

…………..

We could also say that species alive for only brief periods of time were dead ends, and the ones surviving for longer were successes. But all species survive as long as they are a good match to their environments, and die out when they no longer are.

…………..

Or that the species that were alive for only brief periods of time were “dead ends” and the ones surviving for longer were successes.

…………..

It all depends on our perspective, from when we look in time and the time span we use.

If we look exclusively from our vantage point in time, and at a human time span, then - yes - it may appear that some species were evolutionary dead ends and failed experiments, and whichever species are alive today “made it”. But that is obviously a very myopic view, and not aligned with the vast time spans of evolution.

All species are born and die, this earth was born and will die, this universe was born and will die (heat death or big crunch). So in that sense, all species - including humans - are evolutionary “dead ends”.

Or we can say that all species are wonderful and awe-inspiring expressions of the amazing creativity of the Earth and this universe.

It is easy to think that being low on neuroticism and high on the other four is always and inherently good. After all, that is what our culture tells us. But it is fortunately not quite true.

It depends on our role. For instance, as an army officer, it may be good to be low on some of the facets of agreeableness (able to make tough decisions that harms certain individuals), and perhaps higher on some of the facets of neuroticism (more alert). A philosopher, psychologist, or artist may benefit from being higher on neuroticism as it allows more inner processing and insight. A nuclear plant operator, or anyone in a role where innovation is of little or no advantage, or where it may even be harmful, may benefit from being low on openness to experience.

It depends on how it is expressed and how we relate to it. Whether we are high or low on any factor or facet, we can find ways to use it in a constructive way, and find genuine appreciation for its benefits.

And as a society, we need all types. There are many roles that needs to be filled in a society, so it is good people come with different tendencies and orientations.

My energy level fluctuates some due to the chronic fatigue, which is reflected in some of these results. When I feel better, as I do now, my level of extraversion goes up slightly, and my level of neuroticism goes down. I also suspect my conscientiousness, agreeableness,  openness to experience goes up. With more rest, as I have had the last several days, I feel a bit more energetic, am more able to get things done, feel more friendly towards others and myself, and am more interested in life in general.

The general results are the same as last time. Extraversion went up slightly from 52 to 64. Neuroticism went down from 27 to 17. And the three others were about the same.

Here are the current results on the test:

………………

Extraversion

Extraversion is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts enjoy being with people, are full of energy, and often experience positive emotions. They tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented, individuals who are likely to say “Yes!” or “Let’s go!” to opportunities for excitement. In groups they like to talk, assert themselves, and draw attention to themselves.

Introverts lack the exuberance, energy, and activity levels of extraverts. They tend to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and disengaged from the social world. Their lack of social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression; the introvert simply needs less stimulation than an extravert and prefers to be alone. The independence and reserve of the introvert is sometimes mistaken as unfriendliness or arrogance. In reality, an introvert who scores high on the agreeableness dimension will not seek others out but will be quite pleasant when approached.

Domain/Facet………… Score

Extraversion……………64

Friendliness………….56

Gregariousness………..38

Assertiveness…………81

Activity Level………..88

Excitement-Seeking…….17

Cheerfulness………….76

Your score on Extraversion is average, indicating you are neither a subdued loner nor a jovial chatterbox. You enjoy time with others but also time alone.

Extraversion Facets
Friendliness. Friendly people genuinely like other people and openly demonstrate positive feelings toward others. They make friends quickly and it is easy for them to form close, intimate relationships. Low scorers on Friendliness are not necessarily cold and hostile, but they do not reach out to others and are perceived as distant and reserved. Your level of friendliness is average.
Gregariousness. Gregarious people find the company of others pleasantly stimulating and rewarding. They enjoy the excitement of crowds. Low scorers tend to feel overwhelmed by, and therefore actively avoid, large crowds. They do not necessarily dislike being with people sometimes, but their need for privacy and time to themselves is much greater than for individuals who score high on this scale. Your level of gregariousness is average.
Assertiveness. High scorers Assertiveness like to speak out, take charge, and direct the activities of others. They tend to be leaders in groups. Low scorers tend not to talk much and let others control the activities of groups. Your level of assertiveness is high.
Activity Level. Active individuals lead fast-paced, busy lives. They move about quickly, energetically, and vigorously, and they are involved in many activities. People who score low on this scale follow a slower and more leisurely, relaxed pace. Your activity level is high.
Excitement-Seeking. High scorers on this scale are easily bored without high levels of stimulation. They love bright lights and hustle and bustle. They are likely to take risks and seek thrills. Low scorers are overwhelmed by noise and commotion and are adverse to thrill-seeking. Your level of excitement-seeking is low.
Cheerfulness. This scale measures positive mood and feelings, not negative emotions (which are a part of the Neuroticism domain). Persons who score high on this scale typically experience a range of positive feelings, including happiness, enthusiasm, optimism, and joy. Low scorers are not as prone to such energetic, high spirits. Your level of positive emotions is high.

Agreeableness

Agreeableness reflects individual differences in concern with cooperation and social harmony. Agreeable individuals value getting along with others. They are therefore considerate, friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others’. Agreeable people also have an optimistic view of human nature. They believe people are basically honest, decent, and trustworthy.

Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with others’ well-being, and therefore are unlikely to extend themselves for other people. Sometimes their skepticism about others’ motives causes them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative.

Agreeableness is obviously advantageous for attaining and maintaining popularity. Agreeable people are better liked than disagreeable people. On the other hand, agreeableness is not useful in situations that require tough or absolute objective decisions. Disagreeable people can make excellent scientists, critics, or soldiers.

Domain/Facet………… Score

Agreeableness…………..97

Trust………………..96

Morality……………..72

Altruism……………..95

Cooperation…………..87

Modesty………………45

Sympathy……………..99

Your high level of Agreeableness indicates a strong interest in others’ needs and well-being. You are pleasant, sympathetic, and cooperative.

Agreeableness Facets
Trust. A person with high trust assumes that most people are fair, honest, and have good intentions. Persons low in trust see others as selfish, devious, and potentially dangerous. Your level of trust is high.
Morality. High scorers on this scale see no need for pretense or manipulation when dealing with others and are therefore candid, frank, and sincere. Low scorers believe that a certain amount of deception in social relationships is necessary. People find it relatively easy to relate to the straightforward high-scorers on this scale. They generally find it more difficult to relate to the unstraightforward low-scorers on this scale. It should be made clear that low scorers are not unprincipled or immoral; they are simply more guarded and less willing to openly reveal the whole truth. Your level of morality is high.
Altruism. Altruistic people find helping other people genuinely rewarding. Consequently, they are generally willing to assist those who are in need. Altruistic people find that doing things for others is a form of self-fulfillment rather than self-sacrifice. Low scorers on this scale do not particularly like helping those in need. Requests for help feel like an imposition rather than an opportunity for self-fulfillment. Your level of altruism is high.
Cooperation. Individuals who score high on this scale dislike confrontations. They are perfectly willing to compromise or to deny their own needs in order to get along with others. Those who score low on this scale are more likely to intimidate others to get their way. Your level of compliance is high.
Modesty. High scorers on this scale do not like to claim that they are better than other people. In some cases this attitude may derive from low self-confidence or self-esteem. Nonetheless, some people with high self-esteem find immodesty unseemly. Those who are willing to describe themselves as superior tend to be seen as disagreeably arrogant by other people. Your level of modesty is average.
Sympathy. People who score high on this scale are tenderhearted and compassionate. They feel the pain of others vicariously and are easily moved to pity. Low scorers are not affected strongly by human suffering. They pride themselves on making objective judgments based on reason. They are more concerned with truth and impartial justice than with mercy. Your level of tender-mindedness is high.

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness concerns the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses. Impulses are not inherently bad; occasionally time constraints require a snap decision, and acting on our first impulse can be an effective response. Also, in times of play rather than work, acting spontaneously and impulsively can be fun. Impulsive individuals can be seen by others as colorful, fun-to-be-with, and zany.

Nonetheless, acting on impulse can lead to trouble in a number of ways. Some impulses are antisocial. Uncontrolled antisocial acts not only harm other members of society, but also can result in retribution toward the perpetrator of such impulsive acts. Another problem with impulsive acts is that they often produce immediate rewards but undesirable, long-term consequences. Examples include excessive socializing that leads to being fired from one’s job, hurling an insult that causes the breakup of an important relationship, or using pleasure-inducing drugs that eventually destroy one’s health.

Impulsive behavior, even when not seriously destructive, diminishes a person’s effectiveness in significant ways. Acting impulsively disallows contemplating alternative courses of action, some of which would have been wiser than the impulsive choice. Impulsivity also sidetracks people during projects that require organized sequences of steps or stages. Accomplishments of an impulsive person are therefore small, scattered, and inconsistent.

A hallmark of intelligence, what potentially separates human beings from earlier life forms, is the ability to think about future consequences before acting on an impulse. Intelligent activity involves contemplation of long-range goals, organizing and planning routes to these goals, and persisting toward one’s goals in the face of short-lived impulses to the contrary. The idea that intelligence involves impulse control is nicely captured by the term prudence, an alternative label for the Conscientiousness domain. Prudent means both wise and cautious. Persons who score high on the Conscientiousness scale are, in fact, perceived by others as intelligent.

The benefits of high conscientiousness are obvious. Conscientious individuals avoid trouble and achieve high levels of success through purposeful planning and persistence. They are also positively regarded by others as intelligent and reliable. On the negative side, they can be compulsive perfectionists and workaholics. Furthermore, extremely conscientious individuals might be regarded as stuffy and boring. Unconscientious people may be criticized for their unreliability, lack of ambition, and failure to stay within the lines, but they will experience many short-lived pleasures and they will never be called stuffy.

Domain/Facet………… Score

Conscientiousness……….98

Self-Efficacy…………90

Orderliness…………..96

Dutifulness…………..54

Achievement-Striving…..84

Self-Discipline……….92

Cautiousness………….96

Your score on Conscientiousness is high. This means you set clear goals and pursue them with determination. People regard you as reliable and hard-working.

