Help
Sign In
buddhism
November 2009 
Enactivism, Integral Theory, and 21st Century Spirituality
Posted on Aug 15th, 2008
by 
buddhacious
buddhacious
I first want to thank everyone for participating in this symposium. The intersection of integral spirituality and enactive cognitive science is, for whatever reason, one of my passions, and I couldn’t be more excited about this opportunity to engage others about these ways of thinking and living.
I’m going to begin this essay by breaking down the topics of enactivism and integralism (specifically Ken Wilber’s integralism) as they relate to one another. I’ll do so in two separate sections, the first on the biology of cognition and communication as described within the enactive paradigm, and the second on biology and enactivism as perceived and appropriated by Wilber. I hope to highlight a few areas of agreement, as well as disagreement, and to lay down what I think the most promising path of synthesis might be. If you are not too keen on abstract philosophical discourse, please bear with me, as these sections may qualify as exactly that (feel free to skip to part 3 if you must!).
The last section will be more concrete and, hopefully, poetically evocative. It will focus on what an embodied and integral spirituality might look like, contrasting it with the unfortunate developments in the contemporary New Age community. Popular but shallow spiritual salesmen (and women) have developed clever marketing campaigns geared toward convincing people that they can “create their own reality.” While this idea is not entirely false in some contexts, it is grossly misleading and requires quite a bit of unpacking before it begins to bear any resemblance to reality. With the help of some of Varela’s ideas, I hope to offer a vision of the potential of being human in the creative cosmos we all call home.
Part 1: Enactivism and the Biology of Cognition
1-A: Co-gnosis, or “Knowing-with”
If one had to distill the central tenet of enactivism, as developed by Humberto Maturana and the late Francisco Varela, it would be that “everything said is said by an observer” (Maturana, 1988, p. 27). An observer is any language-using being, specifically a human being. We human beings use language to describe the world we inhabit with others. Typically, we describe without explicitly referencing ourselves as observers. Enactivism (I'll use this term even though it is Varela's; Maturana, though not directly associated with it, would probably not be opposed to the label) suggests that self-referentiality is always implied, as to speak a language with others is to bring forth a world of shared significance whose relation to an independent reality outside the one we constitute with and for each other is irrelevant.
This holds true for all modes of language, whether colloquial or scientific. When molecular biologists investigate the structure of cellular organelles, they come to know what they see through their microscopes by agreeing upon appropriate linguistic abstractions and relations between abstractions. These abstractions designate the important features of reality as distinguished by those with the skills and training required to do so. Even when the science being practiced is physics, our descriptions amount to consensual agreements about the nature of the world under investigation (shaped also by our biological structure and organization, which are not arbitrary choices but historical necessities resulting from our evolutionary inheritance; more on this below). This may be hard for materialists to swallow, but one of the core suppositions of enactivism is that science, as a form of languaging, is indeed a social activity embedded in a particular historical situation bearing the marks of the prejudices that affect every other human sphere of life, whether political, religious, or otherwise.
“A physicist will say that we're made of atoms,” says Varela. “Such statements, while true, are irrelevant… There is a reality of life and death, which affects us directly and is on a different level from the abstractions” (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/varela/varela_p4.html).
The reality of life and death that Varela here refers to is that of our embodied existence as conscious observers. There is a tendency in the sciences to assume that the knowledge brought forth by the scientific method amounts to an objective representation of reality as it exists independent of human subjectivity. Maturana and Varela want to replace this notion with that of “objectivity-in-parenthesis." Their aim is to avoid the transcendental objectivism which results when the observer "...implicitly or explicitly assumes that existence takes place independently of what he or she does, that things exist independently of whether he or she knows them, and that he or she can know them, or can know of them, or can know about them, through perception or reason” (Maturana, 1988a, p. 28).
Remember, for enactivism, “everything said is said by an observer.” This is to remind us that all of our descriptions come from a particular perspective. There is, strictly speaking, no such thing as pure objectivity. As philosopher Thomas Nagel put it, pure objectivity amounts to a “view from nowhere,” which, when taken literally, is contradictory. Conceptually, we can certainly imagine reality and ourselves outside our embedded perspectives; but such mental exercises remain a function of our operationally closed (more on this later) nervous systems. In other words, our imagined objectivity is still a product of our embodiment, and so remains an “as if” objectivity; or, as enactivism suggests, an “objectivity-in-parenthesis.”
