Certainty
One of the most challenging virtues for any smart, progressive, sophisticated person to cultivate today may be the quality of inspired conviction, or the utopian belief that something radically new and different is possible. In fact, we live at a time when the ideal of living passionately for anything beyond our own personal happiness or maybe that of your family and friends often seems naive, traditional, or even dangerous.
But it hasn’t always been this way.
Recently, I’ve been doing a lot of research for EnlightenNext magazine into the philosophical and spiritual history of evolutionary spirituality. I’m reading a lot of writings by some serious cats like Henri Bergson, George Bernard Shaw, Charles Sanders Peirce, and even Friedrich Nietzsche, all of who lived during the several-decades-long period between Darwin and the first World War. These guys were completely on fire (check out some quotes from my previous posts). They were all expressing a passion for the powerful new insight that the world is changing and evolving—spiritually, biologically, and culturally. And they were trying to create a new worldview based on this vision to replace the old, traditional, mythic worldviews that the western Enlightenment had dissected.
Now, I don’t mean to sound like some kind of retro-romantic, going on about how things used to be oh so much better in the good ol’ days. Granted there are definitely a lot of passionate, sophisticated people on the planet today (just look at those of us who elected Obama to office :)). But the palpable conviction that the aforementioned thinkers had in development, progress, and human evolution that so pungently filled the air during their time was of a different order than today’s. And it has me thinking about just why this sense of pure idealism seems to have faded over the past 100 years, even with all of our incredible advancements in technology, culture, and the arts.
What happened between then and now? The answer, I think, is actually quite simple, but it gets me every time. The evolutionary momentum building up during the late nineteenth century ran smack dab into two world wars and all of the chaos, destruction, and downright evil that surrounded them. These horrific events in our human history revealed the dark underbelly of the same modern mind that had previously produced such glorious visions and, to a large extent, they destroyed our ability to believe in utopia and “progress.” They destroyed our ability to get behind the belief that humanity can be a gift to the world and not a plague. I ran into the following quote from Terry Eagleton, a British literary critic who wrote a recent book called Reason, Faith, and Revolution, which made a lot of things clear to me about the general postmodern skepticism that was born out of the tumult of the first 50 years of the twentieth century:
“Postmodernism is allergic to the idea of certainty, and makes a great deal of theoretical fuss over this rather modest everyday notion. As such, it is in some ways the flip side of fundamentalism . . . Some postmodern thought suspects that all certainty is authoritarian. It is nervous of people who sound passionately committed to what they say. In this, it represents among other things an excessive reaction to fascism and Stalinism. The totalitarian politics of the twentieth century did not only launch an assault on truth in their own time; they also helped to undermine the idea of truth for future generations. The line between holding certain noxious kinds of belief, and holding strong beliefs at all, then becomes dangerously unclear. Conviction itself is condemned as dogmatic.”
It’s striking to see how much our deeply held ideas about life have been shaped by historical events over half a century ago. As Bergson said, we can feel “the presence of the past” in every moment. But the best part of all of this is the fact that these anti-progress, anti-evolutionary, anti-conviction structures in ourselves and in culture are JUST that—cultural habits that can be transformed. We don’t have to live in the shadow of the World Wars forever and we can still take up the mantle of evolution with the same passion as our evolutionary forebears did. Of course, thanks to the incredible lessons we’ve learned from the failed utopian experiments and blind belief in human progress of the past century, we can now approach cultural evolution with a newfound appreciation for the difficulty and complexity that creating heaven on earth brings to the table! And that’s the challenging and beautiful task we have before us.
Filed Under: Best of the Blog • EnlightenNext Editors’ Blog • EnlightenNext magazine • Evolutionaries • Evolutionary Spirituality • Idealism • Philosophy • Postmodernism • Religion • Think About This
Excellently stated, Joel.
Coming from Germany, I feel it all in my bones. In my latest blog entry I posted a text from 1936, writen by C.G. Jung about the Wotan Complex. To transform the presence of the past, to shape new landing stripes for the future, to act from realized freedom needs a certain degree of heroism.
Unpopular, as this term is in Germany right now (Tom Steininger wrote about these themes in German WIE)it has to be understood in depth. Exactly in the sense you editors express it here.
Thank you Joel and all authors here, greetings from Berlin,
Albert
from where we are now, all is possible. if people just take time to search for truth. the more you search the more you want, greed is a great part of our energy, if it’s going in the right direction. great article. i am new to this type of thinking so now i am like a sponge at 63 never too late. thanks again . T
Brilliant – I really resonate with this. Yes, really well stated. Mmm….. admitting that your life’s journey is based on a search for ‘truth’ in the current climate is usually met with polite mockery. Such a relief when you find there are others out there who still belief in an immutable and, at the same time, evolving absolute reality.
Thanks for your response Michelle. With such overwhelming historical forces driving us to be cynical and self-involved, it’s so important to connect with others who are trying to build a life based on the pursuit of truth and evolution! New values can only be developed and held collectively.
My Dear Friends,
I hold all this discussion wonderfully hopeful & fascinating. After years of suffering from the dilemma of A lack of trust. I’ve discovered truth via 12 simple steps which brought me to a place of profound belief, trust & wisdom. Better understanding the paths or processes other are enlightened RE: “TRUTH”, sincerely deepens my resolve that people are genuinely GOOD @ their spiritual core.
Thank You All
DC
Hi, Ron,
I just checked and there is no comment from you in our Spam folder. So if you want to comment on a post, try again.
Best,
Elizabeth Debold
With our zeitgeist seemingly primed for change and a recognition that change is necessary for new ways of doing what have been untenable outworn MOs, we also must be on guard against being too hasty in throwing away past ways or adopting the new without circumspection.
Be not the first by whom the new are tried,
Nor yet the last to lay the old aside.
(Alexander Pope)
Thanks for the quote from Alexander Pope! I believe that strongly.
Is it too old-hat and well-worn or as I strongly believe that with everything up for re-examination and revising that one thing I continue to embrace and deem true and unchanging is the Perennial Wisdom. It seems to me and all who recognize its undeniable truth that as long as humanity survives, this code of conduct will continue to be valid and true.
Post-modernists misunderstand 20th century science. For example, I continually hear people blithely claim the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Not so! The correct statement is that the whole is not equal to the sum of its parts. In nature, the result of combinations is almost more often negative. Look at Wall Street or the auto industry. As a toxic whole gobbled up more and more, the sum of the parts became less and less, until the system failed. If we grabbed an individual or a small workgroup and removed them from the failing environment, they would be much more effective. In evolution, few mutations lead to butterflies, flowers or birds. Most are fatal – we call them birth defects and cancers.
The failing post-modernist view tells us that the correct replacement model for Newtonian certainty is quantum mechanics; Schrödinger’s uncertainty principle. They too miss the point. Ask not whether you can pre-determine if the cat will be alive or dead. You must ask why anyone would suggest an experiment whose guaranteed result, if executed, will be to leave the world littered with dead cats. That said, I often tell my clients that they “can’t repeal the laws of physics, so it’s time to get real.” Actions do always have consequences. Futurists easily predicted that the real estate bubble and Wall Street mismanagement would lead to a collapse, leaving the landscape littered with dying financial intuitions. The question was only how deep the bodies were piled.
It may be accurate to say that we can never know the one best answer. So what! The majority of actions being proposed these days are obviously sub-optimal and many are fatally flawed. In the science of chaotic, complex adaptive systems, it is actually not that hard to identify flawed solutions. They’re the ones that produce nasty feedback loops that force a system into an irreversible downward spiral (think derivatives). We don’t need to be passionate about proving the one right answer. There will be many paths that will be survivable. What we do need to get passionate about is avoiding the obviously dangerous actions. We also need to be passionate about disputing the view that inaction is safe.
Post-modernists ask how I can know an idea is fatally flawed. My first response is to suggest they learn enough basic math and science to understand how systems work. However, there is a simpler answer. Where you see dead bodies piling up or even increasing despair and misery, you know the ideas being taken into action are flawed. So you say the Taliban has a right to their religious views. I say, ask the girl who was just raped and murdered for learning to read. Bad ideas have terrible consequences in the real world. We need to be passionate about spreading better ones – not perfect ones, just stuff that works to replace stuff that obviously does not.
Dear Barbara,
Thanks for your response. I particularly like the distinction you made between the two kinds of certainty: being certain that there is one truth versus being certain that there is a better truth. For all the reasons I pointed out in my post, we often tend to associate any kind of passion belief or conviction with the latter, more fundamentalist version (this is the one true way), and therefore “condemn all conviction as dogmatic.” But in the process, we overlook the possibility that though our perception will always be imperfect, we can still discern right and wrong, better and worse, and move forward with passion. But with all we’ve learned about the potential pitfalls of narrow-minded conviction, we can still move forward with the humility of knowing that our choices can always be improved upon.
I can see why…Buddha said that people with opinions just go around bothering each other. And obviously the lack of a tolerance worldwide for differences in beliefs and lifestyles has caused many to stay open to all perspectives. Except for Mathematics, there are no “truths” anyway.
On the other hand, everyone does carry around beliefs of one kind or another at some level of their being. Like everything else, it’s all a matter of really getting to know oneself…..THEN, as you propose, we can start to focus on positive outlooks!
Bob, I align part of my beliefs with your first paragraph. However, I have a problem with “positive outlooks” in the second paragraph. This suggests dualism to me; and I prefer a non-judgmental, advaitya (oneness, unity) approach. Tolerance for others POV is called for, I believe. No, I am not able to stay in an ‘advaitya’ state all the time; but I’m getting better at it! And, so far, it has been very rewarding – materially, as well as spiritually.
David, I tend to agree with you, if I in fact understand what you are saying. I believe that the state of “Oneness” (which seems so far from where I normally live) represents what Jesus of Nazareth referred to as “The Kingdom of God” (it has also been translated as “The Kingdom of Heaven”). It is not a matter of having “right beliefs,” I think, but would, I’d think, be characterized by a state of immense peace, immense compassion, immense trust, immense joy, and possibly immense courage – while being non-judgmental. A Course in Miracles takes the wind out of arguing over matters of faith with this statement (approx): “A universal theology is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but necessary.” I think that “universal experience” is what you were referring to.
Hello everyone, i think that universal theology can only be possible when we take into account lessons learnt from nature and how human actions impact us/the world around us. unless we return to cause and effect mode of thinking we’ll always be confused about which ‘truth’ is best. only that truth is best which is based on empirical observation/experience. hence if life is imperfect, and death rules in this imperfect world, we must learn essential humility and accept the subtlest but ever-prevalent presence of Higher Intelligence that runs space and time (what not outside space/time). unless we learn to tune in to that Higher Intelligence we’ll never find the truth. this is the basis of my certainty.
Oops, I meant to submit only the last gremlin on Conflict Identification. Apologies. Could you submit that? Marilyn
I thought I was going to agree with the quotation from Terry Eagleton, but I found that I didn’t. I think there are some important distinctions to be made between certainty, taken to mean dogmatism, and passionate belief, which can be maintained without dogmatic certainty.
One can say, “This I wholeheartedly believe while I recognize that I may not be right.” My late brother William S. Hill wrote a doctoral dissertation (philosophy of science) which grounds the rationality of science in discovery. Discovery occurs, he says, when there is energy from the world (normally known as reality) and a theory that allows the observer to recognize it.
It seems to me that a person of dogmatic certainty, presented with information that does not match the theories of which he/she is certain, will reject that information or data out of hand. Most significant discoveries, though, are made by people passionate about what they know but willing to consider a new theory capable of explaining anomalous data (in scientific experimentation) or a new idea (philosophy, religion, daily living).