Conscientiousness Facets
Self-Efficacy. Self-Efficacy describes confidence in one’s ability to accomplish things. High scorers believe they have the intelligence (common sense), drive, and self-control necessary for achieving success. Low scorers do not feel effective, and may have a sense that they are not in control of their lives. Your level of self-efficacy is high.
Orderliness. Persons with high scores on orderliness are well-organized. They like to live according to routines and schedules. They keep lists and make plans. Low scorers tend to be disorganized and scattered. Your level of orderliness is high.
Dutifulness. This scale reflects the strength of a person’s sense of duty and obligation. Those who score high on this scale have a strong sense of moral obligation. Low scorers find contracts, rules, and regulations overly confining. They are likely to be seen as unreliable or even irresponsible. Your level of dutifulness is average.
Achievement-Striving. Individuals who score high on this scale strive hard to achieve excellence. Their drive to be recognized as successful keeps them on track toward their lofty goals. They often have a strong sense of direction in life, but extremely high scores may be too single-minded and obsessed with their work. Low scorers are content to get by with a minimal amount of work, and might be seen by others as lazy. Your level of achievement striving is high.
Self-Discipline. Self-discipline-what many people call will-power-refers to the ability to persist at difficult or unpleasant tasks until they are completed. People who possess high self-discipline are able to overcome reluctance to begin tasks and stay on track despite distractions. Those with low self-discipline procrastinate and show poor follow-through, often failing to complete tasks-even tasks they want very much to complete. Your level of self-discipline is high.
Cautiousness. Cautiousness describes the disposition to think through possibilities before acting. High scorers on the Cautiousness scale take their time when making decisions. Low scorers often say or do first thing that comes to mind without deliberating alternatives and the probable consequences of those alternatives. Your level of cautiousness is high.

Neuroticism

Freud originally used the term neurosis to describe a condition marked by mental distress, emotional suffering, and an inability to cope effectively with the normal demands of life. He suggested that everyone shows some signs of neurosis, but that we differ in our degree of suffering and our specific symptoms of distress. Today neuroticism refers to the tendency to experience negative feelings. Those who score high on Neuroticism may experience primarily one specific negative feeling such as anxiety, anger, or depression, but are likely to experience several of these emotions. People high in neuroticism are emotionally reactive. They respond emotionally to events that would not affect most people, and their reactions tend to be more intense than normal. They are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. Their negative emotional reactions tend to persist for unusually long periods of time, which means they are often in a bad mood. These problems in emotional regulation can diminish a neurotic’s ability to think clearly, make decisions, and cope effectively with stress.

At the other end of the scale, individuals who score low in neuroticism are less easily upset and are less emotionally reactive. They tend to be calm, emotionally stable, and free from persistent negative feelings. Freedom from negative feelings does not mean that low scorers experience a lot of positive feelings; frequency of positive emotions is a component of the Extraversion domain.

Domain/Facet………… Score

Neuroticism…………….17

Anxiety………………36

Anger………………..8

Depression……………22

Self-Consciousness…….58

Immoderation………….12

Vulnerability…………28

Your score on Neuroticism is low, indicating that you are exceptionally calm, composed and unflappable. You do not react with intense emotions, even to situations that most people would describe as stressful.

Neuroticism Facets
Anxiety. The “fight-or-flight” system of the brain of anxious individuals is too easily and too often engaged. Therefore, people who are high in anxiety often feel like something dangerous is about to happen. They may be afraid of specific situations or be just generally fearful. They feel tense, jittery, and nervous. Persons low in Anxiety are generally calm and fearless. Your level of anxiety is average.
Anger. Persons who score high in Anger feel enraged when things do not go their way. They are sensitive about being treated fairly and feel resentful and bitter when they feel they are being cheated. This scale measures the tendency to feel angry; whether or not the person expresses annoyance and hostility depends on the individual’s level on Agreeableness. Low scorers do not get angry often or easily. Your level of anger is low.
Depression. This scale measures the tendency to feel sad, dejected, and discouraged. High scorers lack energy and have difficult initiating activities. Low scorers tend to be free from these depressive feelings. Your level of depression is low.
Self-Consciousness. Self-conscious individuals are sensitive about what others think of them. Their concern about rejection and ridicule cause them to feel shy and uncomfortable abound others. They are easily embarrassed and often feel ashamed. Their fears that others will criticize or make fun of them are exaggerated and unrealistic, but their awkwardness and discomfort may make these fears a self-fulfilling prophecy. Low scorers, in contrast, do not suffer from the mistaken impression that everyone is watching and judging them. They do not feel nervous in social situations. Your level or self-consciousness is average.
Immoderation. Immoderate individuals feel strong cravings and urges that they have difficulty resisting. They tend to be oriented toward short-term pleasures and rewards rather than long- term consequences. Low scorers do not experience strong, irresistible cravings and consequently do not find themselves tempted to overindulge. Your level of immoderation is low.
Vulnerability. High scorers on Vulnerability experience panic, confusion, and helplessness when under pressure or stress. Low scorers feel more poised, confident, and clear-thinking when stressed. Your level of vulnerability is low.

Openness to Experience

Openness to Experience describes a dimension of cognitive style that distinguishes imaginative, creative people from down-to-earth, conventional people. Open people are intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty. They tend to be, compared to closed people, more aware of their feelings. They tend to think and act in individualistic and nonconforming ways. Intellectuals typically score high on Openness to Experience; consequently, this factor has also been called Culture or Intellect. Nonetheless, Intellect is probably best regarded as one aspect of openness to experience. Scores on Openness to Experience are only modestly related to years of education and scores on standard intelligent tests.

Another characteristic of the open cognitive style is a facility for thinking in symbols and abstractions far removed from concrete experience. Depending on the individual’s specific intellectual abilities, this symbolic cognition may take the form of mathematical, logical, or geometric thinking, artistic and metaphorical use of language, music composition or performance, or one of the many visual or performing arts. People with low scores on openness to experience tend to have narrow, common interests. They prefer the plain, straightforward, and obvious over the complex, ambiguous, and subtle. They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion, regarding these endeavors as abstruse or of no practical use. Closed people prefer familiarity over novelty; they are conservative and resistant to change.

Openness is often presented as healthier or more mature by psychologists, who are often themselves open to experience. However, open and closed styles of thinking are useful in different environments. The intellectual style of the open person may serve a professor well, but research has shown that closed thinking is related to superior job performance in police work, sales, and a number of service occupations.

Domain/Facet………… Score

Openess to experience…..98

Imagination…………..50

Artistic Interests…….86

Emotionality………….75

Adventurousness……….93

Intellect…………….87

Liberalism……………99

Your score on Openness to Experience is high, indicating you enjoy novelty, variety, and change. You are curious, imaginative, and creative.

Openess Facets
Imagination. To imaginative individuals, the real world is often too plain and ordinary. High scorers on this scale use fantasy as a way of creating a richer, more interesting world. Low scorers are on this scale are more oriented to facts than fantasy. Your level of imagination is average.
Artistic Interests. High scorers on this scale love beauty, both in art and in nature. They become easily involved and absorbed in artistic and natural events. They are not necessarily artistically trained nor talented, although many will be. The defining features of this scale are interest in, and appreciation of natural and artificial beauty. Low scorers lack aesthetic sensitivity and interest in the arts. Your level of artistic interests is high.
Emotionality. Persons high on Emotionality have good access to and awareness of their own feelings. Low scorers are less aware of their feelings and tend not to express their emotions openly. Your level of emotionality is high.
Adventurousness. High scorers on adventurousness are eager to try new activities, travel to foreign lands, and experience different things. They find familiarity and routine boring, and will take a new route home just because it is different. Low scorers tend to feel uncomfortable with change and prefer familiar routines. Your level of adventurousness is high.
Intellect. Intellect and artistic interests are the two most important, central aspects of openness to experience. High scorers on Intellect love to play with ideas. They are open-minded to new and unusual ideas, and like to debate intellectual issues. They enjoy riddles, puzzles, and brain teasers. Low scorers on Intellect prefer dealing with either people or things rather than ideas. They regard intellectual exercises as a waste of time. Intellect should not be equated with intelligence. Intellect is an intellectual style, not an intellectual ability, although high scorers on Intellect score slightly higher than low-Intellect individuals on standardized intelligence tests. Your level of intellect is high.
Liberalism. Psychological liberalism refers to a readiness to challenge authority, convention, and traditional values. In its most extreme form, psychological liberalism can even represent outright hostility toward rules, sympathy for law-breakers, and love of ambiguity, chaos, and disorder. Psychological conservatives prefer the security and stability brought by conformity to tradition. Psychological liberalism and conservatism are not identical to political affiliation, but certainly incline individuals toward certain political parties. Your level of liberalism is high.

I saw The Hurt Locker a while ago. It is very well crafted. Shot and told in an apparently neutral documentary style. Suspenseful. Heartbreaking. Entertaining.

But it isn’t neutral of course.

The story may seem free of ideology. It may seem that the author and director missed an opportunity for commentary or including a message. And it is exactly in that neutral emptiness the message lies. War is meaningless, especially as experienced from the point of view of the soldiers, and especially this war.

I mostly wrote this post so I could use the amazing poster above, created by Tavis Coburn for BAFTA 2010.

……………
……………
……………

draft…..

I saw this a while ago so my memory of what came up for me then has faded some. But I do remember

- neutral, meaninglessness of war from soldiers view
- did miss an opportunity to look at the corruption before/during the war, but not the role of this movie - other movies do and will do that

- is war worth it? perhaps not.

Can We Make a Star on Earth? is another great BBC Horizon documentary, this one hosted by the always excellent Brian Cox.

This segment is especially interesting, highlighting our need to use our current petroleum-based energy to develop new energy sources, including fusion. If we don’t speed up our efforts dramatically, it will be too late before we know it. If we apply a great deal of human and energy resources now, we can create a smoother transition for ourselves.

This is also a reminder of why the global warming debate is a sidetrack. First, because there is universal agreement among climate scientists that (a) significant climate change is happening and (b) it is caused by human activity. (The ones sowing the seeds of confusion are not climatologists, and the campaign to create confusion is fueled by the petroleum industry, taking a cue from the tobacco industry.)

More importantly, fossil fuel is running out and we need to put a great deal into the transition right now. We can’t afford to wait, partly since we need the current petroleum resources to fuel the transition, and partly because we don’t know how much oil is left. We have to act on the worst case scenario. The consequences of making a timing mistake are too great.

And we need to take a broad, yet informed, approach. We have to research and develop all the viable energy sources, from wind (windmills, kites) to ocean (waves) to solar to fusion (if possible) and more. (Ideally not fission since it will most likely have grave consequences for thousands of generations of our descendants. And biofuels seems to have too many problems to be used on a large scale.) At the same time, we need to be smarter about how we use energy. We need to use it far more efficiently, and also reduce our need for energy.

All of this can be done in a smooth way if we put a great deal of effort into it now. Way more than we are currently doing. It will further existing industries, create new ones, be a great catalyst for creativity and research, create a great number of new jobs, and vitalize our economy.

The alternative is to wait too long, get on it too late, and have to adapt to the consequences - which may not be pretty.

It’s a question and a pointer for exploration, as any other statement.

There are obviously new thoughts. Nobody had thought of e=mc² before Einstein. Or of Wexter before a kid thought him up a couple of weeks ago.

So what about stressful thoughts?