To be clear, though, as Bruce pointed out last week, Varela and Maturana do not mean to replace objectivity with a form of solipsistic idealism, nor a form of complete social constructivism. On the contrary, they want to call our attention to empirical biological realities. We will now shift from what has primarily been a discussion of language into a discussion of the “bio-logic” underlying it.
1-B: Bio-logic
There is a bit of a scandal in the biological sciences. After nearly 400 years of what might be considered modern scientific investigation (and 3,000 years of natural philosophy), a widely agreed upon definition for the central object of study, life, has yet to be produced. There are plenty of qualities that have been ascribed to living systems, but (arguably) the only serious attempt to define it was Varela and Maturana’s theory of autopoiesis. Briefly, an autopoietic system is a unity easily distinguishable from its surrounding environment, containing components that continually produce and maintain both themselves and the unity. The term is a literal translation into Greek of “self-producing.”
There is a more technical definition of the term, but for the purposes of this paper, I won’t get into it. Click the hypertext above if you are interested. The reason the autopoiesis –or self-producing organization— of organisms is important for this discussion is the extent to which it helps us see how the nervous system brings forth both our individuality and our world. The term is meant to apply specifically to the organization of a cell, but it applies equally well (with a few caveats) to multicellular organisms, which biologist Leo Buss has appropriately called “somatic ecologies.” Why the term is appropriate may need some unpacking. From the point of view of autopoietic theory, the process of living is synonymous with cognition. So even a single bacterium flagellating up a sucrose gradient is bringing forth a world based on its own internal dynamics. When evolution gives rise to multicellulars, the worlds of each cell must somehow be coordinated such that “…potential conflicts between cells and the individual [are mediated], while the organism is simultaneously interacting effectively with the extrasomatic environment” (Buss 1987). Varela was fascinated by just how this mediation was pulled off. It drew him into immunology, where he attempted to improve upon the traditional understanding of the immune system as a kind of military defense against intruders by redefining it as a “self-referential, positive assertion of a coherent unity” (Varela, 1991, Autopoiesis and a Biology of Intentionality, pg. 9). But what interests us is his investigation into the “somatic ecology” of the nervous system, which along side the immune system allows a network of trillions of cells to function as a coherent whole.
Varela put it thus: “The fundamental logic of the nervous system is that of coupling movements with a stream of sensory modulations in a circular fashion” (Ibid.). Let’s break this down. The first thing to notice about this “neuro-logic” is that perception becomes an active process. We know the world by moving around within it. Bruce alluded to an experiment with kittens validating this in a comment under his essay. In this sense, the term “perception” is a bit of a misnomer, as it implies the passive reception through the senses of an already constituted reality. This brings us to the second important feature of Varela’s neuro-logic, which is that perception is a circular process generated by ongoing sensorimotor coupling. This is true both at the level of individual neurons (dendrites are sensors, axon terminals are motors) and at the level of the whole organism (eyes, ears, skin, etc. are sensors, muscles, tendons, etc. are motors).
This circularity is why enactivism posits the “operational closure” of the nervous system mentioned earlier. We know only the world the structure and organization of our nervous systems allow us to know. As Varela says, “The neuronal dynamics underlying a perceptuo-motor task are… a network affair, a highly cooperative two-way system, and not a sequential stage-to-stage information abstraction” (Ibid.). In other words, the typical linear notion of information picked up by the senses from a pregiven world, processed into perceptions, and then translated into appropriate motor responses is not just a simplification, but is actually wrong. What we perceive is based more on the ongoing operations already taking place in our nervous system prior to any perturbations by the environment. If we now reconsider the first point about active perception, we see that “all doing is knowing, and all knowing is doing” (Maturana & Varela, 1992, The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding, p. 27).
This concludes the section on enactivism, but we will revisit and further explore some of the concepts discussed above, as well as introduce a few other important features of the enactive paradigm (such as intersubjectivity and groundlessness) as we go along.
(Click here for a video of Evan Thompson, co-author of The Embodied Mind, on 1st personal consciousness, and a much younger Varela speaking about objectivity.)