I am a radical agnostic who often wants to say, “I don’t know and you don’t either.” I am, though, passionate about my beliefs while being wary of much of the certainty of those around me. – Bob
The historians Will and Ariel Durant wrote in their concluding essay titled “The Lessons Of History,” that certainty is murderous. Right or wrong, anything philosophical must be, I believe, viewed in a Socratic way. That is, we should know that there is so much we do not known. I do know in my heart — and anyone may certainly challenge it — that we underestimate and fail to see the importance of analyzing things we already know. I have said this at meetings and conferences, including the Science and Nonduality conference held in San Raphael, CA., last month. As I recall, EnlightenNext was one of the co-sponsors at this event. I have stressed that there is more than an adequate basis to look back at and analyze things already learned and known to us. We natureally and understandably ignore things we’ve learned and things we already know. Why would we want to study things we’ve already learned and know! Alfred North Whitehead wrote in his book titled Science and the Modern World that “Familiar things happen and mankind does not bother about them. It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious.” Hegel said, “Because it’s familiar, a thing remains unknown.” A dozen other prominent names have said much the same thing. Psychologist Gustav Ichheiser said, “Nothing evades our attention as persistently as that which is taken for granted.” Although there are others as I pointed out, I wish to quote Aldous Huxley who said, “Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted.” We humans have ignored analyzing our thoughts in this most unique way by simply having thoughts and not thinking about the thoughts we are having.
It is time to wonder why, why, why we must look at things we’ve learned and know. It is because much of what we learned took place early in life, accepted on the survace and NOT learned INTUITIVELY!
Only through analysis of things already known (our thoughts in this case), can we ever gain the so-called mystical insight — the sudden experience of enlightenment — which is the onset of the mystical state; or as they said at San Raphael conference — Nonduality. We’ve created a ton of names for the higher state of mind — ultimate reality. Jesus’ holy spirit is nothing more than the mystical experience. His kingdom of heaven is ultimate reality.
As an example of why we should look back at our thoughts, we can see that Benjamin Franklin analyzed whether lightning was something that can be harnessed. He must have experienced a sudden insight to see that this power might indeed be harnessed and as a result, electricity was born. Others never analyzed what they already knew. Lightning to them was something they learned about and they knew, but after that, they ignored it as being worthy of further study. Sadly, we do that with consciousness which is a potential gift for each and every individual on the face of the planet to discover for himself or herself.
And now, we have the knowledge to do it.
would Benjamin Franklin having the thought of how to harnessed lightning as energy be a conscious reaction. T
I too agree with the thoughts in this essay. Many of us are hesitant to be too certain in our beliefs. It reminds me of an awareness I developed in high school, that it seemed to be more popular and certainly more sophisticated to say “no” and to appear to be bored with life, than to say “yes” and to embrace life with enthusiasm.
As an adult, I’ve struggled with the paradox that it feels very important to know about “truth” for ourselves, but that such truths become invasive or dominating when applied to others. It could be that my right to my truth ends where your nose begins, or something like that. Even the concept of “my truth” is a paradoxical concept to “the truth.”
In the end, I have come to the conclusion that I can only live well by being passionate about “my truth,” but I do try to keep it to myself!
Eagleton:
> Postmodernism is allergic to the idea of certainty
“Postmodernism” is an idea, and as such it can neither be allergic or nervous. *People*, on the other hand, do get nervous. It’s not the “idea” of certainty that makes me nervous. It’s *people* who speak and act with absolute certainty who indeed make me nervous, and I submit it’s for good reason.
Note that it’s hardly necessary to embrace certainty or reject it. The alternative is to simply *try my best* to be helpful in each situation, without fretting about certainty one way or the other. Isn’t that enough?
When someone expresses *certainty* that he’s in the right… shouldn’t we legitimately wonder why he’s doing so? Since *trying* is enough, and *certainty* is unnecessary… isn’t it perfectly reasonable to suspect that those who profess certainty have an axe to grind?
Pitney:
> It’s striking to see how much our deeply held ideas
> about life have been shaped by historical events over
> half a century ago.
It’s hardly true that a suspicion of “certainty” is dependent on old historical events. In today’s world, it’s easy to see people acting in harmful, violent ways… fueled by fanatic certainty that they’re on “the side of the angels.”
Even in everyday life, we constantly see how reasonable people are cautious about clinging to a belief with certainty. Rather, we patiently examine evidence before we adopt an idea. Even after choosing a belief this way, we remain open-minded about changing it as new evidence becomes available.
Unreasonable people, on the other hand, quickly grab a belief if it’s superficially attractive, and then hold it with apparent certainty, with a foolish consistency that can’t be shaken by new experience or evidence.
Hello Stuart,
You are entirely right. We can and should act on what we think we know, as long as we observe two conditions. 1) That we are always alert for new evidence, and 2) that we respect what other people think they know.
The US Constitution is a fairly food guide (if only it were followed). You can’t be prosecuted for what you say or think, but only for what you do. If we condemn others, OR ourselves, for what we “know” we are engaging in preemptive punishment.
As Martin Luther would have it: “Sin boldly and trust in the Lord.” A similar sentiment is expressed in the Bhagavad Gita: “Do what is right, and leave the results to God.” Or as the sage Mohammed Ali put it, “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Detachment does not mean you have no convictions, it means that you are not destroyed by failure or contradiction.
A healthy person can deal with (apparently) contradictory ideas; with paradox. We can be certain enough to act, and we can be skeptical of ourselves. How do you maintain a sense of paradox? Easy. You laugh. People without a sense of humor are usually dangerous, because when they encounter two contradictory points of view, they need to wipe one of them out.
In the real world, however, the polarity between knowledge and doubt cannot be resolved by philosophy, but by emotional balance and maturity.
Dear Stuart,
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your comments about the need to be open-minded. There’s a lot of evidence historically and, as you say, in today’s world, that narrow-minded certainty leads to a lot of strife. But I want to suggest that it’s possible to have both: certainty and open-mindedness. In order to do this, it’s important to clarify what we mean by certainty. If we mean rigidly clinging to a relative truth, even when new evidence suggests otherwise, then yes, certainty is diametrically opposed to open-mindedness.
But if we mean certainty in the ultimate positivity and goodness of life and our own humanity, then the picture looks different. I think that it is quite possible to belief deeply in the fact that in spite of all the terrible things that happen in the world and all of the negative aspects of culture and our own souls, life is ultimately positive and has been improving throughout history. In this view, we’re constantly looking for improvements on our own ideas, choices and understanding, without being crippled by the fact that we and the relative world are imperfect (which really means in a state of constant perfection).
Thanks for your response, Joel. I have my ideas about what’s good and positive for humanity, e.g., I think reduction of conflict and increase of tolerance is a good thing. And indeed… looking at the sweep of history, I do believe that humanity has a general trend towards cooperation and tolerance over the long-term, even though in the short-term this advancement may be choppy and inconsistent.
I also realize that my ideas about what’s “good” and “positive” are just my ideas. While I strive to advance what seems good and positive in each situation, I don’t equate my ideas with absolute truth. Since I’m not certain of my ideas, I have no problem with constantly being open to new and different ideas, choices, and understandings, as you suggest.
Another thought…I do think you are right, Joel, that it’s been shattering to our psyches to have to deal with the horrible events of the 20th and 21st centuries. I’ve heard it said that mental health is being realistic about the state of the world, but being happy nonetheless. If our job is to explore the Jungian shadow, and to incorporate the shadow into a fuller understanding of ourselves, we have a lot of digesting to do.
For myself, participating in the Network of Spiritual Progressives, and being exposed to Rabbi Michael Lerner’s exhortations to unabashedly express our awe and wonder in the universe, and to be active in promoting a vision of a society based on love, caring and compassion has been eye-opening. To promote such a vision, first I have to create it within myself, which is a profound act of consciousness-raising.
Thank you Thank you! You have given voice to something that I have been struggling with for some time. While I am grateful that I am not a fundamentalist WHATEVER, I have begun to wonder if I have traded the capacity to take multiple perspectives and see shades of gray for the ability to really live, and ACT, from a place of conviction. I have also begun to wonder if this isn’t simply a personal failing – but a culturally fostered phenomena that plays a significant but subtle role in many people’s lives.
In the Matrix movies, Morpheus has the capacity to act and to provide leadership and inspiration to others, because he KNOWS. I admire and covet that KNOWING. However, in the end, it turns out he didn’t really KNOW after all! In contrast, Neo did act but didn’t really know – at least not that he could consciously voice. Perhaps this is a model for the post-post-modern path… the capacity to take bold actions but not from the comfort of a consciously articulated framework about the nature of reality?
Cool David! I like the fact that you brought the Matrix into this thread. I was struck by the difference between the kinds of conviction held by Morpheus and Neo too. The one thing about your comment that I’m not clear about is what you mean by “a consciously articulated framework about the nature of reality.” It seems like we have to have a framework for understanding the nature of reality, otherwise we wouldn’t have any foundation for making distinctions and moving forward. I think that that framework, however, has to be an evolutionary one…which is one that acknowledges the imperfect but always perfecting nature of the universe. Then you understand that the nature of reality is to move boldy forward, but you understand that you will likely make mistakes and need to improve upon your actions.
Thanks for the response, Joel. When I say “consciously articulated framework of reality” I am referring to an understanding of reality that is conceptual and can be put into words. I guess I am making a “plug” for the role of intuitive and experientially based wisdom as the foundation for “inspired conviction”.
To go back to the Matrix example, philosopher Cornel West in the Matrix commentary (along with Ken Wilber) talks about the idea that understanding and blindness are two sides of the same coin. In other words, a perspective (and I think here a perspective that you can articulate with words) also means you are blinded to something. It is interesting that Neo is in fact physically blind when he is able to encounter the machine world as spirit – something no one else is capable of! Perhaps his “blindness” is a lack of “perspective” which leads him to encounter reality more deeply?
While I agree with you that we may well need a framework of understanding to move forward (and one that is evolving), perhaps there is another way? I believe Paul Tillich (might have the wrong guy!) talked about people’s concept of God being the one thing that prevents truly encountering God. “Beginner’s Mind” seems to me to be a related concept in a Buddhist context.
pioneers need the strength and confidence to be willing to stand out from the crowd. they also need to be open minded enough to evaluate their own veiw by considoring others.
power tends to corrupt and while democracy can appear weak and wishy washy, its strength lies in its ability to force its leaders to considor other veiws
Just read little about postmoderism. Rather than attached political labels we really need to look at more basic premise that lots of folks
are operating from FEAR. Rational thought then escapes the masses because of the not subtle so chemical reactions to fight or flight.
I just wrote an alternate version to the big bang theory, just before reading this. Here it is:
If science gets one free miracle, I say everybody gets one free miracle. What if we change the theory of creation? The standard model says that in the beginning there was nothing and then everything was created in an explosion called the Big Bang. But isn’t it more likely to assume that there was a dreamworld, where consciousness experienced itself in dreams, and then the material cosmos was created in the big bang and here we are. And when we dream at night we tune into that part of the cosmos that existed before matter was created. And that is also the reason why we can dream, matter wants to remember what it was like to be in the dream world and that is why evolution strives towards ever greater comlexity of form. A rock doesn’t dream much but a brain does. If you think about it for a while it seems much more plausible than nothing and then something. It’s more elegant to begin with. And nothing is a dead end for science because it is unmeasurable by definition, so it’s a dead end, probably created by a lack of imagination in the mind of science.
No wait a minute. The dreamworld uses matter as a tool and a toy. Mmm I like that. Or perhaps they use each other. What dreams would bring forth a water-molecule? A dream about someone who is very thirsty. Or just the sensation of thirst and nothing else, so strong and powerfull that the forces of nature somehow created water, to parch that thirst and then the ultimate desire is the desire for peace and bliss.
I guess that shows a certain lack of conviction.