The first thing I have to look at is what is a stressful thought? Why is it stressful?

A thought is only stressful when I take it as true, when I make it into a belief. So a stressful thought I take as true can be, and often is, stressful.

Why is is stressful? A belief is a “should”, and the world doesn’t always cooperate with my shoulds. Even when it does, I know it can change at any moment, and that in itself is stressful.

So there are no new stressful thoughts, because stressful thoughts are what we usually call beliefs, and beliefs are all “shoulds” about the world, independent of their content. In that sense, they are not new, just variations on the same theme.

I should be healthy. I am not. I experience stress. People should be fair. They are not. I experience stress. I need more money. I don’t have more money than I have. I experience stress. I need people to like me. They don’t always. I experience stress.

Stressful thoughts are variations of the same theme of “should”. The world should be different from it is.

The next step is to look at content of beliefs. Are there no new stressful thoughts in terms of their content?

In other words, are there universal stories we use to create stress for ourselves?

I imagine that each culture have some unique stressful stories, or at least some themes that are especially emphasized and in the foreground. In our culture, some of these themes may be around body and appearance, money, status, living the expected life with a good education, job and family in the right sequence and at the right time, and so on.

And if we look at underlying assumptions more closely, these basic themes our surface beliefs are variations on, we may find that these are quite universal across cultures.  I need to do the right thing. I need people to approve of me. I need to stay alive. I need life to go the way I want it to.

So  there are no new stressful thoughts in a couple of different ways. They are all beliefs and have a shared “should” built into them. And they may all be variations on universal themes - found when we look at the underlying assumptions of surface beliefs.

And finally, there are no new stressful thoughts, because thoughts in themselves are not stressful.

…………….
…………….
…………….

draft….

And finally, there are no new stressful thoughts, because thoughts in themselves are not stressful. They become stressful first when we tell ourselves they are true. 

…………….

There may also be more universal beliefs around shared themes, especially around fitting in.

And if we look at underlying assumptions more closely, these basic themes our surface beliefs are variations on, we may find that these are quite universal across cultures.

…………….

Within a culture, most of our stressful thoughts may be variations on the same themes.

And there may also be universal beliefs across most or all cultures, especially when we look at the underlying assumptions and basic beliefs. I am not good enough. Something is wrong. I need people to like me. I need to stay alive. Life should go as I want it to.

So in terms of content of beliefs, there may be variations - often cultural - at their surface expression. But their underlying assumptions, our basic and simple belief, may be quite similar, even universal.

Here too, if we go to the most basic level of beliefs, there may be no new stressful thoughts. They are all variations on a theme, different expressions of the same basic and simple beliefs.

…………….

So there are no new stressful thoughts, because stressful thoughts are beliefs, and beliefs are all “shoulds” about the world, independent of their content. In that sense, they are not new, just variations on the same theme. 

…………….

So in a couple of different ways, there are no stressful thoughts.

There are no stressful thoughts, new or otherwise, because thoughts in themselves are not stressful. (Not really what BK meant.)

…………….

Why is is stressful? A belief is a “should”, and the world doesn’t always cooperate with my shoulds. Even when it does, I know it can change at any moment, and that in itself is stressful.

So in that sense, there are no new stressful thoughts. Independent of their content, they are all shoulds, and shoulds are inherently stressful. I make myself at odds with the world. I work against what is, instead of with it.

Stressful thoughts are not new, because they are all shoulds.

And one way of working with it is to resolve it here, for instance through visualizations, acting out, or dialogue.

It is quite simple, maybe even so simple it sounds silly.

Take the unresolved situation. Stage it and include the important characters. Allow it to play itself out and find a full resolution.

There are many possible variations here. It can be visualized. Played out through active imagination. Acted out alone or with others. Done through dialogue. Through first or third person perspectives for the different characters. A facilitator can be included. A wise person. A magic wand allowing shifts to happen into a full and fully satisfying resolution.

The process can be long or brief, and may come with insights and shifts or not, but the most important aspect is the sense of a full resolution. How would a best possible and fully satisfying resolution feel? Look? Unfold? I may even skip the process entirely and just find the feel and look of a best possible outcome.

The main effect of this is that sense of a full resolution, or at least the possibility of such a resolution. It allows for healing, shifts in orientation, perhaps even a sense of understanding. It invites it to heal and resolve here.

It is a process that is very helpful if other people are involved, and they are not around or available for whatever reason. And when the situation is moving towards resolution and shifted here, it is more likely to happen in the world as well. With more clarity, coming from a different place, I may act in ways that allows the situation to be resolved with the other person or people involved. When shifts happen here, the question is always: who am I in the world, living from this? How may it play itself out in my life? How does it feel? Look? What happens when I live from this in daily life?

This is a very simple technique, and many traditions and approaches use variations of it, or can be used in this way. Process Work and Voice Dialogue/Big Mind Process comes to mind.

Tibetan Buddhism has an especially beautiful variation. In the first preliminary practice, we visualize all beings taking refuge. They all turn towards awakening with receptivity. No matter how I usually see others - those close to me and everyone else - I now see them as having a change of heart. I recognize their potential. I recognize what is possible for them, whether it will play itself out in the world or not. I cannot help relating to them differently.

In a quite literal way, my world changes. My world of images, this overlay on the sense fields, changes. There is a reorientation. I relate to others, the world, and myself differently.

As is usual for me these days, I sometimes do this in bed before falling asleep or after waking up. Is there anything in the present, past, or in a possible future that feels even slightly unresolved? Anything there is a slight sense of comprehension or unease around? Anything I have a should about? What is it that is not fully resolved? How does it feel? Who are involved? And then: how would it feel and look if there is a full and fully satisfying resolution? What happens when I stay with that image and feeling? Does the image change? Unfold?

And if I want to explore the process first: If I use active imagination or dialogue as part of the process to resolution, what happens? How does it unfold? What do the others say? What advice do they have for me? What do I say to them?

Note: As with anything else here, this is just a supplement to and support for what we would normally do in everyday life. If I feel that something needs resolution, and it involves someone else who is around, I will see if I can work it out there, either before or after this inner work. It is through doing both we may find a fuller and more satisfying sense of resolution.

Also, this approach can be seen as a complement to inquiry. It is a preparation or support for, and a fleshing out of, inquiry. For it to be more fully resolved, also in similar situations, we need to inquire into our beliefs around the situation. What is more honest for me than my initial belief?

………………
………………
………………

• visualizing resolution
  • visualizing resolution for self/others - how it may happen, feel, unfold, would be in the world
    • fully satisfying
  • variations
    • take third or first person perspective
    • dialogue, active imagination
    • include facilitator, wise person, magic wand
  • effects
    • resolved here, released from knots
    • recognize that resolution is possible, recognize potentials
    • can resolve here, w. or w/out the other person
      • good if the other person is not around or available
      • may make a resolution in the world more likely, icing on the cake
  • used in many approaches
    • tibetan buddhism, visualize all beings taking refuge - resolved in that way (change of heart, receptivity, wish for awakening)

I am a man. A Norwegian citizen. Of a certain age. A human being. An object in the world.

My culture - and most or all cultures - would say these are true, so I take them as obviously true.

And yet, if I take a closer look at them, what do I find? Are they as obviously true as they first appeared?

I am Norwegian. When I look, I find that is only true in the most conventional and pragmatic sense. Everything in me is actually from somewhere else. My body is made up of molecules from food grown all over the world. My feelings come from my ancestors, going back generations and thousands and millions of years. My thoughts come from my culture, which in turn is influenced by other cultures and comes out of the cultures of generations and generations of ancestors, long before there was anything called Norway. All of this - my body, mind, world view - has evolved through thousands of generations of humans, and millions of generations of ancestors who were not human, all made possible through billions of years of evolution of this universe going back to the Big Bang. And the awareness that all of this happens within and as, where does that come from? I don’t know. But I am pretty sure it cannot be limited to Norway. Also, what evidence do I have that I am Norwegian? Only stories - including memories - and a passport. When I look, I find that the statement “I am Norwegian” is not so obviously true after all. In fact, it is not true at all, apart from in the most practical and pragmatic ways.

When I explore those other apparently obvious truths, such as my age, that I am a human being, or an object in the world, I find the same. What initially seemed so obvious, is not obvious at all. In fact, it may be true only in the most conventional and pragmatic of ways.

Each of us have a great number of such assumptions, including universal - and sometimes culturally dependent - stories that says I need to be loved, people should be fair, I need to be alive and so on.

Why take a closer look at these stories? Is it only a diversion, entertainment, an intellectual game? It can be much more than that, if done with some sincerity.

The other question here is: What happens when I take these assumptions as true? Who am I without them? How do I live my life if I didn’t have these beliefs?

……………….
……………….
……………….

• questioning assumptions
  • underlying assumptions
    • why
  • what seems most obvious
    • i am …. (human, norwegian etc)
    • the word is…. (real, out there)

We have peripheral and central beliefs, mild and strong beliefs, and also disputable and apparently indisputable beliefs.

And we can find these in just about any combination.

The peripheral and central beliefs are peripheral or central to my identity. Brad Pitt lives in France is a relatively mild belief, and I can easily adjust when I hear he moved to New Orleans. I am liberal or a man is more central to my identity in the world.

The mild beliefs are often also peripheral. And strong beliefs are often also central beliefs, but not necessarily. As I start to question and inquire into my strong and central beliefs, they may still remain central to my identity in the world, but also held much more lightly. They may even be recognized as simply stories helping me navigate in the world. Sometimes helpful, sometimes not.

Some beliefs are disputable. If they are also mild, it may make for interesting conversation. If they are strong, I’ll try to defend them and it may even seem like a life-and-death matter.

Other beliefs are apparently indisputable, so obviously true that it may even seem amusing if anyone suggests I take a closer look. I am a man. Of a certain nationality. Of a certain age. A human being. An object in the world. My culture, and probably most or all cultures, say these are true, so I take them as obviously true.

There is also a belief that creates beliefs. It is the belief that stories can be true, and some are. It simply says “this story is true”. (This one is obviously applied to itself as well.)

And there is a core belief: what I really am, is this “I”. An object in the world. This one can be fleshed out as an observer, or a doer. And further fleshed out with a “me” as this human in the world with identities and roles.

All of these are stories. They become beliefs through the “belief-creating” belief saying “this story is true”. They can be held as strong beliefs, or more lightly. And they can even be recognized clearly as just a story. A story that may be very helpful in a pragmatic sense, allowing us to orient and function in the world, and yet nothing more than that.

…………..
…………..
…………..

• types of beliefs
  • peripheral - core, mild - strong
  • a belief belief - that story is true (a belief creating a belief)
  • core belief - what I really am is this separate “I”

…………

We have peripheral beliefs which are stories that we only mildly take as true, and it is not so important to us whether they are right or not. Brad Pitt lives in France. No, he moved to New Orleans. Well, that’s OK.