Part 2- Wilber, Biology, Enactivism
I’ll assume that most of you are already familiar with Ken Wilber’s work. For our purposes, a general grasp of his AQAL model will suffice.
As Bruce has already pointed out last week, Wilber embraces Varela et al.’s attempt to move beyond the gross reductionism of the representational paradigm in cognitive science, which sees the mind as essentially identical to a sophisticated computer. As Wilber says, “From the field that claims to be the final authority on such matters, what we learn about consciousness and lived experience is this: basically, it doesn’t exist” (Wilber, 1995, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, p. 564). Part of Varela's project is to find a place for conscious experience in the scientific worldview. But Wilber’s support for enactivism as presented by Varela et al. is not without a few important reservations. While he applauds them for deconstructing and replacing the notion of a pregiven world found in the representational paradigm, he argues that they fail to fully appreciate the subjective dimensions of organisms. To be more specific, I refer you to the diagram below:
We see above in what is labeled figure 3 that each quadrant has both an interior and an exterior aspect, each with its own appropriate epistemological methodology. Varela is credited with rightly correcting the traditional Darwinian idea that something called “Nature” is responsible for singlehandedly sculpting the evolution of species, selecting which traits live on and which don’t. This idea, while not entirely wrong, fails to appreciate the degree to which organisms participate in their own evolution based on their autopoiesis, or self-organizing properties. Varela’s is a biology that emphasizes the autonomy of the organism, whereas most evolutionary biology sees the organism as the victim of a pregiven environment. In other words, organism and environment (or Nature, in Darwin’s terms) co-determine one another. Wilber further explains: “… autopoietic theories remind us that the objective organism is not merely a strand in a Web, but also a relatively autonomous agent enacting its environment, an environment that is not a pregiven Web but is rather brought forth in part by the autopoietic regime of the organism itself” (http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptC/intro-1.cfm). Wilber suggests, though, that Varela “…escapes the crude mirror of nature paradigm (monological and pregiven), but only by attacking the pregiven part, not the monological part: the paradigm shifts from the monological mirror of a sensorimotor world to the monological enactment of a sensorimotor world” (Ibid., p. 714).
Wilber is here arguing that Varela’s approach remains focused only on the upper right, objective quadrant. Autopoietic organization represents the inside of the exterior of organisms, but according to Wilber, fails to fully appreciate the subjective, phenomenological experience of organisms.
I don’t disagree with Wilber’s analysis here, as I think Varela’s work could certainly benefit from a more in depth exploration of subjective development. Nonetheless, I think Varela is very much aware of the lifeworld of organisms, which is evidenced by his exploration of Buddhist meditation in The Embodied Mind, as well this statement which directly acknowledges the role of agency in organisms: “[an organism] isn’t related to its environment ‘objectively,’ that is, independently of the system’s location, heading, attitudes and history. Instead, it relates to it in relation to the perspective established by the constantly emerging properties of the agent itself and in terms of the role such running redefinition plays in the system’s entire coherence” (Varela, 1991, Autopoiesis and a Biology of Intentionality, pg. 11). Granted, this description is still a third person account of a lived reality, which can only be directly accessed with “I” language. “The habits of intimate touching of prehensive unification tend to be reduced to the mechanics of structural coupling and exterior-cognitive enactment,” as Wilber says (http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptC/notes-1.cfm).
Wilber accuses enactivism of being “heavily grounded in a biologistic bias” (Wilber, 1995, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, p. 712). To the extent that Varela et al. were aiming to remain scientific, this is true. But I wonder if Wilber has fully appreciated the scientific realities brought forth by a thorough investigation of the biological world...? As Julian discussed in one of his blogs earlier this year, Wilber seems to look to theorists associated with the intelligent design movement when asked about what an integral biology might look like. In one of his books, he makes the following specious argument: “It takes perhaps a hundred mutations to produce a functional wing from a leg--a half-wing will not do. A half-wing is no good as a leg and no good as a wing--you can't run and you can't fly. It has no adaptive value whatsoever. In other words, with a half-wing you are dinner. The wing will work only if these hundred mutations happen all at once, in one animal--also these same mutations must occur simultaneously in another animal of the opposite sex, and they have to somehow find each other, have dinner, a few drinks, mate, and have offspring with real functional wings” (Wilber, 2000, A Brief History of Everything, p.20). If you showed this passage to a biologist, after they finished laughing, they’d explain that wings most certainly could evolve gradually.