Nils i share your interest in dreams, especially prophetic dreams, when we see something happening in our dreams which later manifests itself in reality and i feel spellbound as to where that came from! i would suggest another theory which i gleaned from medieval mysticism that there exists a heirarchy of realities with the highest reality being the Most Abstract-which we call God and down to level of realities which exist in the material realm; but i would suggest that material reality also at some level bottoms out and is based ultimately on invisible or ‘dark’ matter or forces. so the ultimate reality is basically Abstract. but there are intermediate realities like the dreamworld for example which borrow qualities both from the totally abstract reality such as freedom from time and space limitations and from the material realm of sensuous faculties such as sense of touch or smell or hearing. so its a perfect blend of abstract and concrete reality.
Historical determinism is an interesting perspective and can be used to understand many aspects of a given society or culture. In western culture, I feel that the prevailing anti-religion or anti-spirituality of the secular intelligentsia is an historical reaction the totalitarian aspects of Western organised religion during the medieval and early modern periods. Yet to me, ‘enlightenment and liberation’ are really only possible by ‘stepping out of the stream’ and disengaging from the historically-conditioned processes in which we are apparently entangled. And I don’t know how many Western thinkers really do get that.
Inspiration, awe, compassion, love are not lessened by lack of certainty of beliefs. Perhaps made possible instead.
Sometimes, certainty in religious (and other beliefs) leads to a lack of patience and forgiveness of others (which I think is tragic). However, I suspect that some with certainty of religious belief are also very, very tolerant of others with even radically different beliefs.
I suffer/rejoice from the same uncertainty, but also have unshakable trust. I am uncomfortable with those who are certain in their convictions (think fundamentalists, militant atheists, the teabaggers, conservatives in the Vatican, the U.S. military high tech hierarchy), and yet, I ultimately trust deeply in humanity’s still unfolding potential and in the Cosmos due to a faith in the omnipresent Divine, to/for Whom we are very early in the process of surrendering,embracing, awakening and following.
I feel we must not forget Who’s In Charge! Consciousness can do nothing else but evolve. It’s the senstive ones that feel the motion and become the social pioneers manifesting God’s evolution through activism, the arts and sciences. It happens in fits and starts. There are times when civilization can accept Truth and times when it cannot. I think of my mother, a very wise women, who said, “It has ever been thus,” when considering our recent past. Civilization usually isn’t ready for those like Jesus, Buddha, Ramakrishna and other great masters but Consciousness keeps trying. The Kali Yuga is ending so we move toward a cycle of enlightened living but it will take 1,000′s of years to manifest. In the meantime, we surrender to the movement of Consciousness and choose to do good in the world.
Are we speaking about sustained belief? I takes faith getting out of bed in tthe morning. It takes another kind of faith to become a monk. We could not function without faith, so that the believers may call themselves people of faith, but skeptics have as much faith in theit stance as do fundamentalists. All thought is opinion. Believing is seeing, but seeing is also a matter of belief.
I would look at it from a slightly different angle.
In the 90’s I was introduced to the teachings of Professor Rick Roderick, out of the University of Texas, I believe. He taught philosophy with a decidedly southern twang. The way he pronounced Heidegger always made me laugh. “Haw’–digger.”
He distinguished the term ‘fallibilist.” To be a fallibilist is to recognize that as much as you may be convinced of the certainty of your own beliefs, you have outgrown enough of them to know for a “certainty”, they aren’t the ultimate truth. You can passionately express your beliefs, while also holding – they are only a piece of the Divine Mystery.
If you are the kind of person who hangs out in the fast lane of personal evolution, it is predictable that you have gone through more than a few stages of development.
Many times you think you have arrived at the ultimate truth only to discover there is yet more to understand.
We live in an evolving universe. No matter where we are on the evolutionary spiral there is an infinite stretch of knowledge and understanding before all of us.
That means no matter how much we think we know about the Great Mystery, we always only know a part. There is a kernel of truth inside all of the sacred myths of our world cultures or the latest distinctions on the developmental horizon. But, none of them could possibly tell the whole story.
Outgrowing the sacred myths we live in is painful for any of us. Kahlil Gibran wrote, “Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding.”
But, I have found great comfort in the cloak of falliblism. I claim the right to express my beliefs about the social order of things passionately, knowing that at any moment I could change my mind.
It keeps the gears of evolution well greased and ready for the next leap!!
Okay, how ’bout this perspective: Every consciousness is going to evolve—whether it’s a rock or a human. Evolution is inevitable! Whether we get our proverbial “shit together’ today, tomorrow, 20 years from now, or 20 lifetimes from now—it’s going to happen…So…Be nice, be open, do the best you can, but don’t stress over it…
Definations are limitations of TRUTH , truth per say is total and definations are fragements viewed and perceived from a point of view. When one sees the truth and is not AWARE the past is pulled as prejudice in culture and corrupts our present . In fact totality of TRUTH is naver revealed tous DARKNESS in the intelectual world is absence of LIGHT which is blocking our vision due to Dark clouds of PAST MEMORIES IN CULTURE
I so enjoy all the chatter about certainty, known, truth etc. etc. etc. So who is this “I” that is chattering away? Is it not the “me”, self, who identifies with my ego in this dualistic physical existence? Example of it would be in order to have certainty you have to have uncertainty, same with known/unknown, truth/not truth, up/down, right/wrong, black/white etc. etc. etc. And don’t forget to include “self” and “no self”, thinking and not thinking, it seems to me in the duality of physical existence everything is relative to something else. Therefore, would not “non duality” just BE without relativity to anything or
possibly everything?
I, ego in this duality, asks Who am I? I don’t know where I came from, I don’t know where I am going, I’m just passing through. The question would be more enlightening if it asked, What am I that burst or was born into this physical duality experience.
As above, so below and I observe a constant changing, expanding, evolving Universe and suspect that is probably what is going on in thoughts, beliefs, consciousness itself whether I like it or not. I can relax and just go with the flow and security of being a part of it, both in duality and non-duality. Perhaps, the future creates the present against the backdrop of the past instead of visa-versa? Isn’t the journey fun! Cheers! Barbara
For those seeking a progressive life, detachment is the supreme opulence. Material detachment enables our freedom from the conditioning influence wrought by our daily associations. When the mind becomes still, the eternally mutable and dualistic nature of this material world reveals itself, yet we remain free from its deluding power. Others in time, will tire and seek out those who represent a better way. For them, faith will provide the currency necessary to reach their wished-for destination. Meanwhile, the croaking of the frogs will continue to invite the snake.
Cheers to you too, Barbara, from one wave to another in this ocean of oneness, pretending to be a separate being. Yes, what fun! — provided we don’t forget it’s a game. A very serious game, at times, yes. But still a game.
I highly recommend Wittgenstein’s little book called “On Certainty.” He beautifully exposes how much confusion arises from a misunderstanding of the game-like nature of language. A sample quote: “The game of certainty presupposes the game of doubt.”
Thanks Joseph! I shall get the book On Certainty. As you most probably perceive, I am a student of Bill Harris (Holocync) and Genpo Roshi (Big Mind). Since attending two of their joint workshops my sense of well being, no matter what shows up, has continued to remain pretty high and consistent. Naturally, that has required regular practice of their processes of Koans using “voices” of fear, doubt, the skeptic, the thinking mind, the seeking mind and the thousands of others addressing them all as “dis-owned” first and then “owned”.
It has been amazing to me to experience what a difference it makes in how I feel when I can really own, embody and appreciate all the voices instead of “disowning”, and not listening to the gifts and protections they have to offer me. Barbara Painter (I misspelled my last name)
I think perhaps that with the explosion of knowledge, and the revelation of the quantum principle of “uncertainty”, it is seemingly a ‘safer bet’ to remain ‘uncertain’ in our assertions. I like keeping a healthy space for ‘mystery’ in my life; yet, I feel certain that there is an ultimate underlying principle responsible for the rise and activities of all phenomena.
I have practiced the life-philosophy of Nichiren Buddhism within the Soka Gakkai International for the past 36 years and I am willing to stake my eternal existence on the truthfulness of the core teaching, “Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.” It may not be seemly in today’s “postmodern” era to speak of religious/spiritual certainty; however, I would be a fawning liar if I did not reveal what is truly resonating within my heart.
Convictionalism is not dead but diminished a lot, due to multiplicity of religions, all fake and misguiding the humanity towards uncertainties of everything, particularly of logical derivations. Terror of God is paralyzing the human minds.
I am certain – the humanity shall soon follow atheism and shall be humane again – vibrating with convictions and certainties. This shall, of course, come through a very painful process of deconstruction. Just work for it, wait and watch the results.
http://atheism-and-agnosticism.blogspot.com
Hi there Ram Bansal! Considering the definition of “God” by all religions, I am an atheist too. Perhaps the “definitions” are the problem we reject?
Hello from Athens. I wanted to share with you some of my conclusions; while I was reading the book “Beyond Intellect” written by Susan McNeal Velasquez, pages 71-73 about “The courage to Thrive”, this same old problem came forth….
Everybody nowadays speaks about Holystic Healing, while the word “Holistic” has become like a candy! For years I was searching to balance or marry all the scientific knowledge I was receiving with the question why is there so much violence into the world!
My conclusion, is that as one person needs to receive as much as possible complete information for him to feel content and reasured, in the same way he needs through food to receive the “full image” (e.g. to eat a whole pear-apple-whole structure of what surrounds us) for it to work as source of complete inner knowledge of what is outside himself; when this is not satisfied the reason to compete, to search for the “complete idea-knowledge-image” is much more intense! War “for a reason” begins…
Added to that, psychologists, have noticed and believe that children react according to the inner state of other people; in other words when the mother is feeling tired or sad the child reacts with bad mood, and so on, while the viscious circle goes on! This is the way for them to show their love!…Amazingly interesting and frustrating too, in some way…
When the person “disconnects” from the other person in the way that satisfies him-her, then he-she is more willing to give, because he-she is in the position of loving the proper way!
Of course more a person knows him-herself, the communication and, understanding of other people’s needs becomes a reality for which they find a reason to interact!
I am convinced that there is a long way to travel for us all to be flexible and, see the half-glass of water instead of empty, full, while also trying not to leave the glass become empty!
All I have expressed to you have become a genuine guiding line into my life, for years already! Maybe, ups and downs come along the way but the ending result becomes the expected one! Receptiveness, forgiving and understanding become one at the end…
Totalitarian mindset as it is known totay is put to death, just because we know or akcnowledge more our needs!
From another perspective totalitarianism might appear as “striving for perfection”. Strive for perfection, is so unbelievably relative, taking into account our limited knowledge of the laws that govern us… Sometimes I get this feeling, while my knowledge gets deeper. To seek perfection, containing a meaningful purpose nurtured by love, needs to be based on a certain state of mind: the “why not, or why yes” state and NOT the “and…So What?” mentality.
The today’s “ability” is based on this kind of discernment, for us to be able to accomplish our life’s dream; to be “perfect” in our doings…
Phebe i love your wisdom. it certainly opened my eyes to so many other aspects of relating with others. would love to hear more from you.
Dear Mehnaz,
My honor to get to know you better…!
I question the search for ultimate truth as a productive life endeavor. Truth evolves, truth differs based on perspective, truth is not the same at micro and macro levels… it seems like trying to grasp water. If we found ‘truth’ would we then be happy or more capable of happiness? Isn’t it more realistic to search for practical solutions to obtain results that are beneficial in our lives as individuals and as a society. One accepts that practical solutions are temporary and require revision, because circumstances change. It seems to me we should search for an adapive process rather than Truth or certainty; a Process that focuses our personal resources on objectives which address our human needs while remaining sensitive and respectful to the welfare of all existence.
Perhaps truth only changes according to our capacity to embrace it. It may also be helpful to suppose that it is we conscious living entities who change in our efforts to realize the truth. Whether we find truth or not, truth´s value is in no way reduced, any more than water´s value for a man dying of thirst. Although, in this material world everything is mutable, this need not exclude a philosophical search for more advanced understanding. Truth, if it offers something superior to our present condition, must be living and able to extend itself unlimitedly. Further, it might even have the ability to reveal itself if it so pleased.