…………

• types of beliefs
  • three dimensions
    • strong - mild
      • strongly believe or mildly believe
    • central - peripheral
      • central to my identity, or peripheral
    • disputable - indisputable
      • up for debate, or apparently indisputable

……………
……………

draft….

Beliefs are all the same in their dynamics. At the same time, there are different types of beliefs.

We have peripheral and central beliefs, mild and strong beliefs, and also disputable and apparently indisputable beliefs.

I have peripheral beliefs, which are usually stories that I only mildly take as true. It is not so important to me whether they are right or not. Brad Pitt lives in France. No, he moved to New Orleans. Well, that’s OK.

I have strong and disputable beliefs. Since they strong and up for debate, I try to defend them, and they may even seem like life-and-death matters. People should be treated fairly. People shouldn’t lie. Bush is an idiot. I am not stupid.

I have central beliefs about religion, politics, my identity, and other things important to how I experience the world and myself. These are often strong beliefs, but they don’t have to be. As I inquire into my central beliefs, they may milden. They may even be stripped of belief entirely and just be a story to help me navigate in the world. Sometimes useful, sometimes not.

I have apparently indisputable beliefs. I am a man. I am of a certain nationality. I have a certain age. I am human. I am an object in the world. I am an “I”.  Since these are taken for granted in our culture, and in most or all cultures, it seems silly or useless to question them. If someone does, I’ll probably just find it amusing.

I have a belief-creating belief, which says that stories can be true and some are. It says “this story is true”.  (This one is obviously applied to itself as well.)

And I have a core belief, which is that what I really am is an “I”, an object in the world. An “I” that is an observer and/or a doer.

If it seems mysterious and important enough, we have traditionally explained it through God and religion. There is lightning and thunder, so perhaps a thunder god is behind it. We die and don’t know what is after death, so create mythologies to fill in the gap.  We live a life, but don’t quite know what it is for or how we fit into the larger whole, so we create religions to give us a sense of meaning.

And I see that every time I create a belief for myself, I do the same. I don’t know, am uncomfortable with that not-knowing for whatever reason, so create a belief to explain the mysterious and give me a sense of somewhere to stand, a viewpoint I can identify with.

The same happens in the realm of spirituality. When we don’t quite understand the mechanisms, we see it as mysterious and call it spiritual. It doesn’t quite explain it, but at least we have a label for it. As I get more familiar with it and start to recognize the mechanisms, I find a simpler and more pragmatic view and the spiritual label goes into the background.

If I have an experience of oneness, and don’t understand the mechanisms, calling it spiritual gives me one hook to hang it on. It may not be much, but it is at least something. I can then become more familiar with the mechanisms behind it. I can notice that sense of oneness happens when most or all content of experience is recognized as objects, and there is still identification as an observer or witness. Identification is released out of the “me” and mostly or all out of the doer, and remains in the image of an “I”. Some of the mystery of how it happens goes out of it, and there is less need to call it spiritual. It can see it in more psychological and pragmatic terms, even if I recognize that most people and cultures will call it spiritual.

The next step is to recognize this image of an “I” as content of experience as well, inviting identification to release out of even this. As I become more familiar with this terrain, this too - which is often called “awakening” - becomes more pragmatic. Again, I recognize that most folks will call it spiritual, but for me the pragmatic aspects are in the foreground.

………………..
………………..
………………..

cut….

The same happens in the realm of ethics.

When we don’t quite understand the pragmatic reasons for what is pointed to through ethics, we use ethics as a guideline. And as we get more familiar with the pragmatic reasons for ethical guidelines, we go from ethics to a simpler and more pragmatic view.

For example, when the situation is conducive we experience a widening circle of us, of the ones we experience care, compassion, and concern for. When we don’t quite recognize the pragmatic reasons for this, morals and shoulds may be helpful and even essential. And yet, as we start to become more familiar with it, we recognize the pragmatic reasons and these come to the forefront for us. As I relate to others, I relate to myself. It is a mirror, so I naturally want to treat others and myself with kindness. And in the world, including all beings and ecosystems in the circle of “us” makes good ecological sense. It is, in fact, essential for our own long-term well-being and survival.

Similarly, if I don’t quite recognize the reasons for gratitude, humility, and appreciation, it may be good to have ethics or religion to remind me of its value. As I become more familiar with their benefits, I need the external reasons less. What is here is enough to guide me.

………………………
………………………

• spirituality is what we don’t understand
  • it is common to say that when we don’t understand something, we put god or religion there, and that applies to spirituality as well
  • when we are aware and familiar with the dynamics and mechanisms, the mystery goes out of it at that level - no need to think of it as “spiritual” or “ethical” anymore
  • it goes from spiritual/ethical to pragmatic
  • for example
    • gratitude, kindness, appreciation - supports all aspects of our live (no need for ethics)
    • widening circles of compassion, care, and concern - supports all of us (again, no need of ethics)
    • experience of “oneness” when identified with observer/witness
    • “awakening” when recognize “I” as content of experience, as any other content of experience

………………..
………………..
………………..

a far too one-sided initial draft……

*Spirituality is what we don’t understand*

Traditionally, when something seems mysterious, we explain it through God and religion.

And we do the same with ethics and spirituality. When we don’t quite understand the pragmatic reasons for ethical guidelines, we use ethics as a guideline. And when we don’t quite understand the mechanisms behind what we see as spiritual, we call it spiritual and make it into something more than it is.

As we get more familiar with the pragmatic reasons for ethical guidelines, and the mechanisms behind what we see as spiritual, we go from ethics and spirituality to a simpler and more pragmatic view.

For example, when the situation is conducive we experience a widening circle of us, of the ones we experience care, compassion, and concern for. When we don’t quite recognize the pragmatic reasons for this, morals and shoulds may be helpful and even essential. And yet, as we start to become more familiar with it, we recognize the pragmatic reasons and these come to the forefront for us. As I relate to others, I relate to myself. It is a mirror, so I naturally want to treat others and myself with kindness. And in the world, including all beings and ecosystems in the circle of “us” makes good ecological sense. It is, in fact, essential for our own long-term well-being and survival.

Similarly, if I don’t quite recognize the reasons for gratitude, humility, and appreciation, it may be good to have ethics or religion to remind me of its value. As I become more familiar with their benefits, I need the external reasons less. What is here is enough to guide me.

If I have an experience of oneness, and don’t understand the mechanisms, calling it spiritual gives me one hook to hang it on. It may not be much, but it is at least something. I can then become more familiar with the mechanisms behind it. I can notice that sense of oneness happens when most or all content of experience is recognized as objects, and there is still identification as an observer or witness. Identification is released out of the “me” and mostly or all out of the doer, and remains in the image of an “I”. Some of the mystery of how it happens goes out of it, and there is less need to call it spiritual. It can see it in more psychological and pragmatic terms, even if I recognize that most people and cultures will call it spiritual.

The next step is to recognize this image of an “I” as content of experience as well, inviting identification to release out of even this. As I become more familiar with this terrain, this too - which is often called “awakening” - becomes more pragmatic. Again, I recognize that most folks will call it spiritual, but for me the pragmatic aspects are in the foreground.

Note: Spiritual can of course be used in different ways. It can mean anything that has to do with awakening, in which case these things are spiritual. But it can also be used to refer to what is mysterious to us, in which case the pragmatic takes over as soon as we get more familiar with some of the dynamics and mechanisms behind it.

…………….
…………….
…………….

Traditionally, when something seems mysterious, we explain it through God and religion.

We do the same in many different ways. When we don’t understand the pragmatic reasons behind ethical guidelines, we explain it through ethics. When we don’t understand the mechanisms behind what we see as spiritual, we call it spiritual.

As we get more familiar with the pragmatic reasons for ethical guidelines, and the mechanisms behind what we see as spiritual, we go from ethics and spirituality to a simpler and more pragmatic view.

Cooking is something we all take for granted but a new theory suggests that if we had not learned to cook food, not only would we still look like chimps but, like them, we would also be compelled to spend most of the day chewing…..

Cooking food breaks down its cells, meaning that our stomachs need to do less work to liberate the nutrients our bodies need. This, says Wheeler, “freed up energy which could then be used to power a larger brain. The increase in brain-size mirrors the reduction in the size of the gut.” Significantly Wheeler and Aiello found that the reduction in the size of our digestive system was exactly the same amount that our brains grew by - 20%. Professor Stephen Secor at the University of Alabama found that not only does cooked food release more energy, but the body uses less energy in digesting it. As a consequence, more time was available for social structure to develop.
- from BBC, Learning to Cook Produced Bigger Brains

Changing food habits is a good example of how we shape our own evolution.

Our evolved biology makes our behavior and culture possible. Our behavior and culture changes, and this allows us to make use of our evolved potential in new ways. Both of these changes our selection pressures. Which in turn changes us biologically as a species. And this changes what is possible for us as individuals and as a culture.

We have evolved so it is possible for us to use tools and cook food. Cooking food allows us to make better use of food nutrients, which in turn allows us to make different and new use of our evolved potential. Both of these changes our circumstances and selection pressures, so different characteristics are selected for. This changes us biologically as a species. And this opens new options for us as a species and a culture.

Nowadays, our own culture is perhaps the most significant source of our own evolutionary change, as it has been for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Through culture, we change our social and ecological environments, which in turn changes the selection pressures, which in turn changes who we are.

It is not good or bad. It doesn’t necessarily mean we evolve to be more or less mature in terms of ethics or intelligence. And in what ways we change ourselves is mostly speculation, although often useful speculation.

………………..
………………..
………………..

As mentioned in an earlier post, one way we may change ourselves is through selection for those who are more mature. In theory, the ones who have a richer set of stories to draw from, and hold these more lightly, will experience less stress and make better choices, so their offspring may have a better chance to survive and reproduce. On the other side, there may not be much correlation between number of children and maturity in modern society.

………………..

draft…..

Cooking is something we all take for granted but a new theory suggests that if we had not learned to cook food, not only would we still look like chimps but, like them, we would also be compelled to spend most of the day chewing.

Without cooking, an average person would have to eat around five kilos of raw food to get enough calories to survive.

The daily mountain of fruit and vegetables would mean a six-hour chewing marathon.

It is already accepted that the introduction of meat into our ancestors’ diet caused their brains to grow and their intelligence to increase.

Meat - a more concentrated form of energy - not only meant bigger brains for our ancestors, but also an end to the need to devote nearly all their time to foraging to maintain energy levels.

As a consequence, more time was available for social structure to develop.
- from BBC, Learning to Cook Produced Bigger Brains

Is there something fishy about traditional anthropological and evolutionary theories around food? At first glance, it may seem so.