It’s not that I don’t share Wilber’s distaste for the neo-Darwinist paradigm in evolutionary biology. I just think he would be more respected in scientific circles if he did not make outrageous claims without any supporting evidence whatsoever. There are plenty of other approaches to understanding evolution in a non-reductionist way that are entirely scientific and don’t require any such exaggeration, among them Varela’s co-determining theory, which Wilber seems to know well but so often neglects to mention when asked about evolutionary biology. If anything like intelligent design is true, science would become impossible, as positing a demiurge as the designer of nature makes any human attempt to know reality akin to a cartoon character suddenly realizing they are an artist's drawing. It ain't gunna happen.
To sum up this section, we can say that Varela’s ideas would definitely benefit from a greater appreciation for the depth and developmental scope of subjective experience, as Wilber has rightly argued. But Wilber, on the other hand, could equally benefit from a more realistic engagement with the findings of objective biological science. Varela is no longer with us, and so we will never know how he may have appropriated Wilber’s criticisms; but hopefully Wilber will reevaluate his seeming support for intelligent design by fully embracing the truths brought forth by an empirical, systems-oriented approach to biological evolution.
Part 3- Embodied Spirituality
I'd like to begin this section with a few words from Varela himself. This video was shot just before his death in 2001 as part of a documentary entitled "Monte Grande" released in 2005.
It pretty well speaks for itself, reiterating several points I hope were adequately made in the first two sections of this essay about the co-emergence of subject and object. What struck me as significant, though, was what Varela said towards the end about abiding in the questions that strike us as especially mysterious, rather than rushing to pass judgment for or against them. Maybe it is just a reflection of my and Varela’s Buddhist frame of reference, but it has always seemed to me that being spiritual essentially means being unattached. This doesn’t mean we should not love deeply those we share our lives with, quite the contrary. Letting go of our attachments allows us to relate to others more genuinely than when we have specific ends in mind. What non-attachment suggests is that we be constantly on the lookout for the various manifestations of certainty that tend to crop up in our thoughts about the world. Almost always, an unyielding conviction about this, that, or the other is the result of some kind of repression or psychological wound we have yet to fully face and allow to heal.
In The Embodied Mind, Varela repeatedly emphasizes the groundless nature of existence. Even that most universal of spiritual values, love, so often eludes all our attempts to possess or comprehend it. Whether it is our own personal experience of being conscious, or our sense of the world around us, a penetrating investigation reveals no firm foundation upon which to rest our tirelessly seeking minds. The path seems endless, not necessarily because it is long and filled with difficult challenges, but because it is constantly swallowing itself like an Ouroburos.
Holding this image in mind, what are we to make of the many New Age belief systems offering “secrets” (for a fee) that supposedly give us anything we desire? I see in these systems only clever advertising and predation upon those with weak minds. There is not even the hint of anything genuinely spiritual, in the sense that spirituality means letting go of our own wants and desires to focus instead upon compassion and loving kindness. Seeking great spiritual insights from something like the “law of attraction” tarnishes the meaning of the word “insight.” To genuinely see into our condition, we have to forgo the “Cartesian anxiety” that compels us to chase after various forms of security and stability, be they a grandiose sense of self, a youthful appearance, a six-figure salary, or transcendental knowledge of and control over reality itself. When we turn our attention inward, we discover that the self we think we are, with all its desires and wishes and ideas, is rather fragile and impermanent.
Realizing this can lead in one of two directions:
Either we avert our introspective gaze and distract ourselves with kitschy offers of instant enlightenment for 3 easy payments of $19.95, or we go deeper and realize that our lack of an essential self is an opportunity to engage reality on a level more rewarding than anything we could have dreamed of before.