After reading all of the above comments I would like to say this: I am certain that there is no certainty. In that statement I am expressing the paradox of our existence. Peace.
That Certainly makes sense to me.
Michelle writes: Such a relief when you find there are others out there who still belief in an immutable and, at the same time, evolving absolute reality.
David replies: In place of the term “belief” I use “what makes sense to me now.” It may be helpful to look at absolute reality–or Absolute Truth–as that toward which we humans are evolving.
The notion that all perspectives and perceptions are partial, and all the insights and understandings they offer are provisional, need not inhibit the spirit of idealism.
(just look at those of us who elected Obama to office :)) – was that a joke or for real? I certainly don’t like the neocons either but the Dems have made a total mockery out of fiscal prudence and then some “to save the banks”. What BS. This country has gone fascist in their collusion with the banksters and Government Motors etc. against the American people. Dems, Reps, makes no difference which is there on purpose for their amusement and profit and our confusion.
Hi Dave, re: “I certainly don’t like the neocons either but the Dems have made a total mockery out of fiscal prudence and then some “to save the banks”.”
I certainly don’t like that humungous bailout to the devious folks who figured out those mortgage schemes but I hope history will prove that the actions taken by the Obama administration saved from more severe consequences. I understand and even am nervous about how things are going but I still entertain hope that America and the world economy will recoup, survive and go on. What I really hope is that the bill for the gambling debts of those Wall St. gamblers will be assumed by them and not We the Investors in future dealings. Otherwise we’ll be suckered again not having learned anything.
re: the Obama financial overhaul attempts
I like what I’m hearing so far except for that last point about gambling Wall St. fat cats having to pay for their gambling losses and not stick it to Us the Investors! Have you been following what the President’s saying about the financial overhaul? I’m somewhat reassured and think he’s to be trusted in trying to help Main St folks. Keep tuned.
Could it be that a cause of disbelief of certainty is our educated culture where facets of truth are more entertained than formerly? “On the other hand” is prominent in thinking conversations. Fear is also a big part of uncertainty, provoking (over)cautiousness. ??
Dave: I’m nervous too re: the debt we’re incurring and hope that Bernanke having studied the 30s Depression concludes that gov needs to stimulate the economy. The next job is to stimulate the job mkt and there’s a convening at the Wh Hse with labor leaders to discuss that sujbect. Hope you’re doing OK, just hang in and keep the faith!
It seems true that Dems and Republicans all seem to have interest in big money with the prize being campaign funding. If we can get that score settled, our voting system and lobbying probs will hopefully be more of the people than for the vested interests and self-servers.
Frank Luke:
> Fear is also a big part of uncertainty,
> provoking (over)cautiousness. ??
I’d say the opposite. Looking at the mysteries and unknowns at the core of our situation (When you are born, where do you come from? When you die, where do you go? Why are you alive? What are you?) can be initially uncomfortable. To avoid this discomfort, people will grab onto superstitions and dogmas. These provide a false certainty, which allows us to pretend the mystery doesn’t exist.
Example: The fact that you don’t know what happens after death is frightening to consider. So you embrace a dogma that says you’ll go to some heaven above the clouds. You pretend that you’re certain you’ll go there, and this — at least a little, at least temporarily — gives a greater sense of comfort than “don’t know.”
Re: (over)cautiousness… facing uncertainty in no way implies cautiousness. I can act with full effort, full engagement, based on a decision to e.g. try my best to help other beings. Without being certain of what will help, I can still try 100%.
Thus, “certainty” is something added-on unnecessarily. It’s not required for making a big effort. Rather, the effect of feigning certainty is to give ourselves a false comfort, by avoiding and not facing the unknown.
“Certainty” in fact is a hindrance to engaging with each moment. If I face the mystery and unknown, then I’m always open and aware, ready to learn from the fresh experience of each moment. If I think I’m certain, then I’m closed off to new experience and evidence. Certainty makes us think, “Why bother paying open-minded attention to each new situation? After all, there’s nothing I need to learn, since I already KNOW what’s best.”
I wonder if you’d deny that there are varioius reactions to fear and one of them is to become overcautious. This doesn’t negate your comments or my denying mine, only to add to the discussion of how uncertainty can affect people. Over-reacting is often part of the dynamic, no?
> I wonder if you’d deny that there are varioius reactions
> to fear and one of them is to become overcautious.
Sure, there are always two sides to the razors edge (at least!).
That is: we all can see that life is filled with mystery, with the unknown. It’s initally frightening to face the unknown, so some people may react with paralysis, , overcautiousness, over-thinking each action.
One alternative is to make peace with the unknown. I’m scared about whether I’ll make the right decision. But if there’s no way out — if I don’t know whether or not my decision will turn out as I want — then I’m free to move forward, flip a coin if I need to, and then deal with the consequences when they appear.
A different alternative is to avoid and deny the unknown by pretending to be certain. This is what many belief-systems offer. Rather than facing this fear of the unknown, one can pretend (perhaps even to oneself) to know for *certain* the answers to fundamental life questions.
Hi Stu, re: the need for certainty to ward off fear
I’m not sure it’s uncertainty that’s the root of fear but the way it shakes our personal views esp when we see the need to find ways to adjust and change. The more difficult it is to do that, find comfort levels to continue to go on, the more anxiety we may experience.
Does Ken Wilber’a “A Theory of Everything” have any bearing on this discussion? Does Malcom Gladwell’s writing have any bearing on this discussion? I am serious. They seem to be exploring contemporary life, actions, thinking just as we are in this forum. Would like to know where they fit into the discussion.
Re: Wilber and Gladwell
In these times where everything is up for inspection, re-evaluation and thought, I’d say these two among others are seriously attempting to make sense of the plethora of opinions and ideas. They’ve attracted a lot of deserved attn and may lead to more certainty if not thought.
The death of certainty is directly related to modern man’s complete reliance on intellect to separate truth from falsehood. Once you realize how complex the world is, you understand that the puny human intellect can never acheive legitimate certainty about anything. And since the modern mind can no longer distinguish between faith and superstition, that leaves only the human intellect, which inevitably leads to agnosticism.
Jake, I agree that the human intellect alone cannot find ultimate answers, but intellect, combined with experience and intuition and trust, can tell us that spiritual pioneers over the centuries have indeed – and reliably – found the paths of action (i.e., right thinking, right speech, right livelihood, right relationships, trusting in one’s being and the Benevolence of the Creation/Creator) to Love and to Peace and the Joy for which (I believe) we were created. In other words, we can persevere and live with hope; the limitations of personal intellect need not lead to a potentially deadening agnosticism.
Bob,
I think Jake has a point. One can talk about paramitas and quote
from the great thinkers, but basically mankind is still as barbaric and unenlightented as he or she has been since the beginning of time.
Hope may be an escape from what is, which is our daily life of
petty attachment and suffering.
The ending of knowledge may be freedom from the known and the flowering of
insight. A mind empty of hope, illusions, ideals, self deception, denial, attachment etc. is not a dead nihilistic mind but a sensitive and alive
living breathing compassionate embodiment of mankind’s potential.
In the modern “world of spirituality” there are many parrots and monkeys,
who is a light unto himself relying on no one and actually crossing the sea of life and death and ending sorrow?
James, I don’t agree with your statement that “basically mankind is still as barbaric and unenlightented as he or she has been since the beginning of time.” Perhaps not intentionally, you seem to almost be saying that the awakened ones (Buddha, Jesus, many others of lesser degrees of awakening – I assume) have been wasting their time. Am I misunderstanding you? However, I agree with you that we need to allow/accept a change to a higher level of mind – an awakening to our Oneness so that the urge to conflict is relinquished and the awareness of the Divine in all inspires and empowers us. I’ve not been there but I believe it is in us – as Paul (who sometimes shows high insight said, “Let the mind that was in Christ be in you”). I don’t think of that as a strictly “Christian” statement but a pointing to a universal spiritual presence and potential. What you do think here?
Bob Riley:
> you seem to almost be saying that the awakened ones
> (Buddha, Jesus, many others of lesser degrees of awakening
> – I assume) have been wasting their time.
To tie back to the title/topic of this posting (“Certainty”)…
When we talk about Buddha or Jesus, we’re talking about people who died a long time ago, people we never met, people whom we know about through tales passed down 2nd-hand (or 3rd-hand or 4th…). We don’t even know for sure if these people existed! Let alone do we know for sure any claims about their inner life.
As soon as we start putting weight on ideas about Buddha and Jesus etc, we’re in the realm of faith or belief, not certainty. It’s fine to embrace a religious doctrine. But why not keep clear the distinction between belief and certainty? If you lose that distinction, how can you even distinguish reality from fantasy?
Hi Stuart,
I understand some of what you have wrestled with – I have, also. Recently, you responded to my note with this: “As soon as we start putting weight on ideas about Buddha and Jesus etc, we’re in the realm of faith or belief, not certainty.”
I agree. I do think, however, that a religious “awakening” can calm the fears that drive a search for certainty – and can, in fact, release the constructive energy we have for loving unconditionally and whole-heartedly in this world.
Hi, Bob. To calm the fears that drive a search for certainty… we can practice acceptance of not knowing. In other words, if we make peace with uncertainty, we’re no longer driven to deny it. Then our natural energy and compassion can function.
Hello again Bob,
First, your statement at the end of your response, quoting the Apostle Paul:
“Let the mind that was in Christ be in you.”, is one of the great
insights of the truly enlightened essential voice of Christianity
that expresses the real revolutionary challenge of Jesus’ teachings and
Paul’s revelation in regards to them.
This is very important. If one can let that take place, what a different
life and world we can have.
It is fairly obvious that most of organized Christianity has only distorted Christ’s teachings, and like Jesus, those over the centuries who have
taught the realization of this mind in its true revolutionary form and proclaimed that Christ said we can even do greater things have been
proclaimed heretics and like Jesus have even been martyrs. The mind of Christ has been crucified every day and too many have been killed in his Name. But let’s not stray from certainty and the original topic of this discussion,
I mentioned that we are still barbaric, meaning that though we have technologically advanced, we still have genocide and wars taking place all over this planet. We have created both medical marvels and extrordinary means of wiping out all life on the planet many times over.
What I was trying to point out if I could use other reference points might be much clearer to many in this dialogue is the way of life that incorporates the “via negativa”, the pathless, negation, if you like one could refer to vedanta or the dynamic ending of knowledge. Looking at the teachings of Nagarjuna, Krishnamurti or cdertain Zen teachers and some might us the relational rather than conceptual approach of Buber, it would seem the idea that spiritually or psychologically that certainty has mistakenly been undervalued or that the approach which prevailed after the cataclysmic social nightmares and Hell created by the Stalins and Hitlers has been overdone. I don’t think that’s a valide point, although the other point criticized also has its shortcoming, I feel that we have to negate both of those views. A passionate insecurity or uncertaintyt is one that rigorously uncovers the self deception in all our intellectual assumptions and conceptual points of view that are the heart of our “matrix” (to use that word) of self deception, avoidance and sedlf imprisonment. The more we talk abnout it and the more we think about it, as it was said long ago “the farther from it we go”. That is not just a poetic statement about a contemplative mind, that is an expression of truth in daily life of one who lives in the “Way”. Or as Graucho Marx said: “Whatever it is I’m against it”: – a little over broad and he might have needed to remove the :I and replaced it with I-Thou, but still not far from the truth.
What is “truth”, other than that which we are incapable of doubting? Ultimate Truth is necessarily inefffable.
What is…the Matrix?
Perhaps Truth is a person, not an idea.
Can we say that Truth is one thing and Wisdom another? Truth seems graved in stone for all time whereas Wisdom is a collective agreement to accept the information but recogizes the search goes on till further more convincing info is presented and accepted. The search goes on as long as humans are disaffected from their ingrained curiosity and wanting to get to the bottom of Ultimate Knowing. So the search goes on.