Sure, expanding our diet to become omnivores had an impact. It gave us more proteins in our diet, and a wider menu of choices from our environment. But does it mean the difference between foraging the whole day for food, and having time to spare? Perhaps not, as I seem to eat about the same amounts whether I eat a vegetarian diet or an omnivore diet. This does require foods that have proteins, such as legumes, but those were probably available in our ancestor’s environments as well. Placing too much emphasis on meat-eating as an evolutionary force may be the product of a culture where meat is expected as a centerpiece of every major meal.

The transition to cooking makes more sense to me. Cooking makes more nutrients available, and it also expands our food choices. With cooking, we can eat roots and other plant parts that otherwise would be undigestible to us, meat is much easier to chew and eat, and it also sterilizes some foods that otherwise would make us sick. But here too, we seem to find people who counter this theory. What about people who eat only raw foods? They seem to be doing well, and they are not eating more than the rest of us. Of course, some don’t seem to do so well on a raw diet. And it makes a difference that we have any type of ingredients available to us in the grocery stores.

There is surely some impact from shifting into both an omnivore and a cooking diet. But is the transition as significant as they say? I don’t know.

In any case, our changing food habits is a good example of how we shape our own evolution. We change our habits and behavior, in large part through our culture, which in turn changes our evolutionary selection-pressures, which in turn changes us biologically as a species, which in turn changes what is possible for us as individuals and as a culture.

Nowadays, our own culture is perhaps the most significant source of evolutionary change for us, as it has been for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Through culture, we change our social and ecological environments, which in turn changes the selection pressures, which in turn changes who we are.

For a good introduction to what sets humans apart from other animals, you can’t do much better than Alan Alda’s three-part series The Human Spark.

It is easy to think that since the lives of humans are so different from the lives of other animals, there must be big differences in how we are put together.

But is that the case? Are humans very different from other animals? No. We share almost everything with at least some, and often many, other species.

It is the small differences - often in degree - that sets us apart. As we know from the butterfly effect, in a complex system, small differences in the initial conditions can lead to big differences in how it all unfolds over time. In this case, small differences in biology leads to big differences in how we live our lives.

It is these small differences that leads to what we see as uniquely human such as relatively advanced culture, technology, and social organization.

Small differences can have big consequences.

This mini-series is also a reminder of the importance of how we approach any project. Alan Alda approaches the topic with curiosity, receptivity, and heart, and that makes for a balanced, fascinating, and very well made documentary.

…………..
…………..

The Human Spark is a good three-part introduction to some of the small differences between humans and other animals that have big consequences.

It is a good reminder that although we share almost everything with some or many other species, differences in degree leads to major differences in how we live our lives.

…………..

For a good introduction to what sets humans apart from other animals, you can’t do much better than Alan Alda’s three-part series The Human Spark.

Are humans very different from other animals? No. We share almost everything with some or many other species.

It is the small differences - often in degree - that sets us apart, and leads to what we see as uniquely human such as relatively advanced culture, technology, and social organization.

Small differences can have big consequences. Small differences in biology create huge differences in how we live our lives.

I guess this is an example of the butterfly effect in biology. In a complex system, small differences in the initial conditions leads to big differences in how it all unfolds over time.

When I do The Work, I don’t have to only stick to my own beliefs.

I can also imagine what belief someone else has, and inquiry into that one as if it was my own.

This helps me understand the views and reactions of the other person a little better.

It helps me explore stories I otherwise wouldn’t.

And most importantly, when I imagine a belief in someone else, it is because it is right here too - I recognize it from myself.

The Work is very simple, and this is really just a complication. But one that I at times find quite helpful.

It seems especially helpful when I do inquiry on someone repeatedly and there is still something left.

Some while back, I did a series of inquiries on my uncle who has a quite emotional response to wolves and want them all killed. His views got me hot under the collar as well, and although the usual inquiries worked and gave me some clarity, something remained. When I did a few inquiries from his perspective, it resolved more fully for me. I found a greater appreciation for his view. I saw that he came from heart as well, just filtered in different ways. I still support a healthy wolf population, as much as ever, but it comes from a slightly different place now. I see our similarities more than differences.

Note:

When I imagine a belief in someone else, and say I recognize it from myself, that is true in several different ways.

I wouldn’t recognize - or imagine - it in someone else if I didn’t first know it from myself.

At the very least, I know the story, and I know what it feels like to make a story into a belief, so I can imagine how it is to make that story into a belief.

Also, it is all happening within my own world of images. It happens within my own images and interpretations of the world. His beliefs are here in my own images.

And if my attention is drawn to someone else’s beliefs, it is most likely because those beliefs mirror my own. The content is not exactly the same, but as I investigate them, I may find clear parallels to similar - often opposite - beliefs of my own.

…………………

• inquiring into the beliefs of others
  • inquire into beliefs i imagine others have, take them on as my own
  • many benefits
    • helps me understand the views of others better
    • helps me explore stories i otherwise wouldn’t
    • helps me find more richness in my stories about a certain topic
    • and mostly, when i imagine a belief in someone else, it is because it is right here too - i recognize it from myself

One of the terms from the Indian traditions is sat cit ananda - existence consciousness bliss.

What do I find when I look at each of those?

Existence, yes. Something clearly exists. There are sensory impressions and images here. When I look closer, exploring how things appear in each sense field, I find that it all seems to happen as space. Similar to a hologram, it has form but no substance. When it appears more solid, it is only because of an overlay of images telling me that - for instance - these sensations, with these qualities, are solid. But sensations and the images both are not substantial. They are like space itself, always shifting into new forms.

Consciousness. Yes. Consciousness is clearly here. There is awareness. Again, when I explore things as they appear in the sense fields, I find they not only happen within awareness, as content of experience, but they happen as awareness. What happens, is simultaneously content of awareness, and awareness itself. It seems difficult to imagine that it can be any other way, although - again - the overlay of images can temporarily make it appear differently. In my own world of images, it may appear that there is awareness and then an object of this awareness. But that falls away when I take a closer look.

Bliss. Well, one form of bliss comes and goes with situations. But there is another form of bliss - or quiet joy - that seems inherent in experience itself, and independent of the content of experience.

So when I use sat-cit-ananda as a pointer, I find each aspect of it here now. Nice that I don’t have to go somewhere, or be in a special state, to find it. What is here now is enough. Whatever happens is also - in addition to whatever else it is - existence, consciousness, and - yes - there is also a quiet joy there.

It can be very simple.

And I don’t assume this is all, of course. I am sure sat-chit-ananda refers to something more than this. But this is what I can find right now, and it seems sufficient for now.

Stories themselves are obviously essential. They helps us orient and navigate in the world, and guide attention and action. Stories help us remember the past, envision the future, and make sense of the present.

We can of course use stories as guides, whether we see them as just guides or make them into beliefs.

So what is the function of beliefs? Why do we have beliefs when stories themselves are sufficient? What is the unique contribution of beliefs?

Beliefs give a sense of separation, of an “I” here with a wider world out there. As someone said, they are the only way God (or life, the universe, existence, what is) can experience itself as separate.

They intensify experience. Stories filter and interpret experience, and beliefs says it is true.

They give an extra life-or-death edge to experience and action.

They create a sense of drama. What will happen to this “I”?

They create stress, tension, reactive emotions, all of which would not be experienced - or experienced far less - without beliefs.

They are an invitation for inquiry, finding what is more honest for us than the initial belief. And that is another journey. It is another area of the terrain opened up to us through beliefs.

In all of these ways, beliefs enrich experience. That is perhaps the greatest gift of beliefs. They open up vast new terrains to experience and exploration.

Many of us go through a phase where beliefs are made wrong, mainly because we recognize them as (a) not true, and (b) creating discomfort and stress. And yet, that too is a belief. As we explore what is more honest for us than that belief, we may find a genuine appreciation for beliefs, as they are.

They are still not true, and do still create discomfort, so it is natural to still wish to investigate beliefs to find what is more honest for us. It frees thought, actions, and experience, and is the wise and kind thing to do. And yet, it can be done with a great and sincere appreciation for beliefs.

They enrich our lives immensely.

Note:

As usual, in writing about these things I skip over a lot of detail.

For instance, what is a belief? I can say it is taking a story as true, which is accurate in one sense, yet doesn’t say much.

It is also identification with a viewpoint. Quite literally, I take myself as this image of a doer or observer located in or around the head area, which has a viewpoint on the world. In space, this viewpoint is straight ahead, aligned with the physical cone of vision. It is created through identification with a point, in or slightly above and behind the head, and through an image of a cone pointing straight ahead. “I” am this point, looking at this world through this cone.

This basic viewpoint is then fleshed out through other viewpoints, creating an identity as a human in the world. I see the world from the story that “I am a man”, and additional stories of age, sexual orientation, interests, values, opinions, and so on. All of those stories have their own viewpoint, which I identify with when I take them as true.

…………….
…………….
…………….

• benefits of beliefs
  • stories
    • organize, makes sense of, interprets
    • guides attention and action
  • beliefs
    • take stories as true, identification w. their viewpoint
  • benefits of beliefs
    • create a sense of an “I”, separation
    • filter experience
    • stepping stone
    • gives an extra edge to the experience/effort
    • creates drama

……….

We can of course use stories as guides, whether we see them as just guides or make them into beliefs. Even the core story of “I am that”, usually attached to a sense of a doer or observer, can be recognized as simply another story, as content of experience, or taken as an absolute truth.

……….

Beliefs is what gives a sense of an “I” within content of experience, usually as a doer or observer, and then also as a me with particular identities and viewpoints.

……..

We may not always appreciate it, because discomfort is inherent in beliefs. We can also step back, investigate, and find a sincere appreciation for beliefs.

….

Beliefs are also inherently innocent. We take a story as true, and cannot help experience and act as if it is true.

The human brain is a big believer in equality — and a team of scientists from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, has become the first to gather the images to prove it.

Specifically, the team found that the reward centers in the human brain respond more strongly when a poor person receives a financial reward than when a rich person does. The surprising thing? This activity pattern holds true even if the brain being looked at is in the rich person’s head, rather than the poor person’s.
- from Science Daily

From an evolutionary perspective, it is not surprising that we may be predisposed for justice. We are social animals, and in many cases, justice benefits the group as a whole.

But that is not the whole story. We are most likely evolutionary predisposed for both justice and injustice, since either one can be of benefit in different situations. Most of the time, in a stable group, justice will benefit everyone. And yet, sometimes, perhaps in critical situations, unstable groups, or in infrequent interactions with strangers, injustice may be to our advantage.