I quote Varela at length:
“The more the fragile self-subject deploys itself, the more compassion deploys itself because that's what it is. The more there is the opening into space to accommodate or to take care of the other, there is kind of an intrinsic decenteredness, and therefore the other appears closer. Solidarity, compassion, care, love –all of the different modes of being together– appear when the self is decentered. Now that, to me, is a great gift of the universe. Since we are not solid and private and centered, the more we get close to all our reality, the more we are who we are. That is, both you and I. Not just me, but the ‘us-ness’ in us. Which is another way of saying that my mind is not my mind. It is a mind that requires that interbeing. There is naturally that kind of concern and care and solidarity. But it is not just how nice I am, or how good a guy I am. It has nothing to do with this. It has to do with how real things are, in reality, that non-distinction between the intersubjective network of things” (http://www.dialogonleadership.org/varela-2000.html).
Varela is here suggesting that our true nature is to be compassionate, not because we are “nice guys,” but because our very identity as individuals arises out of our transactions with others. This, and not the possibility of magical powers, is what an integral and embodied spirituality offers.
To even believe for a moment that our thoughts will bring us whatever we want, we have to already be completely encased and blinded by a lonely solipsistic shell, not recognizing that every other person around us is also hoping and wishing for their own fantasies to be fulfilled. Who is going to end up on top in this struggle for personal happiness? There can only be so many lottery winners… Again, maybe it is just my Buddhist bias, but who can deny that life is suffering? We are made through an act of carnal love in the pursuit of fleeting bliss, grown in the womb at the behest of the crystalline death records of untold generations prior, and born as naked, delicately woven bodies, our intricate dynamics hardly noticed until something goes wrong. And when it does, we’re faced with that ultimate uncertainty– with the completely unknowable, unfathomable reunion with that from which we came.
But could it be any other way? Could our bodies be so capable of deep feeling and intimate contact without also being so prone to disease and decomposition? Life is suffering, but so is suffering bliss. It is our perpetual lack that moves us to love, that guides us into the future where unending forms of life will result from the creative spark that is our being-towards-death. We cannot overcome the circle of becoming, of continual rebirth, but we can embrace it, celebrating the opportunity we so easily forget we have.
I’ll close with one of my favorite Zen koans entitled, “Hyakujo's Fox,” with a comment at the end by Zen master Mumon. Zen is great for cutting through spiritual excess and getting right to the point:
Once when Hyakujo delivered some Zen lectures an old man attended them, unseen by the monks. At the end of each talk when the monks left so did he. But one day he remained after the had gone, and Hyakujo asked him: `Who are you?'
The old man replied: `I am not a human being, but I was a human being when the Kashapa Buddha preached in this world. I was a Zen master and lived on this mountain. At that time one of my students asked me whether the enlightened man is subject to the law of causation. I answered him: "The enlightened man is not subject to the law of causation." For this answer evidencing a clinging to absoluteness I became a fox for five hundred rebirths, and I am still a fox. Will you save me from this condition with your Zen words and let me get out of a fox's body? Now may I ask you: Is the enlightened man subject to the law of causation?'
Hyakujo said: `The enlightened man is one with the law of causation.'
At the words of Hyakujo the old man was enlightened. `I am emancipated,' he said, paying homage with a deep bow. `I am no more a fox, but I have to leave my body in my dwelling place behind this mountain. Please perform my funeral as a monk.' The he disappeared.
The next day Hyakujo gave an order through the chief monk to prepare to attend the funeral of a monk. `No one was sick in the infirmary,' wondered the monks. `What does our teacher mean?'
After dinner Hyakujo led the monks out and around the mountain. In a cave, with his staff he poked out the corpse of an old fox and then performed the ceremony of cremation.
That evening Hyakujo gave a talk to the monks and told this story about the law of causation.
Obaku, upon hearing this story, asked Hyakujo: `I understand that a long time ago because a certain person gave a wrong Zen answer he became a fox for five hundred rebirths. Now I was to ask: If some modern master is asked many questions, and he always gives the right answer, what will become of him?'
Hyakujo said: `You come here near me and I will tell you.'
Obaku went near Hyakujo and slapped the teacher's face with this hand, for he knew this was the answer his teacher intended to give him.
Hyakujo clapped his hands and laughed at the discernment. `I thought a Persian had a red beard,' he said, `and now I know a Persian who has a red beard.'
Mumon's comment: `The enlightened man is not subject.' How can this answer make the monk a fox?
`The enlightened man is at one with the law of causation.' How can this answer make the fox emancipated?