I am sorry to say, but I think your analysis, though it may have some validity in
a certain area, for the most part is way out of line.
I consider myself, if I must come up with a description, a pssionately uncertain person, at least that could be what I am, however I’m never really willing to
lock myself into a cement casket of a conclusion and opinion and end up trapped there, so I’ll put it this way.
When we question all the opinions and conclusions foisted on us, and then
keeping in mind the vast self deception that human beings are prone to also
question the authority of our own opinions and concepts and conclusions which keep us in a rut and prevent learning, then do we possibly discover that the truly spiritual, beautiful and insightful life comes not from certainty but from a sense of not knowing anything and the wonderment of the unknown, which may be something thought, ideas and allegiances can never touch. Why, well we must ask if there is something other than this petty little world of time with our internal chattering and it’s comments and beliefs about this and that.
Now thjis can be very tricky and many people might fall into the trap of thinking that the assertion that uncertainty, acceptance of the lack of any kind of security in our universe and the idea that education is to unlearn are just mere conclusions. They are in a sense correct. They can be come them. But we are investigating and not really asserting anything. We are on fire, asking questions and not in anyway desiring to find and answer. Could it be ithe answer is in the question and what does that mean. We ask you please as an individual. This is not an intellectual game./ We are asking does one see the deep significance of this kind of questioning.
Please don’t just jump in with a response, agree or disagree. What I am asking is that you look extremely carefully at the way we are approaching the questions of what is life, learning education, passion and action if there such a thing that is not tainted by concepts and ideas, but fresh and innocent, not muddled by knowledge, conclusions the past and the things of thought. If you do consider this is it possible that there is a sense of passionate insecurity, and what does this mean in our daily life, our day to day paltry existence? I’m not asserting anything, however I am compelled, compassionately to raise for you the question.
Thank you for taking the time to share and listen with me.
James
Passionate insecurity? What an interesting combination of words. I’m not sure I understand what you mean James.
Would you say more about this?
I see that the mind seeks security out of fear. It creates escapes of all kinds
to supress that fear. Seeing that one begtns to observe one’s thoughts and
discovers how fast the network of self-deceotion/ego is.
There is hardly any space from one thought to the rushing in of the next, One
begins to sense that to be really honest with oneself one has to ardently passionately root out the self deception inherent in one’s thoughts. So one never
says I know or this is certainly so. One passionately questons everything, allowing oneself to be insecure with what is rather than seeking some
imaginary what should be that sometime in the future one hopes will change what is and our suffering into the end of sorrow. That future never comes. When we see that we are fear, actively, not as an idea, when we allow ourselves te insecure, uncertain — then what takes place?
maybe truth is a force and not a person
This would make a for a great college course paper. Catchy title with lots of bright sounding filler. However, your treatments of the stated subject relies on the last sentence of an oversimplified quote.
Idealism can exist hand in hand with uncertainty used as a tool that frees us of falling into fixed and static concepts. After all, we really don’t know much of anything with certainty. I am free to speculate to my hearts desire, but I don’t cap it off with a finale of certainty. Our lives, thoughts, actions, emotions, etc. are all the result of our core beliefs. By freeing that core of certainties, we become open systems able to perceive life without bias, inherited opinions and false beliefs.
Sorry, but I think your article is just so much blah, blah, blah however nicely written.
The discussion has strayed far from the original ideas under discussion.
Prof Eagleton is referring to how ‘postmodernism’ in academia promotes scepticism towards ideas of progress in human affairs – the advance from war/exploitation/ superstition towards…..?
That Q-mark is posited by postmodernism. A looming problem is that there are so many groups who apply no Q-marks to their certainties (you know who you are) while progressives self-question themselves into inaction….?
This a problem of political -and broader – culture as expressed through academia,the media, activism and mainstream politics. It strikes me that so much person-centred philosophical / spiritual discussion, whilst well-meaning, is off the mark.
Taking the deep past to heart, we feel evolution again. And perhaps the knowledge that fellow travelled with it and exposed itself before the eyes of Darwin, Einstein, Freud and Bergson. Leftist ethics/guilt from both World Wars should not drive us back into total deconstruction and cultural pessimism/relativism again, no matter how important they feel their correctness is to all of us. The colonization of public opinion is over and so is PoMo. Thank You God!! Amen!! I feel very much inspired by Bergson, who discussed on radio (tapes should still exist) the idea of intuition of duration with Einstein, a mental representation of relativity. Time and space as the two sources of morality and religion, as -spiritual- energy (the intensity or Durée of time) and matter (empirical testing or experientialism). Intuition and reality intertwined as magnetism and electricity or DNA’s double helix. One hundred years passed and all we have to show for is a world of powerplay, misuse of democracy and nepotism? Surely not.
(this was posted for a friend who tried posting here but wasn’t able to, thanks)
i dont know if this makes sense or not .but if could take budda jesus and all the super enlighten ,take there teaching striped of cultural ,religlion, and time era.Try to undo what those who wrote history did to pallute the truth.(that would be a very hard task)we would have wonderful building blocks to move forword.If we could just strip oruselves of ourselves and try to see with a mind that is unpalluted (is that a word) we can do it.if enlighten is our tru passion. you folks are on an amazing journey thanks T
you are correct faith is based on uncertainty. it is good to be kept in check thanks T
Looking at religion and spirituality from a Spiral Dynamics view, there’s a developmental level that craves certainty. This form of mind is attracted to fundamentalist religions because they claim to the “The Truth”. Their adherents claim to be “The Faithful”, but my observation is that exactly the opposite is probably true.
If my “faith”, my inner spiritual conviction, is strong it’s not important that others agree with me. I can move around in a real world of crime, depravity and unbelief and not be impacted, other than to be saddened by their pain. If I have no inner conviction, then I only have “The Law” and I become locked into meaningless rituals my little in-group performs to prove how righteous we are.
If I have no inner faith that I can sustain in the face of disagreement, then I can’t live and let live. The existence of unbelievers chips away at my self-righteous certainty. I’m told I should feel compassion for them, but what I really fear is that they may be right and at any moment they will shatter my well-ordered world.
In a more benign form, look at closed groups like the Amish. They are not jihadists, but wonderfully kind people who feel they must hide away from a corrupting world. There are times, as a parent, I could be easily swayed to their point of view as I see what our TV, music and schools expose our children to. I also have always wondered how much faith they really have if their beliefs can’t survive contact with the real world.
At more mature levels, spirituality becomes internalized and we no longer need rituals, laws or other true believers to maintain our relationship with the One. Hence we see some of the world’s most beautiful poetry coming from a concentration camp. We watch Gandhi and King walk the valley of the shadow of death without fear as a rock on which those with less faith can stand and be sustained. We have no idea if Buddha or Christ were also such men, but given the legends they generated I suspect they were. The Delhi Lama is another such man.
They were examples of the power of conviction and inspiration. They didn’t demand everyone agree with them; they simply set an example of what Certainty really looks like. Can we be any less passionate about being and living the change we want to see in the world? Certainty leads to passion and passion to action. What action? To live our convictions and to help build the capacity in others to be the best selves they can be, always knowing they won’t be us.
Barbara i to have the same inner spiritual conviction and it is wonderful, but hard to explain. i keep the written law not because it is mans law or gods written law ,its more i have great joy in doing what is correct.its not somthing i have to work at the desire is just their unexplainabal (is that a word)i am just thinking maybe if i am at peace with myself, otheres & the world i live in ,just maybe that is not a bad perimeter to live in. here is my question should we let any circumstance shake us from our inner peace. what i really enjoy about this blog is were sharing idea & not a debate.i of little knowedge am able to reap wisdom from the very best thank you T
T wrote…
> here is my question should we let any circumstance shake
> us from our inner peace.
My own view: yes, I should let circumstances shake my inner peace. Say that someone is suffering, and it makes me angry, and I can use the energy of that anger to help the suffering being. Rather than throwing away the anger in order to keep my own inner peace, I’d choose to use the anger to help someone.
Likewise with agitation or worry etc. When given a choice between maintaining my own peaceful mind-state, or trying to help other beings according to the circumstance, I choose to let go of my inner peace.
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
Hello Barbara,
Both of your posts have kept my attention and desire to read them until the end!
“At more mature levels, spirituality becomes internalized and we no longer need rituals, laws or other true believers to maintain our relationship with the One”. I so much agree with your way of seeing spirituality, but allow me to add that until the “moment” comes we need so much each other…! From all the posts I have read (maybe mine included) maybe the most important key word misses; the Word CERTAINTY is maybe nor explicitly contained nor within the realm of Love, nor within Faith but within the sphere of GRACE: … by grace are you saved…not by works, said the apostle Paul. What is only certain is GRACE!!!
In a very simplified way of stating things we could say that Love is dictated by Grace, while seeing by a leap of Faith; I have stated something like “To love is to love Love, as Being is loving being…”
As I am an up to the bone Existentialist, from the philosophical point of view, I believe ( from what you maybe already have undrestood) that Existence precedes essence. What you are (your essence) is the result of your choices (your existence) rather than the reverse. Essence is not destiny. You are what you make yourself to be (Flynn, 2006). Now what existentialism has to do with Grace, which is considered to be a certainty?! By observation and, being a mother of two children brought into life with a method called AUTOGENIC RELAXATION, I have noticed that both me and the women that have used this method, me having followed for years the most healthy way of living while the others just came the very last minute to just apply the methodology, had the same result, in other words, have we had our children without the least of chirigucal intervation…The specific method has been used for 40 years by now and has been observed that around 96% of the women have had perfect deliveries (compare the % without this method, which is 75% of cesareans!!!). Now what is interesting to observe mostly, is that, the only difference between me and the other women of my group, was the duration of delivery. I was the most fast one! We could then say that The “Existence” of a rule or method is valid for everyone and, is contained within the realm of Grace; the “Essence” of each and everyone is or was different… What is amazingly interesting is that the correct use of our mind, as used in this method (which main goal is to break the viscious circle of pain or strain ), allows to women with high myopy also to deliver naturally…., or to make miracles!
I delt in the past with quite a lot of mathematics too, and, know that a problem may be solved with apparently several ways; but there is only one that is the very correct one! Yes?!… In this point maybe I would dare say that the way I used to live by love to my “body” and “mind” helped a lot to the final goal!
To live with the knowledge of this “Amazing Grace” surely gives us the “Certainty that leads to passion and passion to action” this CERTAINTY THAT ALLOWS “MIRACLES” TO HAPPEN!
I could refer to an other example-subject that certifies all the above , but I would not be that long…
Hi Joel,
I always love reading your posts. Sometimes I feel alarmed, I’m not sure if that’s the meant reaction. Always very thought provoking.
Being of a cautious, nervous nature, I would have to say that certainty is just another concept that most of the men you quote, especially Shaw (who kind of copied Wilde in his satires) did not address, not because of historical context necessarily, but because who can say what is Truth with certainty?
Even if we all are certain, what are the odds we are all convinced of the same truths? I find your view of contemporary life kind of grim, without meaning to insult you; I only say this because of the plethora of articles I have read which have been signed by you, and which have always left me feeling uneasy about our time and our culture.
There is always room for improvement, but, as some psychologists have said: it is mankind’s inability to deal with uncertainty which creates most of our neurosis.
Doubt and questioning is healthy: it is what makes us critical thinkers. I embrace uncertainty, and as much fear as it gives, it is far less than when I hear someone who claims to know the Truth. And perhaps history has taught me this lesson, but history’s lessons, I think are worth retaining.
Dear Sanita,
Thanks for your comment. I’m sorry that you find my view of our time somewhat grim! I actually think that the time we’re living in is the best time to be alive in human history. And it is for that reason, that I’m so critical, because there’s so much further to go and there are some very real hurdles that we need to take on in order to move humanity forward.