We are evolutionary and biologically predisposed for both, and which strategy is activated depends on our long-term and short-term circumstances. If we live in a stable group, we may tend to develop a good sense of justice. If we live in unstable circumstances, our predisposition to injustice may take over.

As all experience, both will have biological correlates and their own reward loops. And as all strategies, tendencies, and human experience in general, our evolved biology makes it possible.

The study above was done on US and Irish students, who lived in and had grown up in stable and relatively affluent societies. Would the results be different if they looked at individuals from unstable and harsher backgrounds, for instance inner city kids or people in a war zone? When you are used to having to fend for yourself, and not have much or any social support, does the reward center light up the same way in the same situations? Perhaps, or perhaps not.

Our biology makes everything we know possible: metabolism, walking, digesting, feeling, thinking, anger, joy, sadness, culture, technology, imagination, creativity, compassion, ethics, a sense of meaning, and anything that is part of our individual and collective lives.

Some of it is shared among all Earth life. Much of it is shared among all animals. A great deal of shared among all mammals. Even more is shared among all humans. And some is differently emphasized among humans.

Throughout a long history of evolution, we have evolved all of what we know from our own life. We have evolved a wide menu of possible ways of relating to ourselves and the world, which gives us great flexibility. And we each come with our own tendencies, vulnerabilities, and strengths.

Biology and environment is so tightly interwoven and intertwined it is often difficult to say where one ends and the other begins. Even when it comes to our individual differences, biology gives us the potentials and our environment draws it out and shapes it.

The beauty of this perspective is that natural and social sciences go hand in hand. The existing insights of each often fit very well within this overall framework, sometimes with some slight modifications.

And there is also a great deal of room for wisdom and kindness here.

Knowing that we each have our vulnerabilities and strengths, we can find acceptance and compassion for ourselves and others. A situation that I may be able to deal well with, is exactly what triggers depression in someone else, and the other way around when it comes to other vulnerabilities.

Knowing that an illness is greatly heritable, we can change the environment to prevent it from developing.

Knowing that we all come equipped with an evolved hunger for food and sex, we can find acceptance for ourselves and others, and also use strategies to prevent suffering and make healthy use of it.

Knowing all Earth life is related, we can experience a deep sense of belonging to life and the Earth.

Knowing that  everything we experience and know is made possible through evolution and biology, we can find a deep sense of gratitude and appreciation for the process and all our ancestors, most of whom were not human.

It is a beautiful framework, and one that greatly enhances and enriches any existing approach and perspective. It doesn’t take away from anything, not even religion, and especially not the social sciences.

The evolutionary perspective certainly deserves a great deal more - and better informed - attention in the media than it is currently receiving.

Which is why I am somewhat dismayed by the new TV series on this topic on the Norwegian TV station NRK.

The host, Harald Eia, is taking the tired “create as much drama as possible” approach, pitting extremes against each other, and in particular pitting biology against environment in a way I thought we had left behind us several decades ago.

He is missing out on a great opportunity to explore a fascinating, juicy, and important topic in a meaningful and nuanced way.

And by choosing to interview the most dogmatic and uninformed social scientists for the program, he creates the impression that all social scientists ignore biology and evolutionary psychology.

Reading the reader’s comments to articles in Norwegian news on this topic, it seems that his approach is also fueling contempt against social scientists in general. He sets it up so it is easy for the general public to generalize from the worst examples.

It is all very unfortunate.

The upside is that the topic does draw attention and generate a good deal of public discussion, which does give others an opportunity to clarify and present more informed and nuanced views.

Dag Hessen’s essay in Dagbladet today is one example.

Note: Reading the essay, I am reminded that there is a historical reason why there is still some evolution-hesitancy in some corners. Evolutionary and biological perspectives have been used, by some, in a quite cynical way. But an evolutionary and biological perspective is a tool as anything else, and it all depends on how we use it. We are free to use it with wisdom and compassion, bringing with us all our best values and intentions from whatever other - often more humanistic - perspectives we are familiar with.

……………..
……………..

• eia
  • common view
    • biology makes it all possible + sets constraints
    • environment draws out some of the potentials created through evolution and biology
  • can be a very interesting exploration
  • but may also be….
    • outdated, trying to set biology and environment up against each other
    • give people a bad impression of social scientists
    • miss a great opportunity

……………

And our environment draws out some of the potentials created through evolution and biology.

It is easy for us to recognize physical tools as tools only, and to use these with a measure of pragmatic wisdom.

And yet, it is so difficult for us to do the same with stories. At least for many of us.

Why is it so?

Physical tools are “out there” in the world, so it less likely that we become identified with them. And stories happen “here” and may be less easy to recognize as objects, so it is easier to identify with them. To take that specialized story “I am that” and use it on itself and other stories.

It may also have to do with where we are in our evolution. Using our hands and limbs is something we have done for millions of years. A simple form of mental imagery has probably been with us for a similarly long time. But using our capacity for mental imagery and stories the way us modern humans do, is far more recent. We don’t have the same experience and familiarity with it yet.

Seeing it in this perspective, it is easy to imagine that there may be a time where this is different. Where more of us will recognize a greater number and types of stories as tools, and relate to them in the same pragmatic way we relate to physical tools.

Recognizing an increasing number and types of stories as tools is a part of ordinary healing and maturing. And when the stories of me and I, and especially the story of identification (”I am that’) is recognized as tool as well, it is what we - with our penchant for making too much out of simple things - have called “awakening”.

The ordinary maturing is perhaps ongoing and have been so for a very long time. Many of us have the potential to mature quite a bit, given the right circumstances, and those higher on this potential may experience somewhat less stress and are more flexible, so may survive and reproduce slightly better. Over time, it may well be that humanity as a whole matures, relating to a greater number and types of stories in a pragmatic way.

This obviously happens culturally, but it may well be reflected biologically as well.

Culturally, we mature within our biological potential given conducive circumstances. And those with the greatest biological potential mature a little further, which gives them a slight reproductive edge. So over time, the biological potential for maturity of humanity as a whole increases. Humanity is able to become just a little more mature. Biology offers the potential and limits of culture, and culture in turn - and obviously - influences our biological evolution.

So what about the pragmatic approach to the story of “I am that”?

It may happen for a few at first. From an evolutionary perspective, if these survive and reproduce at a higher rate than others, they will have more offspring who are more likely to recognize stories as tools, and the proportion of these types of folks increases.

Recognizing stories as tools gives less stress and more flexibility, so it should increase their reproductive chances. It is perhaps unfortunate that historically, many who were predisposed to recognize stories as tools took themselves out of the gene pool (becoming monks or nuns), but that is already changing.

At the same time, taking even some stories as more than tools (as “truth”) creates stress and rigidity, which reduces survival and reproductive chances slightly.

The difference may be small, but over time, perhaps large enough to have a significant impact.

How will it look? What would a culture look like if a significant proportion have a pragmatic approach to the story of “I am that”, recognizing it as a tool only? It is difficult to say, especially since it is likely to happen far into the future. But it may not look all that different.

People will still live their ordinary lives - work, have families and children, enjoy ice cream and a day out in the sun. The main difference will be a reduction overall, and absence for some, of the experience of stress and strife. Society is likely to run a little more smoothly. Decisions are made more from a pragmatic perspective, and from a little more kindness and wisdom.

“Awakening” will probably lose a lot of the “spiritual” baggage it has today. It will be ordinary, simple, commonplace. We will probably still have religions, to celebrate and find community, but not to find ultimate answers.

If the process is purely biological, which it may well be, will it happen quickly? Probably not. May we do something stupid to ourselves before it happens? Could be. Do we know any this for certain? No.

……………..
……………..

From a previous post I just finished:

It is so easy for us to recognize how to use physical tools with a measure of pragmatic wisdom, and yet, it is so difficult for (many of) us to do the same with stories.

Of course, physical tools are “out there” in the world, so it less likely that we become identified with them. And stories happen “here” and may be less easy to recognize as objects, so it is easier to identify with them, to use that specialized story “I am that” on these stories.

It may also have to do with where we are in our evolution. Using our hands and limbs is something we have done for millions of years. Using our capacity for mental imagery and stories, at least the way us modern humans do, is far more recent. We don’t have the same experience and familiarity with it yet.

Seeing it in this perspective, it is easy to imagine that there will be a time where we will recognize stories as tools, and relate to them in the same pragmatic way we relate to physical tools. Recognizing an increasing number and types of stories as tools is a part of ordinary healing and maturing. And when the stories of me and I, and especially the story of identification (”I am that’) is recognized as tool as well, it is what we - with our penchant for making too much out of simple things - have called “awakening”.

The ordinary maturing is perhaps ongoing and have been so for a very long time. Many of us have the potential to mature quite a bit, given the right circumstances, and those with this potential experience somewhat less stress and are more flexible, so survive and reproduce slightly better. Over time, it may well be that humanity as a whole matures, relating to a greater number and types of stories in a pragmatic way. This obviously happens culturally, but it may well be reflected biologically as well.

Culturally, we mature within our biological potential given conducive circumstances. And those with the greatest biological potential mature a little further, which gives them a slight reproductive edge. So over time, the biological potential for maturity of humanity as a whole increases. Humanity is able to become just a little more mature. Biology offers the potential and limits of culture, and culture in turn - and obviously - influences our biological evolution.

So what about the pragmatic approach to the story of “I am that”?

It may happen for a few at first. From a conventional evolutionary perspective, if these survive and reproduce at a higher rate than others, they will have more offspring who are more likely to recognize stories as tools, and the proportion of these types of folks increases.

Recognizing stories as tools gives less stress and more flexibility, so it should increase their reproductive chances. It is perhaps unfortunate that historically, many who were predisposed to recognize stories as tools took themselves out of the gene pool (becoming monks or nuns), but that is already changing.

At the same time, taking even some stories as more than tools (as “truth”) creates stress and rigidity, which reduces survival and reproductive chances slightly.

The difference may be small, but over time, perhaps large enough to have a significant impact.

How will it look? What would a culture where a significant proportion have a pragmatic approach to the story of “I am that”, recognizing it as a tool only? It is difficult to say, especially since it is likely to happen far into the future. But it may not look all that different.

People will still live their ordinary lives - work, have families and children, enjoy ice cream and a day out in the sun. The main difference will be a reduction overall, and absence for some, of the experience of stress and strife. Society is likely to run a little more smoothly. Decisions are made more from a pragmatic perspective, and from a little more kindness and wisdom. ”

Awakening” will probably lose a lot of the “spiritual” baggage it has today. It will be ordinary, simple, commonplace. We will probably still have religions, to celebrate and find community, but not to find ultimate answers.

If the process is purely biological, which it may well be, will it happen quickly? Probably not. May we do something stupid to ourselves before it happens? Could be. Do we know any this for certain? No.