To understand clearly one has to have just one eye.
Controlled or not controlled?
The same dice shows two faces.
Not controlled or controlled,
Both are a grievous error.
I’m going to begin this essay by breaking down the topics of enactivism and integralism (specifically Ken Wilber’s integralism) as they relate to one another. I’ll do so in two separate sections, the first on the biology of cognition and communication as described within the enactive paradigm, and the second on biology and enactivism as perceived and appropriated by Wilber. I hope to highlight a few areas of agreement, as well as disagreement, and to lay down what I think the most promising path of synthesis might be. If you are not too keen on abstract philosophical discourse, please bear with me, as these sections may qualify as exactly that (feel free to skip to part 3 if you must!).
The last section will be more concrete and, hopefully, poetically evocative. It will focus on what an embodied and integral spirituality might look like, contrasting it with the unfortunate developments in the contemporary New Age community. Popular but shallow spiritual salesmen (and women) have developed clever marketing campaigns geared toward convincing people that they can “create their own reality.” While this idea is not entirely false in some contexts, it is grossly misleading and requires quite a bit of unpacking before it begins to bear any resemblance to reality. With the help of some of Varela’s ideas, I hope to offer a vision of the potential of being human in the creative cosmos we all call home.
Circularity (Escher)
Part 1: Enactivism and the Biology of Cognition
1-A: Co-gnosis, or “Knowing-with”
If one had to distill the central tenet of enactivism, as developed by Humberto Maturana and the late Francisco Varela, it would be that “everything said is said by an observer” (Maturana, 1988, p. 27). An observer is any language-using being, specifically a human being. We human beings use language to describe the world we inhabit with others. Typically, we describe without explicitly referencing ourselves as observers. Enactivism (I'll use this term even though it is Varela's; Maturana, though not directly associated with it, would probably not be opposed to the label) suggests that self-referentiality is always implied, as to speak a language with others is to bring forth a world of shared significance whose relation to an independent reality outside the one we constitute with and for each other is irrelevant.
This holds true for all modes of language, whether colloquial or scientific. When molecular biologists investigate the structure of cellular organelles, they come to know what they see through their microscopes by agreeing upon appropriate linguistic abstractions and relations between abstractions. These abstractions designate the important features of reality as distinguished by those with the skills and training required to do so. Even when the science being practiced is physics, our descriptions amount to consensual agreements about the nature of the world under investigation (shaped also by our biological structure and organization, which are not arbitrary choices but historical necessities resulting from our evolutionary inheritance; more on this below). This may be hard for materialists to swallow, but one of the core suppositions of enactivism is that science, as a form of languaging, is indeed a social activity embedded in a particular historical situation bearing the marks of the prejudices that affect every other human sphere of life, whether political, religious, or otherwise.
“A physicist will say that we're made of atoms,” says Varela. “Such statements, while true, are irrelevant… There is a reality of life and death, which affects us directly and is on a different level from the abstractions” (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/varela/varela_p4.html).
The reality of life and death that Varela here refers to is that of our embodied existence as conscious observers. There is a tendency in the sciences to assume that the knowledge brought forth by the scientific method amounts to an objective representation of reality as it exists independent of human subjectivity. Maturana and Varela want to replace this notion with that of “objectivity-in-parenthesis." Their aim is to avoid the transcendental objectivism which results when the observer "...implicitly or explicitly assumes that existence takes place independently of what he or she does, that things exist independently of whether he or she knows them, and that he or she can know them, or can know of them, or can know about them, through perception or reason” (Maturana, 1988a, p. 28).
Remember, for enactivism, “everything said is said by an observer.” This is to remind us that all of our descriptions come from a particular perspective. There is, strictly speaking, no such thing as pure objectivity. As philosopher Thomas Nagel put it, pure objectivity amounts to a “view from nowhere,” which, when taken literally, is contradictory. Conceptually, we can certainly imagine reality and ourselves outside our embedded perspectives; but such mental exercises remain a function of our operationally closed (more on this later) nervous systems. In other words, our imagined objectivity is still a product of our embodiment, and so remains an “as if” objectivity; or, as enactivism suggests, an “objectivity-in-parenthesis.”