Relating particularly to the point of my blog post, I’ve found that–like it or not–there is a subtle reticence in the postmodern psyche that, unless objectified, can hold us back from being real vehicles for cultural change and enlightened action. That’s actually what I found so liberating about the quote by Eagleton, because it shines a much needed light on some of the root causes of this general postmodern mood.
Of course, I completely agree with you that if we are all naively stubbornly certain of our beliefs and truths, then it is very difficult indeed to actually come to any kind of common opinion about anything…or to grow in our perspective of the world. But I think we often think we take our open-mindedness too far and never really take a stand or make a strong decision, which leads to a kind of instability and mediocrity.
The kind of certainty I’m interested in might be summed up in a quote from the ecological pioneer and futurist, Stewart Brand, who just came out with a new book, “Whole Earth Discipline.” He says in the book:
“. . . my opinions are strongly stated and loosely held–strongly stated to that clients can get at them to conjure with, loosely held to that facts and the persuasive arguments of others can get at them to change them. My opinion is not important; it’s just a tool. . . Your evolving opinion is what’s important.”
The “loosely held” bit of this equation, seems in my opinion, to have become a bit too dominant in the past half century (among progressive cultural creatives), and our ability to have strong opinions or even strong conviction about life has been compromised. I’m interested in a new, sophisticated blend of the two!
Thanks again for your thoughts.
Joel
Joel,
I read and re-read your post, considering it from different angles because on a gut level it just seemed to me not to ring true at all. I’d love to see truth in what you are saying and find flaws in where I seem to be “coming from” as I am never more delighted than when I’m proven wrong and see a mindset I’ve been caught in has been limiting me and it’s time to discard it. In this case however I’m just now seeing any virtue in what your saying as hard as I’ve tried to empathize.
First of all, I have to question that the term post modernism is not a label for something that may overbroadly group a whole lot of things together in a kind of sweeping generalization.
Secondly, if one accepts that survival in freedom is an intelligent agenda I can never see any place other than in the physiological or technological areas where choice would ever have any justification. If one is confused then there is a choice, if one is clear than one simply acts.
We do what we have to do, there’s never really a choice, that is if we
are to survive and be free. We question choice. Isn’t choiceless awareness not hesitation at all but rather a direct action that is not based on the choices of thoughts and something immediate and wholistic in nature? It’s not some kind of hesitant, weak, namby pamby action but rather a very dynamic and lightning fast response to the challenges life presents us with, right?
I can agree with your observation about some of those who have fallen into the trap of procrastination and inability to act because they have fallen into an intellectualize of things. But isn’t that because they understrand conceptually but not actually? Perhaps those are the ones who don’t assiduously or rigorously enough question every single thought that takes place in a mind of literally billions of thoughts. Not that it’s a matter of some kind of super human feat to be aware, but it may require a very deep sense of urgency and serious questioning that almost all of us fall short of to one degree or another.
Someone in this conversation mentioned Narcisssism and authority and we can see that the authority of others produces an overlay, an artificial self that can often be grandiose but look very pious as the grandiosity is a larger more religious projection of the self that although it might replace the little mind of the ego, is actually perhaps a projection in a larger form of the same thing..
So we ask, why have a self at all, other than to have medical records and pay ones taxes, access one’s bank account etc? Why have any opinions or thoughts about anything at all when they aren’t needed to deal with some relativistic relational aspect of what is required of us professionally or in some aspect of relationship with the things of the physical realm? Other than that, because we don’t want to walk in front of a bus, or step into a fire, why think or label anything at all. Why bother to continue the noise of chatter with its thread of continuity to our relative reality, the silly little problems and things of our daily routine existence? Why identify with any philosophy, religion or idea at all. Why not have a mind uncluttered by images? Maybe that’s not overboard but rather what happens if we go the last mile in a job of unmasking the totality of what we think we are.
mankind does not learn from history ,we keep repeating history but only on a larger scale. history will only teach you how those who wrote it want you to perceive what they would like to be true .that said it is still all we have to go by and that is ok.but never stop seeking deeper untill you are satisfied in your heart.as time goes by you might even question that, thats ok just take what you thought you understood to the next level. T
Just now came from a discussion of Narcissism( an epidemic?) and the
question of authority and certainty came up(of course). Anyone there who wants to shed light on this connection that would help?
If I can bud in just to answer, Bruce, I think there is a simple and logical connection: it seems to me the true criticism here lies with our Individualistic (western) culture. And it is being attacked form many angles, including, the narcissistic (epidemic), authority, and lack of certainty.
I think it’s important to critique our systems, because as with all systems there are shortcomings and room for improvement… but I must say, it is thanks to individualism that we are free to look for our own path, for our own religion, our own sexuality, freedome of speech and thought.
Narcissists are certain it’s all about them. Authority figures can become abusive when they don’t question their “rightness” they simply act out of it.
Authority and arrogance is a bad combo. Narcissism and arrogance is a bad combo, mostly because arrogance doesn’t take corrective feedback well.
Community life where there is a common value for the skill set of being responsible for your own feelings can be an antidote to arrogance. When people continue to look deeper than the obvious when they react to criticism, the veil of arrogance can be pierced. People are rarely upset for the reason they think.
If we are affected when someone questions our “rightness” we have a growth opportunity.
“An insult is a boon to a sage.” Lau Tzu
Correction to post:
Unobserved certainty can lead to arrogance. Arrogance doesn’t feel arrogant, it simply feels right.
Narcissists are certain it’s all about them. Authority figures can become abusive when they don’t question their “rightness” they simply act out of it.
Authority and arrogance is a bad combo. Narcissism and arrogance is a bad combo, mostly because arrogance doesn’t take corrective feedback well.
Community life where there is a common value for the skill set of being responsible for your own feelings can be an antidote to arrogance. When people continue to look deeper than the obvious when they react to criticism, the veil of arrogance can be pierced. People are rarely upset for the reason they think.
If we are affected when someone questions our “rightness” we have a growth opportunity.
“An insult is a boon to a sage.” Lau Tzu
So what have I learned from all this? Well I’ve questioned if I’m attached to
‘the state of no certainty’ and maybe i’ve been conditioned by the post modernism attitudes.
There may be a time to be certain. I think what I do in those situations however is not to be CERTAIN, but rather I make a probability assessment of things and go by that. I actually come up with a percentage i.e. “Well there may be a 87 percent probability that such and such is the case. I don’t go into decimals however such as 87.23 percent except when i’m joking around. In the hospital the doctor asked me on a scale of one to ten would you please rate how much pain are you in? I told him 6.723.
Hahaha, yes, thank you for the humour! I love it, and honestly, there’s nothing like it. EnlightenNext should do an issue on this topic.
Sanita!
You have showed me that there are things of which I can be certain!
Wow! From our previous exchange in this site’s thread on Narcissism,
I can now say I am certain that Canadians can have a sense of humor!
Thanks,
James
certainty is certain : if i jump out of a airplane with a parachute under normal circumstances i will land on earth open to any other option thanks t
t wrote…
> if i jump out of a airplane with a parachute under normal
> circumstances i will land on earth open to any other option
From my own experience, I know this is far from certain. I’ve jumped out of airplanes a few times, with and without parachutes, and more often than not, I woke up safe in bed before hitting the ground. This happened under perfectly normal circumstances.
It’s hardly trivial. We frequently don’t even know if our own senses are deceiving us. It may be comforting to believe that the world we perceive is what we think it is… but even at the most fundamental level, we can’t be certain.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
Regarding the quote:
“if i jump out of a airplane with a parachute under normal
> circumstances i will land on earth open to any other option”,
Stuart seems to be correct and makes a very good observation. The person, I think it was ‘T’. he quoted, is right in one area.
The way I look at it is that physically, technologically, things are
fairly certain, jumping out of a plane, exposing the organism to radiation, sticking ones hand in a fire all are dangerous things. Gravity is real, as is electricity, atomic energy, the laws of
physics (if a bus is coming at you, get out of the way), etc.
However, psychologically there may be nothing certain at all.
The problem comes when we carry the certainty of the material, physical
etc. over into the area of the psychological or spiritual and hope there is that same type of certainty there.
Because the person is not important but the truth of what we are inquiring into, I cringe at the thought of referencing the physicist Dr. David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti in their dialogues, however for the sake of those who may not have seen, read or hear of these two men, I do so here in that this is their approach as well and I would recommend them highly if one is not familiar with either of them.
The certain knowledge is often tenuous even in the physical. It has not been observed for me yet in the psychological area, at least i haven’t found it to be so yet, though it’s possible one could be wrong.
James
stuart take a hammer lay your hand on a anvil an let the hammer free fall on your hand , at that moment you will understand certainty. i just think we are making certainty more difficult than what it really is . some how we must take this to a different level or just come back at a later time and pursue certainty. are we living different lives within our lives that is the only way if makes sense. T
t wrote…
> stuart take a hammer lay your hand on a anvil an let the
> hammer free fall on your hand , at that moment you will
> understand certainty.
t: when you write about hitting your hand with a hammer, are you speaking from experience? Or are you just using your imagination? The actual experience is very, very different from imagination.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that you’ve hit your hand with a hammer, and at that very moment you had an idea of “certainty” in your head? It’s very very hard for me to believe that at such a moment, you’d have any thoughts except “Yeowww!!!”
Hi,
Interesting, I`ll quote it on my site later.
Thanks
Garretot
Don’t know why I keep coming back to this old post. Postmodernism, maybe? A post post on Postmodernism post. Thank you Joel for starting this great thread of thought and speculation on certainty. Some great “blah blah blah” (who is that guy?…nice, dude).
To me it’s all about passion. The people who have certainty seem to be more passionate. I’ve come to the sad conclusion that it’s better to be wrong and certain than it is to be right and wishy-washy. Maybe it’s just an excuse, but all my life I’ve been searching for certainty, and the more I search the less certain I become. And the less powerful, as well.
The best times of my life, as far as taking effective action goes, have been when I’ve been the deluded member of a cult. It was amazing how passionate and energetic I was when I knew The Answer. When it turned out I was just a dupe, man I got mopey and ineffective in a jiffy.
As “t” noted, there’s plenty of certainty to be had, in material things and facts, such as gravity, etc. The crux, to me, is in meaning. I want to be certain about meaning. What does this mean?
I’m with Ruth Simms, I want to say yes with enthusiasm, rather than say no and be cool and detached (and get all the chicks). How can one say yes to maybe and still be excited? From what some people have said in the thread, they’ve been able to do that, but I ain’t got the knack.
May have to blog on this one.
Yours in uninspired conviction,
Tom
lets tie emotions into the equation. if we dont suppress emotions they can play a very important part of our makeup , emotions are constantly trying to work thru us but we put a lid on emotions ( choice ) an never experience what was meant to be experienced. you cant see emotion, you cant touch emotion,you cant measure emotion . but who would deny emotions exist? at this point of my thinking i want to turn to spiritual an maybe put spiritual on the same level as emotions not sure i can do this but here is my thought, at some point in in our evolution process over time we became aware of a higher being and finally reached a point wherever you go on earth people believe in somthing more than what we are , even in area where government surpress believing in a higher being people believe . its like part of our make up and just like emtions yes we can put a lid on it ,but that does not mean it does not exist. the best you can do if you have a desire to move in this direction keep moving forward . trying to explain spirituality away would be like trying to explain phyic away follow your heart and conscience and leave no door unopen as long as there is light on the othere side . did not mean to go in this direction but with my limited knowedge its the best i can do. T
So what are you saying, that there is a linear relationship between certainty and happiness (or whatever enthusiasm means in your case)? And that somene who is uncertain gets all the chicks? I don’t understand.
Well, there appears to be in my case. When uncertain I am ill at ease and doubtful, when certain I am composed and assured. That’s just me. It may be that others find more enjoyment in uncertainty than I do. Wish I liked it too.