I may begin with bringing attention to each sense field - sensations, sight, sound, smell, taste, and thoughts/images - one at a time, and notice what is there.

Then, I close my eyes if they are not already closed, and notice how I have an image of my body laying there in the bed, in a room, in a building, at the outskirts of a small town, next to a forest, in a country, on the Earth. All of that happens in my own world of images. It is the movie I play for myself about the world. I recognize it all as images.

If I want to do it more thoroughly, I do the next few steps to explore how my own world of images create a sense of space, and map sensory impressions on these images of space.

I notice how sensations and my images of my body combine into a sense of “body”. When I move my body, my images change to correspond with my sensations and how I perceive my body is positioned. In my images, sensations are given a location in space, and an image of my body is placed on top of them.

I notice how sounds are interpreted and mapped in space in my own world of images. The movie I play for myself pick up the sounds, give them an image explaining their origin, and place them in the room or outside the building somewhere. Sounds are mapped in my images of space.

If there is some light in the room, I may open my eyes and notice how my own images of my body and the room is an overlay of sight impressions. They make sense of the sense impressions. My own world of images organize sight impressions in space. These images map sight impressions in space.

And then back to exploring time.

I recall something from the past, preferably something that evokes emotions. Perhaps a situation I remember with fondness, and regret having passed. Or a situation I wished had not happened.

I allow myself to indulge in it for a brief while, to get a taste of it. I notice how it appears more solid, real, almost like an object there in the past.

Then, I notice how it is all happening in my own world of images. This situation from my past is only here in my own images. And yet, they sometimes appear real, solid, and as an object.

I cannot find the situation in any sense field apart from in my stories and images - the mental field. What do I find when I look more closely at them? What are they made up of? I notice they are ephemeral, insubstantial, almost like space appearing as something, similar to a hologram with form but no substance.

I also notice that when these images appear real and trigger emotions, they combine with sensations in my body. I tense up muscles in different areas of the body, especially in the throat and head area, and these serve as “anchors” for my images of the past. These sensations lend a sense of substance and reality to these images. When I look closer, I find that the images of the past “borrows” a sense of substance and reality from these sensations. Why do these sensations - from tensed up muscles - appear substantial and real? I find it comes for an overlay of images telling me that they are substantial and real. There are certain types of sensation, and then images interpreting these sensations as “substantial and real”.

I can do the same with the future. What images of the future comes up? Can I notice these too as happening in my own world of images? My own movie about the future? Insubstantial? Ephemeral? What happens when I take them as real and substantial? What happens when I notice them as happening within my own world of images?

And I can do the same about the present. This body. This room. This building. Other people doing different things at other locations. It is all my own images.

When emotions are evoked by these images, can I notice that these emotions are here in immediacy? What happens when I take the stories about the past (or future/present) as real and substantial? Do I experience the emotions as belonging to the past? Do they seem substantial and real? What happens when I recognize my images of the past as simply images? What happens when I recognize the emotions as here in immediacy? What happens when I recognize my images as form with no substance? What happens when I recognize emotions as happening within and as space?

I may, for instance, notice longing here now. Triggered by my own world of images. And itself being simply sensations, interpreted as “longing”. There is a sense of coming home, of fullness, of all being here now.

To finish it off: Do I have an image of a “real” world out there, beyond my own world of images? What happens when I take that image as real and substantial? What happens when I recognize this too as happening within my own world of images?

And what about the doer of all of this. What appears the most as a doer? Where is it located? How does it appear in each sense field? For me, I find sensations in the neck and head area. A slight tensioning of the muscles to create a sense of solidity and substance. And then an image of a doer overlaid on these sensations, lending a sense of substance to the image. Or rather, images. When I bring attention to the sensation/image of a doer, other sensation/image combinations take over as a sense of a doer, shifting around slightly. Also, there are images displacing the doer gestalt in space, often starting in the middle of the head, and then moving it slightly behind the head as attention is brought to the first one.

What about the observer? What appears most as an observer? Where is it located? Is it different from the doer? How does it appear in the sense fields?

What happens when there is identification with the sense of a doer or observer? What happens when they are recognized as content of experience? Are they any different from any other content of experience?

What is this identification? How does it appear in the sense fields? For me, I notice an image of a cone following the cone of sight, with origin at the center of the head, or slightly behind the head, and that origin is at the image of the doer or observer. There is then an image saying “this is what I am”. And my own world of images does its best to make it appear true. It is a difficult job, juggling images and trying to create the appearance of an “I” right here. And it is completely innocent. It is just trying to do its best living up to the initial image of an “I”, doing, experiencing, and observing

It is actually quite beautiful.

………………..
………………..
………………..

• gathering up past, future, and present
  • notice “movie in the mind” overlay, it is all here now
  • also all feelings about past, future, present - here now
  • still use, but different experience

And I noticed a pattern that is quite familiar to me now: As the energy level goes down, deeper layers of beliefs and knots surface. Stories come up about how things are not as they should be, and certain emotions follows.

When I am awake and doing things, it is often not so noticeable. Attention is occupied elsewhere, and is usually not available to fuel the old beliefs that now and then surface. Laying in bed before falling asleep, these beliefs are more noticeable. Since I usually allow experience with kindness, bring attention to the sensations at the tip of the nose when I breathe, or pray when I am awake in bed, attention usually doesn’t fuel the stories then either. Usually, I write the beliefs down for inquiry the next day. And at times, if I don’t feel too sleepy or a belief is especially noticeable, I may get up and take it to inquiry there and then.

Yesterday, these undercurrents of old beliefs came mostly up in my dreams.

It is a good thing. It is one of the benefits of fatigue and exhaustion:

Beliefs and knots surface, so I can allow the emotions in simplicity and with kindness and compassion towards the emotions, myself, and anyone else experiencing something similar. (Which is just about all of us, at one time or another.) And I notice the beliefs, and perhaps underlying beliefs, take them to inquiry, and find what is more real and honest for me.

Here is one way to look at it: As my energy level goes down, so does my “defense” against the beliefs and their corresponding emotions.

And yet, that doesn’t quite feel right to me. It seems simpler to just say that with fatigue, beliefs tends to surface.

And they do so for many reasons.

Perhaps most importantly, when I have more energy and I feel good in general, it is easier to direct attention. So even if I notice beliefs surfacing, I can keep attention on whatever I am doing in daily life. I may, and usually do, write down the belief for later inquiry, and also consciously shift into allowing the emotions wholeheartedly and with kindness, but that is all.

When the energy level is lower, attention more easily goes to and fuels the beliefs.

Also, I may have beliefs about the fatigue itself and what it means, which brings those and related beliefs to the surface.

And my motivation may also go out the window. I don’t feel so good, so what the heck. I don’t care if I don’t do my usual “practices” and instead indulge in fueling beliefs.

So I feel exhausted and fatigued. I have beliefs about this, for instance that “I won’t get done what I need to get done”. Also, in my case, I have beliefs about how fatigue has impacted my life in the past. I can’t direct attention as well, so it goes on the inside of those stories, allowing them to spin off and unfold. And my motivation goes out the window, so I allow myself to indulge in fueling those beliefs.

There is nothing wrong in this, of course. It is all innocent and very understandable. It is even good, in some ways, since I get to see these beliefs more clearly, and feel their impact more from the inside.

And yet, I am grateful it doesn’t last too long, and that there is the possibility of allowing experience wholeheartedly, and finding more clarity around the stories.

Or, rather, notice that experience is already allowed, and finding what is already more honest for me than my initial beliefs.

……………….
……………….

• fatigue
  • defenses crumbling
  • deeper layers of beliefs/hangups surface
  • invitation to see, feel, find love for - allow experience, inquire into beliefs

- fatigue, and defenses crumbling

1. True?
   Yes. It sometimes feels that way. I can find stories supporting it. In my mind, I can find others who agree. (I may also find people in real life agreeing, but less likely. And I would see it as obviously a hangup on their part.)
2. Sure it is true?
   No. It is just a feeling. Just a thought.
3. What happens when I take that story as true?
   • I feel it is too late. I feel hopeless. Drained of energy.
   • Images comes of what was, what could have been, and what may be instead. I compare the best images of what was and could have been, with the worst images of what is and may be.
   • What do I fear would happen if I didn’t have that belief? Hm. Maybe that I won’t try to change the situation or make the most out of what is here. I am afraid I won’t try to make it happen now. (So I believe the story, in order to make myself act to make it happen now. Interesting. Nobody said beliefs are rational!)
4. Who would I be without it?
   • Open. Clear. Ready to act. Ready to make it happen now. Ready to make the best out of my situation.
   • Curious about the current possibilities. What is better now? What are the new opportunities? How can I still do what I hoped to do?
   • More more engaged and solution-focused. Even exited about the possibilities.
5. Turnarounds.
   • It is not too late.
     • No. I am already doing some of the things I regretted not having done earlier, and I am on track for the rest.
     • I am still young. I have more life in front of me than behind me, most likely. Many more years left to do what I would like to do.
     • Even much later in life, it is possible to do many things. It’s never too late in most cases, and especially for the things that are important to me. (Maturity and life experience is a benefit for all of those things.)
   • This is the right time.
     • Yes. This is when I am doing it, so it must be the right time.
     • I have new opportunities now. Opportunities I didn’t have earlier.
     • I have learned and experienced much that I otherwise wouldn’t have, and that is with me in what I am doing now.
   • It is too early.
     • Well, some things are obviously too early. I am getting there, but some other steps must be in place first. One thing at a time.
     • New opportunities will open up for me, and when it does, that is the right time to engage with those. (If I do.)

Again, a very simple pointer, but that’s OK. It is how it is applied that matter.

I can create the conditions for whatever happens to nurture growth. To go from being a problem to support.

And it is all in how I receive it and relate to it.

I can allow experience as is, with heart. Can I be with what I am experiencing now?

I can notice and inquire into beliefs, to find what is more honest for me than the initial belief.

And I can live from the most juicy turnarounds, and in general live from more integrity.

When I resist experience, I support and strengthen a rigid position. I act from a belief about the experience and what it means, without giving myself the opportunity to find what is more honest for me.  There is a sense of stress, tensions, separation, disconnect, an “I” here fighting an “Other” over there.

When I allow experience as is, with kindness, I allow it to work on me. There is a release out of a rigid position, and an opportunity to find what is more honest for me than my initial beliefs. There is a sense of coming home. Of fullness. Of being nurtured by experience, independent of its content. Sometimes of being “purified” by experience, since allowing it means a release out of habitual and rigid views and position. Whatever is in experience is allowed as is - whether it is emotions, pain, other symptoms, sights, sounds, taste, smell, sensations, images, stories - and that includes the sense of a me as this human self, and an I as a doer or observer. That too is part of experience, it happens within the field of experience as anything else. Here, there may even be a release out of the position as a “me” or “I”, and it is recognized as content of experience as anything else.