To be clear, though, as Bruce pointed out last week, Varela and Maturana do not mean to replace objectivity with a form of solipsistic idealism, nor a form of complete social constructivism. On the contrary, they want to call our attention to empirical biological realities. We will now shift from what has primarily been a discussion of language into a discussion of the “bio-logic” underlying it.
1-B: Bio-logic
There is a bit of a scandal in the biological sciences. After nearly 400 years of what might be considered modern scientific investigation (and 3,000 years of natural philosophy), a widely agreed upon definition for the central object of study, life, has yet to be produced. There are plenty of qualities that have been ascribed to living systems, but (arguably) the only serious attempt to define it was Varela and Maturana’s theory of autopoiesis. Briefly, an autopoietic system is a unity easily distinguishable from its surrounding environment, containing components that continually produce and maintain both themselves and the unity. The term is a literal translation into Greek of “self-producing.”
There is a more technical definition of the term, but for the purposes of this paper, I won’t get into it. Click the hypertext above if you are interested. The reason the autopoiesis –or self-producing organization— of organisms is important for this discussion is the extent to which it helps us see how the nervous system brings forth both our individuality and our world. The term is meant to apply specifically to the organization of a cell, but it applies equally well (with a few caveats) to multicellular organisms, which biologist Leo Buss has appropriately called “somatic ecologies.” Why the term is appropriate may need some unpacking. From the point of view of autopoietic theory, the process of living is synonymous with cognition. So even a single bacterium flagellating up a sucrose gradient is bringing forth a world based on its own internal dynamics. When evolution gives rise to multicellulars, the worlds of each cell must somehow be coordinated such that “…potential conflicts between cells and the individual [are mediated], while the organism is simultaneously interacting effectively with the extrasomatic environment” (Buss 1987). Varela was fascinated by just how this mediation was pulled off. It drew him into immunology, where he attempted to improve upon the traditional understanding of the immune system as a kind of military defense against intruders by redefining it as a “self-referential, positive assertion of a coherent unity” (Varela, 1991, Autopoiesis and a Biology of Intentionality, pg. 9). But what interests us is his investigation into the “somatic ecology” of the nervous system, which along side the immune system allows a network of trillions of cells to function as a coherent whole.
Varela put it thus: “The fundamental logic of the nervous system is that of coupling movements with a stream of sensory modulations in a circular fashion” (Ibid.). Let’s break this down. The first thing to notice about this “neuro-logic” is that perception becomes an active process. We know the world by moving around within it. Bruce alluded to an experiment with kittens validating this in a comment under his essay. In this sense, the term “perception” is a bit of a misnomer, as it implies the passive reception through the senses of an already constituted reality. This brings us to the second important feature of Varela’s neuro-logic, which is that perception is a circular process generated by ongoing sensorimotor coupling. This is true both at the level of individual neurons (dendrites are sensors, axon terminals are motors) and at the level of the whole organism (eyes, ears, skin, etc. are sensors, muscles, tendons, etc. are motors).
This circularity is why enactivism posits the “operational closure” of the nervous system mentioned earlier. We know only the world the structure and organization of our nervous systems allow us to know. As Varela says, “The neuronal dynamics underlying a perceptuo-motor task are… a network affair, a highly cooperative two-way system, and not a sequential stage-to-stage information abstraction” (Ibid.). In other words, the typical linear notion of information picked up by the senses from a pregiven world, processed into perceptions, and then translated into appropriate motor responses is not just a simplification, but is actually wrong. What we perceive is based more on the ongoing operations already taking place in our nervous system prior to any perturbations by the environment. If we now reconsider the first point about active perception, we see that “all doing is knowing, and all knowing is doing” (Maturana & Varela, 1992, The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding, p. 27).
This concludes the section on enactivism, but we will revisit and further explore some of the concepts discussed above, as well as introduce a few other important features of the enactive paradigm (such as intersubjectivity and groundlessness) as we go along.
(Click here for a video of Evan Thompson, co-author of The Embodied Mind, on 1st personal consciousness, and a much younger Varela speaking about objectivity.)
Part 2- Wilber, Biology, Enactivism
I’ll assume that most of you are already familiar with Ken Wilber’s work. For our purposes, a general grasp of his AQAL model will suffice.