And the chicks ref was referring to a statement earlier in the thread about high school. I was just riffing on high school stuff, meant to be a joke, how all the cool and detached guys tend to be luckier in love. They may be uncertain, but if so they hide it well. Or it may be that the pose of coolness is not a pose, and they really don’t care.
I was thinking about Dr. Victor Frankl’s book Man’s Search for Meaning.
You probably are familiar with it?
Then I read your very interesting post and found further impetus to
once more explore this whole area not so I could be clear or certain about the more detailed nuances, but rather to look closely and see if I can’t catch myself in another manufactured certainty that I didn’t notice I was doing.
In other words, if i’m certain of anything it is that I am a prisoner in the prison of my own making and my whole life has been deeply entrenched in doing mostly one thing – unwittingly deceiving myself.
Once I caught on, that this activity was not only destructive, but also very subtle and deeply rooted in the very nature of my thought, my conditioning, and everything about who I think I am or would like to think I might become — that is when the really meaningful journey beings. I see how much meaning I’ve manufactured and then hoodwinked my self with in order to feel “good” in order to mask fear and in order to create the feeling that there is, somewhere in the future, or perhaps even now something called hope.
I’ll do so many things not to face honestly the hopelessness of the self image I’d like to maintain so that my ego doesn’t come to terms with it’s basic nature, that it’s a self image manufactured to insulate myself from suffering, pain and the fear of losing what I’m attached to, pleasures, the continuity of events, emotions and meaning which thought uses like paint to fill in the paint by numbers canvas of my life, giving it color and a seeming depth.
Now looking at working with all that, which is what I am, and which is usually outfoxing me at every turn, lightning fast in its responses and requiring great energy and urgency plus seriousness and a lot of attention, which is really for me the extremely interesting and fiercely meaningful exploration. I’m even see that my concern with all this to be self honesty is another trick. I become fascinated by the elegance at which the mind’s conditioning is able to escape being exposed and at the lengths it will go to to maintain its self deception.
I’m reminded of the books I read where the poor apprentices of the
Yaqui Don Juan, like Carlos Castaneda, Taisha Abelar and Florinda Donner-Grau would go through one embarrasing episode after another, where they’d be stripped of their assumptions, made to feel like a total idiot and learn to laugh at their sense of self importance, melodrama and adherence to comfortable routines.
In that literature, we see an agonizing process of being stripped of
every spec of mental laziness, self preoccupation, habitual perceptual poses and facades to the point often where the practitioners of their “warriors way of impeccability, recapitulation and the art of dreaming often finding themselves not in a romantic journey of enlightenment but rather being reduced to tears at the realization that they had seen enough to understand that they were in a self made trap and that they might possibly move their assemblage point, but it would demand everything they had and it would require them to be stripped of every illusion, evasion and routine which made them comfortable.
That’s not a dramatic thing. It’s a calm, deliberate, meticulous and very careful investigation into ones laziness, stubbornness and immaturity. In the gargantuan requirements of that task, one finds a meaning beyond anything one can think of and one also senses a whiff of a kind of honesty that one can’t know or categorize, and in which there is seemingly endless possibilities and endless beauty.
James: while what a statement ,i must ponder & digest all that you expressed for a few days. my first responds is , i felt so empty inside , i am reaching clawing, searching for truth meaning . but all is vanity . but i know there is much more. T
Hi, T. Why do you think all is vanity? Everything you do has an effect. If you act with compassion in this moment, it will create happiness. The effects of such action ripple out, in ways that you may never even see.
Greetings T,
Emotions are a major part of who and what we are.
We eventually realize that part of the problem is our Ego. As Tom said, “It always comes back to the Ego”.
We see however that it’s a trap to think we need to get rid of the ego. To lose our Ego is like dying, because that is us. So we resist it. Getting rid of the Ego would still be an action of the Ego. It’s the attachment to our Ego that we have to lose.
Likewise we are our emotions, and we don’t repress them. It the attachment to them that is the issue. We have an emotion and then we either condemn it as bad or justify it as having a just reason to exist. Do we see that it is thought that gives continuity to our emotions and our Ego?
So we see the need for complete objectivity.
What is that objectivity that’s total? Like a scientist, we have to look without any opinion. We sweep aside our conclusions. Doing so totally means we don’t know anything so we don’t label stuff as good, bad, even call them emotions, etc. Being totally objective we look at the emotions without our conditioned mind or thought. Totally objective means we have lost our ego and accumulated past knowledge. That’s looking from a place that isn’t certainty but rather as some call it beginner’s mind or don’t know mind.
When we look with fresh eyes we are no longer being subjective at all so there’s no ‘self’, We see that the attachment to emotions and their continuity created by thought that is the issue.
We feel the emotion completely, not holding on to it or repressing it, We feel afraid or empty; we let that feeling come and go and don’t label it, we feel it completely and it no longer is a problem and we are out of our habitual mind set, it’s — finished. Then we aren’t stuck in subjective viewpoints. It’s all those subjective viewpoints and prejudices of our thinking and intellectual accumulation of ‘stuff’ that are the ‘vanity and vexation of spirit’ which King Solomon refers to in your quote from Ecclesiastes. I hope this helps.
JL
Thank you James. I’m tempted to call you Dr. Love, because of the perceptiveness, wisdom, and compassion in your response. Yes I’m familiar with Frankl’s book, along with ten bajillion other books, sigh. Too bad knowing isn’t doing.
Funny how so many discussions of this type come down to the ego. Thing about the ego, though, is that you have to have one. Isn’t that true? The formative personality of a child needs to develop an ego in order to become a separate person in the world?
My understanding is that it’s important to build a strong ego in youth, so that later on you have the strength to tear it down. Ego is good, at least for a while. Is certainty an ego defense?
“What is it in you that brings you to a spiritual teacher in the first place? It’s not the spirit in you, since that is already enlightened, and has no need to seek. No, it is the ego in you that brings you to a teacher.”
~ Ken Wilber
Honesty is not enough. Courage is the key, courage to continue without certainty, courage that “would require them to be stripped of every illusion, evasion and routine which made them comfortable.” Gargantuan requirements indeed.
Hello again Tom,
Please forgive me if I lapse into wordiness, but these are subtle topics and i’m trying to be as linguistically accurate given the restraints of this
format. In response to your post you said “Thing about the ego, though, is that you have to have one. Isn’t that true?”
Do we? We need to have a self, a reference point to function, so that we can earn a living, avoid placing ourselves in physical danger etc.”
Other than that I really question the idea in some professional circles of pyschiatry that we need to have an ego
You asked: “The formative personality of a child needs to develop an ego in order to become a separate person in the world?
My understanding is that it’s important to build a strong ego in youth, so that later on you have the strength to tear it down. Ego is good, at least
for a while.”
There are two viewpoints out there in the scientific community that I have seriously questioned for some time. One is that people require
dreaming or REM sleep. I won’t go into that here, The other is that one needs to have an ego as part of child development, I don’t see why one
needs to have an ego. Why develop an ego in order to get the strength to tear it down later? It’s like saying one needs the Berlin wall in order to
have the experience of tearing it down later. Why go through that instead of simply not building the wall (which requires right education)?
Out of respect to Joel and the topic of this forum I’ll get back to your question, “is certainty an ego defense?”. Perhaps certainty is a sense of
security which is a delusion. The ego may defend this delusion because it is fearful of losing that security, because that’s all it knows, That’s its
very structure. That movement to expand or improve the self, to be secure and feel safe, saved, enlightened and all the rest of it may be the very
structure of what we actually are,
I only know the known, One can’t know the unknown, right? So I take refuge in certainty (which includes opinions, ideology, dogmas) because I’m
attached to pleasure, stability, the idea of safety and security. Psychologically there may be no such thing. One tries to be courageous, to develop courage yet all the while one is afraid, consciously and unconsciously. Seeing I’m afraid. I react to this fear and do numerous things to get rid of it. I don’t see that “I” who want get rid of fear am not separate from the fear. I think I must have courage. I don’t see that fear is me. The thinker is the thought.
Looking at it in terms of mental chatter, noise, silence and listening, I want a silent mind because mental chatter leads to all sorts of chaos in my
life. So I do yoga, meditate, stand on my head, take drugs, chant mantras, hyperventilate, do all sorts of tricks to quiet the mind but
that’s futile, just more noise.
Perhaps courage isn’t needed but rather fearlessness. I mean the absence of fear, which is different from courage. Courage we think we must
cultivate in order to better ourselves. Fearlessness exists when we don’t try to get rid of fear or resist it. One IS fear and out of insight into
that, in the active present, it ends naturally, not by effort. Ending fear, may allow something new to happen, which we don’t know anything about.
We want certainty because we are afraid of the unknown, afraid of losing the known, etc. We cling to the idea of security because that IS us (i.e. we fear death).
I don’t see honest as the key, Courage might not be the key. Maybe there’s no key at all. We want a key, a formula, a specific map to take us from
here to there. The ‘honesty’ I referred to is understanding ourselves, our lies, our delusions, and in doing so seeing clearly the nature of ego/attachment. We don’t start with assumptions, but instead begin with uncertainty and that makes possible something else which may be complete certainty. That really can’t be described and we have no image about or knowledge of it at all. The ego is an image of ourselves, one that we are conditioned by society to protect at all costs. We are conditioned to have an image of everything
and it is through those images which distort perception, we view ourselves and the world. We are attached to these images which causes
conflict and suffering. The task of unraveling all that may seem ‘gargantuan’ however that word is also a label, right?
So one asks if there be simple awareness without censorship, justification or labeling. We know the deceptive nature of the ego, so we’re not
trying to get rid of it but simply be aware of it and of our reactions to it. We see any reaction as another form of the internal dialogue or chatter
rearing its lovely head again.
In that respect,, we do, in a way, learn to love our ego, still it has a relatively small place in our lives. We see it is foolish to want to get rid of the
ego. We find ourselves unwittingly passionately involved in the whole dance with the our conditioned mind. We listen to it more carefully and we
hear the delightful music of our confusion, reactions, etc.
If we abandon the noise, then in that space surprises can happen. It is possible a silent mind may dawn, That’s not special but just being awake in
ordinary life. As your quote from Ken Wilbur said the spirit is already enlightened and there is no need to seek. We don’t attain anything. One’s
true nature reveals itself.
If I look objectively at myself, I see I’m dishonest, afraid, attached etc. That’s not ‘THE key’ but rather seeing those things are futile one simply
drops them. Because that ends, something else can take place. It doesn’t require conviction or dedication and we don’t run from boredom. Yes
there’s no idealist agenda that commits us to certainty and decisive action. We no longer function from that place. Some call that egoless action
or ‘non-doing’. I hope this gives you a better sense of the kind of philosophy and rational escapes that I have invented/contrived to live by, LOL!
Sincerely,
Dr. Love? I went through grade and high school with that. :)
What I want to know is: How can a weak person be strong? My experience would say when he or she is inspired. The few occasions in my life when I was strong were those rare and precious times when I felt certain. I was inspired by The Truth and became strong enough to decide something and actually do it. Wow, a miracle.
Or else inspiration comes by grace, and one works madly for hour after hour on an artistic project, though not sure strength in this case could be defined by doing what you love on the wings of inspiration. That kind of grace is never chosen, but comes down on one like rain, from who knows where, and it only lasts as long as the clouds. Doing what you dislike is more difficult and impressive to me, like meditating, eating right, serving others, treating the body like a temple and not an ash can, etc….or revision, blech.
You can also be inspired by fear, but in my case that inspiration only lasts as long as the adrenalin.
“Ego” and “certainty” are only symbols, after all, standing for things that are infinite in their subtle variations. Hammeranvilcertainty is one kind, but a small one. A strong ego has a better chance of success at a spiritual life than a weak one, in my opinion, because the weak one must defend itself insanely, to the death, while the strong one has the strength to persevere in the difficult task of getting rid of (or redefining) itself.