When I take a story as true, I am identified with a rigid position. I act as if it is true. I resist experience, as mentioned above, and act on it in many other ways as well. This too creates stress, tension, a sense of having to defend a position, and so on. I can take those symptoms as an invitation to find the story I attach to as true, explore it, and find what is more honest for me than that initial story. And here too, there is a sense of coming home. Of fullness. Relief.

And I can then live from the most juicy turnarounds, and in general with a little more integrity. It all comes into focus through my life.

This is very similar to the alchemical vessel. Instead of fighting or fleeing from experience (which is impossible, but I try), I allow it to be as is. It becomes a greenhouse for growth, or - as they said in previous generations - a vessel. And instead of fighting or fleeing from what is more honest for me than my initial belief, by acting on that belief as if it was true, I can notice it as a belief and inquire into it to find what is more honest for me. And again, it becomes a greenhouse, or an alchemical vessel. Finally, I can live from this in daily life, which again becomes a vessel for allowing, noticing, and inviting in healing and maturing.

When I resist experience, and first shift into allowing experience, there may be a - often slight - sense of dread. And the same slight sense of dread may be there when I take a story as true, and initially shift into inquiry, and also when I shift into living from more integrity. This is the nigredo, the darkening. As I allow experience, inquiry into the belief, and live from more integrity, there is the whitening, the albedo, the “purification”. And this invites in the fruitioning (not in my spell checker!), healing and maturing, the reddening, the rubedo.

I should also mention that although it is one process, using the same vessel, there are also two distinct facets here: First, healing and maturing as who we are in the world. And then, reality noticing itself as what it is.

The last one is very simple, so simple it is quite difficult to speak about. One way is to say, as above, that the sense of “me” and “I” is recognized as content of experience as any other content of experience, and identification releases out of it. What is, is this play of awake no-thing as form, sometimes identified as a human self, a doer, or an observer, and sometimes not.

There are of course lots of ways to invite in such a vessel. Allowing experience, inquiring into beliefs, and living from integrity are just the three I am most drawn to right now, and perhaps most familiar with.

Note: The growing and waking up is one process, happening within the same greenhouse, because these three tools - allowing, inquiry, and living from more integrity - invites in both. Some other approaches may focus more on one or the other, which is fine too. It all depends on what we are drawn to, where our calling is.

……………………..
……………………..
……………………..

• greenhouse
  • it’s not what happens to us, but what we do with it
  • create the conditions for whatever happens to nurture growth, to support us (go from problem to support)
  • it’s all in how we receive it, relate to it
  • greenhouse
    • allow experience as is, w. kindness - can I be with what I am experiencing now?
    • notice and inquire into beliefs
    • live from integrity
  • similar to the alchemical vessel

It may seem that the surface topic is all or mostly what the inquiry is about, but that is not entirely accurate.

I may do inquiry about people being noisy with their newspaper on the train, and I do of course gain insights about that particular situation and how I relate to it. I also gain insights about other situations in my life where I get bugged by what others do. And I also gain insight about what happens when I take any story as true, and the dynamics of beliefs in general. So right there, I may find clarity in several ways.

It may seem that the effects of belief are pronounced and strong in our life in a conventional sense. That is sometimes true, but not always.

As I do inquiry, I may amplify in different ways. I may amplify the initial belief so I can experience its effects more clearly, and also to allow it to unfold and see where it goes. And I may also amplify its effects for the same reasons.

When I find beliefs for inquiry, these beliefs may be at a quite low volume and then amplified as I do the inquiry. And as Byron Katie says, be petty. Find the small, childish, immature beliefs and look at those. Don’t try to be smart, sophisticated, or mature.

It may also appear that folks do inquiry to find relief from stress.  That may be true, especially in the beginning. But as I get more familiar with inquiry, I also do it for the sake of freedom.

When there is a belief, I inevitably think, feel, and act as if it is true. When I find more clarity around the story, my thoughts, feelings, and actions are more free. They have more room to play. And that means that they are more free to be guided by whatever wisdom, kindness, and experience is available for me in whatever situation I am in.

It may also appear that each belief first come up as obviously belonging to me, but that is not always the case. Sometimes, I get curious about beliefs I imagine others have, and try them out for myself. I take them on as my own and inquire into them as my own. And they are, because when I see them “over there” it is because I recognize them from myself.

So it may appear that the inquiry is about the surface topic, but that is not all it is about. It is also about similar and related beliefs, and the dynamics around beliefs in general.

It may appear that the belief has larger effects in our life than it has, because these effects are put under the microscope in the inquiry. In real life, these effects may be quite small, infrequent, and mixed in with the richness of the rest of our lives.

It may appear that a large number of beliefs dominate our lives, which may indeed be the case, but it may also look this way since even the small and infrequent ones are actively sought out and brought to inquiry.

And it may appear that we do inquiry to escape stress, which may also be the case, but as we get more familiar with the process, we also actively seek out beliefs since we know the freedom that comes with inquiry.

It is an increased freedom of action for this human being in the world. And more accurately, it is an increased freedom in the play of thoughts, emotions, choices, and actions. And an increased freedom for these to be guided by whatever kindness, wisdom, and experience is here.

……………….
……………….
……………….

• inquiry - not what it appears to be
  • levels - what learn about, get more familiar with
    • what the story is about in the world
    • same story on different topics
    • dynamics of beliefs
  • approaches
    • amplify
      • amplify the belief in the story, allow to unfold, see what happens
      • amplify the effects, bring attention to, allow to unfold
      • may get to see some aspects more clearly, but also more of  a caricature (I often do, maybe b/c of pw)
    • do it straight, as is
      • more organic, real
  • finding stories
    • often small, petty
    • own - or at times others (b/c reflects mine anyway)
  • proportions
    • seeing inquiries say little about proportions
    • most of the day may well go w/out much or any stress
    • but focus on beliefs, even small one, b/c know they are the gateway to insight + greater freedom (not constricted by them anymore, through clarity)

………………….
………………….

For people unfamiliar with The Work, the process may appear quite different than it does for the one doing it.

The most obvious is that the surface topic of the inquiry is not all, or even mostly, what the inquiry is about.

I may do inquiry about people being noisy with their newspaper on the train, and I do of course gain insights about that particular situation and how I relate to it. I also gain insights about other situations in my life where I get bugged by what others do. And I also gain insight about what happens when I take any story as true, and the dynamics of beliefs in general. So right there, I may find clarity in several ways.

Also, as I do inquiry, I may amplify in different ways. I may amplify the initial belief so I can experience its effects more clearly, and also to allow it to unfold and see where it goes. And I may also amplify its effects for the same reasons.

When I find beliefs for inquiry, these beliefs may be at a quite low volume and then amplified as I do the inquiry. And as Byron Katie says, be petty. Find the small, childish, immature beliefs and look at those. Don’t try to be smart, sophisticated, or mature.

It may also appear that folks do inquiry to find relief from stress. That may be true, especially in the beginning. But as I get more familiar with inquiry, I more and more do it for the sake of freedom.

When there is a belief, I inevitably think, feel, and act as if it is true. When I find more clarity around the story, my thoughts, feelings, and actions are more free. They have more room to play. And that means that they are more free to be guided by whatever wisdom, kindness, and experience is available for me in whatever situation I am in.

It may also appear that each belief first come up “here” in this life, but that is not always the case. Sometimes, I get curious about beliefs I imagine others have, and try them out for myself. I take them on as my own and inquire into them as my own. And they are, because when I see them “over there” it is because I recognize them from myself.

So it may appear that the inquiry is about the surface topic, but that is not all it is about. It is also about similar and related beliefs, and the dynamics around beliefs in general.

It may appear that the belief has larger effects in our life than it has, because these effects are put under the microscope in the inquiry. In real life, these effects may be quite small, infrequent, and mixed in with the richness of the rest of our lives.

It may appear that a large number of beliefs dominate our lives, which may indeed be the case, but it may also look this way since even the small and infrequent ones are actively sought out and brought to inquiry.

And it may appear that we do inquiry to escape stress, which may also be the case, but as we get more familiar with the process, we also actively seek out beliefs since we know the freedom that comes with inquiry.

It is an increased freedom of action for this human being in the world. And more accurately, it is an increased freedom in the play of thoughts, emotions, choices, and actions. And an increased freedom for these to be guided by whatever kindness, wisdom, and experience is here.

…………………
…………………

The process of inquiry may appear differently to others than to the person doing it, especially for those who don’t - yet - have experience with it themselves.

The most obvious is that the surface topic of the inquiry is not all, or even mostly, what the inquiry is about.

I may do inquiry about people being noisy with their newspaper on the train, and I do of course gain insights about that particular situation and how I relate to it. I also gain insights about other situations in my life where I get bugged by what others do. And I also gain insight about what happens when I take any story as true, and the dynamics of beliefs in general. So right there, I may find clarity in several ways.

Also, as I do inquiry, I may amplify in different ways. I may amplify the initial belief so I can experience its effects more clearly, and also to allow it to unfold and see where it goes. And I may also amplify its effects for the same reasons.

When I find beliefs for inquiry, these beliefs may be at a quite low volume and then amplified as I do the inquiry. And as Byron Katie says, be petty. Find the small, childish, immature beliefs and look at those. Don’t try to be smart, sophisticated, or mature.

It may also appear that folks do inquiry to find relief from stress. It may have started that way, but as I get more familiar with inquiry, I do it for the freedom that comes with it.

I look out for stress as pointers to beliefs. And then investigate even small beliefs because I know the freedom that comes with more clarity around them.

When there is a belief, I have to think, feel, and act as if it is true. When I find more clarity, my thoughts, feelings, and actions are more free. And that means that they are more free to be guided by whatever wisdom, kindness, and experience is available for me in whatever situation I am in.

It may also appear that all beliefs first come up “here” in this life, but that is not always the case. Sometimes, I get curious about beliefs I imagine others have, and try them out for myself. I take them on as my own and inquire into them as my own. And they are, because when I see them “over there” it is because I recognize them from myself.

So it may appear that the inquiry is about the surface topic, but that is not all it is about.

It may appear that the belief has larger effects in our life than it has, because these effects are put under the microscope in the inquiry. In real life, these effects may be quite small, infrequent, and mixed in with the richness of the rest of our lives.

It may appear that a large number of beliefs dominate our lives, which may indeed be the case, but it may also look this way since even the small and infrequent ones are actively sought out and brought to inquiry.

And it may appear that we do inquiry to escape stress, which may also be the case, but as we get more familiar with the process, we also actively seek out beliefs since we know the freedom that comes with inquiry.