Wish I knew how to simply drop stuff, James. “Let go” sounds so easy, just open the fist and voila, *whatever* drops out. I need a titanium pickaxe to let go of my goodies, and an experienced soul miner with cosmic biceps to chip away for me.
What this all reminds me of is the interviewer who asked Carl Jung if he believed in God. Jung said, “I don’t believe, I know.”
That’s the kind of power I’m looking for in certainty, not the certainty of belief but the certainty of knowing, and I don’t really think that comes from trying. Does it? In a state of grace one has no need of belief or even certainty, because one lives in the knowing.
Werefore, O Certainty!
Tom,
I thank you for that quote. I didn’t know it came from Jung. I’ve often said that, in response to fundamentalists. “I don’t believe in God, I know.” adding – one doesn’t believe the sky is blue, right? It is blue.
Still – He who knows, does not know. He who does not know, knows.
There are many references from Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, where the old gnarled tree that is useless isn’t cut down. That which is weak and yielding like water is what is most strong. The useless things, the emptiness in the bowl, etc are what make things useful.
In Western terms we say:
When I am weak, He is strong.
Of myself I can do nothing.
How can we tell a paper bird
Is stronger than a hawk
When it has no metal for talons?
It needs no power to kill
Because it is not hungry.
Wilder and wiser than eagles
It ranges round the world
Without enemies
And free of cravings.
The child’s hand
Folding these wings
Wins no wars and ends them all.
Thoughts of a child’s heart
Without care, without weapons!
So the child’s eye
Gives life to what it loves
Kind as the innocent sun
And lovelier than all dragons!
Thomas Merton
Hope this helps,
James
A note on fear, since any real conversation about human nature cannot exclude our instincts- human beings cannot, no matter how much they intellectualise the subject- claim exclusion to animal instincts.
Fear is an important ingredient in our chemical make-up. All animals have an innate fight or flight instinct when they perceive danger. Our brain has the ability to assess danger, and therefore, if the perceived danger is analyzed and deemed as non threatening, fear can subside.
In some people, this reflex is not regulated properly. They may develop phobias. This is a serious matter, as 30% of women in the Western world experience fear at an elevated level, compared to some 20% of men.
Proof that fear is not only instinct but also conditioning? Probably.
I have a fear of certainty. My fear, which I have developed over time, and with some critical thinking is that certainty may be misleading.
Which is why I think, but I am not certain, that imagination is key. After all, Einstein said the key to knowledge was not knowing, but imagining.
Cheers.
Isn’t one of the points in Spiral Dynamics that what we “know” evolves over time? It seems predictable that as we evolve personally and culturally there will be an ebb and flow of certainty. It will come and go, to come again.
Learning to deal with it from the heart of wisdom, seems like a pretty important life skill to me.
Layne
Blog http://paulandlayne.com/blog/
Short video about my spiritual awakening
http://paulandlayne.com/before-the-beginning-laynes-story/#more-1803
Layne, my own experience suggests that as you say, what we “know” evolves over time (and seeing changes seems to take forever). I wonder about “certainty.” Other than that which may come from a spiritual awakening (and even then, perhaps only a while), I’d think “peace” would rank higher on the desirability scale. A sense of “peace” in spite of all the chaos and pain within oneself, and I’d think in the presence of others – something that would effect positive changes in them. Can you imagine anything more marvelous.
Layne wrote…
> Isn’t one of the points in Spiral Dynamics that what we “know”
> evolves over time?
If we were discussing how many fingers there are on a human hand, it wouldn’t make much sense to go to Google for an answer. Anyone can just look at their hand and count for themselves.
So if we want to explore what we “know,” why go to “Spiral Dynamics”? Why not just examine our own experience?
Zen for the doing-challenged: Watch TV, take naps.
Fondness for weakness remains with the strong.
Thanks for that beautiful poem, James.
Chop wood, carry water!
Tom,
You’re welcome. You have given us the last word. Your speech is
complete and you have showed us the truth of the matter.
Your chop wood and carry water mind transcends all the certain
and the uncertain.
With that said and done with the utmost respect, I salute you!
Thank You,
James
Stewart,
You wrote:
So if we want to explore what we “know,” why go to “Spiral Dynamics”? Why not just examine our own experience?
***
I think the answer to your question would be that there can be a big gap between subjective truth and objective truth.
Are you suggesting that there is a verifiable objective truth regarding the notion that postmodernism is suffering from a fear of idealism and is loath to be certain of anything?
Are you suggesting that all we need do is tune into our own experience to clarify the truth of it?
In Joel’s original post he quoted Terry Eagleton, “It is nervous of people who sound passionately committed to what they say.” My experience tells me there are some who sound passionately committed to what they say and others who don’t.
My reference to Spiral Dynamics is mentioned because in my personal experience it has offered distinctions that have helped me sort out some of my own opinions about some very complex social issues.
I think for anyone to reference their own experience, “always and only” makes the evolutionary path harder, slower and less effective.
I have been enriched countless times by considering others’ take on things. We don’t evolve in a vacuum. I think we evolve on a path with kindred spirits, exchanging ideas and opinions as we go.
happy trails…
Stuart:
> So if we want to explore what we “know,” why go to “Spiral
> Dynamics”? Why not just examine our own experience?
Layne:
> I think the answer to your question would be that there can
> be a big gap between subjective truth and objective truth.
Holding ideas about “subject” being distinct from “object”… has powerful consequences. The thoughts that make this distinction warrant serious examination.
hate to change subject ,i had to step out of the picture for awhile & ponder on consciousness & ego .i understand what a life of ego consist of , now someone explain to me what a life of total consciousness would be like how would my priority in life change,what would my heart yearn for. t
You might yearn for something beyond words and descriptions, something much deeper.
Re: certainty and being wise
It’s great to be humble in knowing but not so open-minded to resemble a sieve. Was it Plato who asserted that the truly wise realize that they don’t know and the more they know, the more they find more questions arise.
I think we can differentiate between those who have made a concentrated effort to inform themselves of that which they speak, not before, and those who are spouting off what are simply opinions based more on emotion than on qualified investigation and thinking on it.
One of the great problems of spirituality is that it uses words with different meanings from that of ordinary life, words that we are used to understanding one way, whereas the deeper spiritual traditions use them in another. And this often produces a great confusion in many people trying to begin their own spiritual journey, and trying to understand some of that wisdom themselves. And while this post touches on many important issues, at the same
time I think it reflects a lack of understanding, or at least a lack of appreciation of some of these differences. I would like to attempt to clarify some of them, insofar as I am able, even at the risk of repeating some of what was said in the post.
Truth to the ancient seers, especially in India, was not an idea. It was their way of expressing their contact with a Supreme consciousness, a form of all-knowing omniscience of which the normal human mind is outwardly unaware, and only has subliminal or indirect influences. By its nature it could not be expressed or described in any terms knowable to the human mind. What they said, their teachings, were translations, limited aspects of that omniscience reduced to ideas, images, forms with some connection to human experience. And these, they understood, were always limited, merely secondary expressions of a knowledge which cannot be expressed. They were a concession to the limitations of human consciousness.
But much of humanity doesn’t understand that. It takes these limited expressions of the Truth as the thing itself. And that is the understanding most of humanity has of truth, that it is some set of ideas, some principles, some ideal, some morality, some other more or less fixed set of concepts which it can grasp. And that is a difference that many great Western minds have struggled with, have poorly or not at all understood. It is also a difference that has been lost to many of the subsequent followers of these traditions, resulting in the abundance of schools and sects expounding fragmented and divisive views, often in the name of the same tradition.
Likewise the meaning of certainty, passion and conviction, the manner in which one responds to and expresses truth, depends upon which truth. The normal human meaning of the words is that of the certainty, passion and conviction of a particular truth, of a particular set of ideas, a particular view of things, the meaning which has created such chaos in the world. It constantly produces strife among individuals and groups because each has his own limited truth, frequently conflicting with that of others.
And it is also the reason the passion and enthusiasm for the ideals of the 19th century were crushed by the great wars of the last century. Those ideals were limited truths, partial truths which needed to be surpassed in order for humanity to move forward. Without this larger understanding of truth, any passion and enthusiasm, any certainty, is merely for another limited ideal, another particular view of things, perhaps wider, grander, more appealing in some ways, but still another partial truth. It will ultimately face the same fate as all of the other partial truths of the world, to be pushed aside, lost in the conflict with other partial truths, or to become dominant over the others, only ultimately to suffer the consequences of its own limitations, its inability to express a yet higher truth.
The certainty of contact with the Supreme consciousness, the Truth as the ancient Vedic seers understood the word, is completely different from that of the mind’s conviction, the certainty of much of the world. It is the certainty of the Truth experiencing Truth. It is the certainty of the Supreme consciousness within us experiencing itself. And that is a certainty which has no other equivalent; it has a solidity unlike any other belief, independent of any external circumstances or support, a calmness the opposite of the intense fanaticism and dogmatic assertiveness so typical of religious or political creeds, or the qualified hesitancy of scientific knowledge, aware of its own limitations.
And the passion and conviction it generates are also completely different. They are not the bubbly enthusiasm, or the narrow intensity of some fixed belief, or the external expression of some personal need to save the world or impose some system of ideals upon others. Rather they are the calm and wide expression of a Supreme consciousness knowing itself.
The danger of the current re-awakening of the ancient spiritual knowledge, the emergence of an open need to experience and express some contact with this Supreme consciousness, is that in our initial enthusiasm, our early awareness of it, we grasp on the wrong meaning of truth. We merely repeat the same old error of asserting some new, or seemingly new, set of ideas, rather than understanding and developing within ourselves the capacity to express the real Truth as a dynamic, living reality.
And the danger also in our attempt to reach out, to grasp and encourage others in their own re-awakening to higher knowledge is to blind ourselves, to ignore this same error in them, to put on the same level attempts to follow some limited truth: to save the environment, to save the poor, to end tyranny, to right the wrongs of the world as we see them as humans.
While those limited ideals may be necessary for others’ development, even necessary for the great play of world forces, we cannot allow them to divert or dilute our own efforts to find and express the real Truth, the truth which can only be found within ourselves.
It’s not very enlightened to delete the thoughts of others to rationalize your own; hence, your credibility as enlightened is clearly false and corrupt. Comply with our version of truth or we will delete and pervert truth to suit our own version of meanings. How rewarding deception must be to control the thoughts and feelings of others.
This site and its founders are nothing more than capitalist exploiters of gains to manufacture their own truths, equating to murder and theft, like all beliefs do.
Democracy is a part of unnatural freedom; trading hypocrisy in tyranny as theft, if your values are tyranny and theft you’re just another corrupting being.
Peace and equality were as natural in all beginning as they will ultimately equate to in all ends…transition is a right not a labor.
Interesting reflections here. I’m fully in accord with you on the need to get unstuck from contemporary cynicism. At the same time for me becoming all that we can be/become (Tikkun in the Kabbalistic tradition) comes with a new old synthesis of the mythic and the evolutionary. The Kabbalistic Tree of Life (whose generic reality is reflected in the chakra system and modern body mind theory)reflects how we can be a vehicle for actualizing Eheyeh asher Eheyeh being becoming what we can be/ what you call “bringing heaven on earth” or l’taken olam b’malchut Shadai/to actualize the world through the realm of the One Who is the Source of life and life possibility; at the same time it reveals places we get blocked from this, and where we need to bring light and healing. This is quite different from the positivistic less mindful evolutionary understanding of the late 19th century. Thus my take on the need for a new old synthesis of the mythic and the evolutionary, all grounded in the praxis of our esoteric/experiential emerging reality.
Hello, Rabbi!
I wonder what your thoughts are concerning what I see as a dilemma re: certainty and faith.
1) If one has formulated postitions on truth that seem so convincing that change and reformulation seems unnecessary, is this hubristic or not?
2) If open to tweaking our convictions, is this positive or not?
I’d be interested to hear your views.
Aloha,