As Bruce has already pointed out last week, Wilber embraces Varela et al.’s attempt to move beyond the gross reductionism of the representational paradigm in cognitive science, which sees the mind as essentially identical to a sophisticated computer. As Wilber says, “From the field that claims to be the final authority on such matters, what we learn about consciousness and lived experience is this: basically, it doesn’t exist” (Wilber, 1995, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, p. 564). Part of Varela's project is to find a place for conscious experience in the scientific worldview. But Wilber’s support for enactivism as presented by Varela et al. is not without a few important reservations. While he applauds them for deconstructing and replacing the notion of a pregiven world found in the representational paradigm, he argues that they fail to fully appreciate the subjective dimensions of organisms. To be more specific, I refer you to the diagram below:
Wilber's drawing
We see above in what is labeled figure 3 that each quadrant has both an interior and an exterior aspect, each with its own appropriate epistemological methodology. Varela is credited with rightly correcting the traditional Darwinian idea that something called “Nature” is responsible for singlehandedly sculpting the evolution of species, selecting which traits live on and which don’t. This idea, while not entirely wrong, fails to appreciate the degree to which organisms participate in their own evolution based on their autopoiesis, or self-organizing properties. Varela’s is a biology that emphasizes the autonomy of the organism, whereas most evolutionary biology sees the organism as the victim of a pregiven environment. In other words, organism and environment (or Nature, in Darwin’s terms) co-determine one another. Wilber further explains: “… autopoietic theories remind us that the objective organism is not merely a strand in a Web, but also a relatively autonomous agent enacting its environment, an environment that is not a pregiven Web but is rather brought forth in part by the autopoietic regime of the organism itself” (http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptC/intro-1.cfm). Wilber suggests, though, that Varela “…escapes the crude mirror of nature paradigm (monological and pregiven), but only by attacking the pregiven part, not the monological part: the paradigm shifts from the monological mirror of a sensorimotor world to the monological enactment of a sensorimotor world” (Ibid., p. 714).
Wilber is here arguing that Varela’s approach remains focused only on the upper right, objective quadrant. Autopoietic organization represents the inside of the exterior of organisms, but according to Wilber, fails to fully appreciate the subjective, phenomenological experience of organisms.
I don’t disagree with Wilber’s analysis here, as I think Varela’s work could certainly benefit from a more in depth exploration of subjective development. Nonetheless, I think Varela is very much aware of the lifeworld of organisms, which is evidenced by his exploration of Buddhist meditation in The Embodied Mind, as well this statement which directly acknowledges the role of agency in organisms: “[an organism] isn’t related to its environment ‘objectively,’ that is, independently of the system’s location, heading, attitudes and history. Instead, it relates to it in relation to the perspective established by the constantly emerging properties of the agent itself and in terms of the role such running redefinition plays in the system’s entire coherence” (Varela, 1991, Autopoiesis and a Biology of Intentionality, pg. 11). Granted, this description is still a third person account of a lived reality, which can only be directly accessed with “I” language. “The habits of intimate touching of prehensive unification tend to be reduced to the mechanics of structural coupling and exterior-cognitive enactment,” as Wilber says (http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptC/notes-1.cfm).
Wilber accuses enactivism of being “heavily grounded in a biologistic bias” (Wilber, 1995, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, p. 712). To the extent that Varela et al. were aiming to remain scientific, this is true. But I wonder if Wilber has fully appreciated the scientific realities brought forth by a thorough investigation of the biological world...? As Julian discussed in one of his blogs earlier this year, Wilber seems to look to theorists associated with the intelligent design movement when asked about what an integral biology might look like. In one of his books, he makes the following specious argument: “It takes perhaps a hundred mutations to produce a functional wing from a leg--a half-wing will not do. A half-wing is no good as a leg and no good as a wing--you can't run and you can't fly. It has no adaptive value whatsoever. In other words, with a half-wing you are dinner. The wing will work only if these hundred mutations happen all at once, in one animal--also these same mutations must occur simultaneously in another animal of the opposite sex, and they have to somehow find each other, have dinner, a few drinks, mate, and have offspring with real functional wings” (Wilber, 2000, A Brief History of Everything, p.20). If you showed this passage to a biologist, after they finished laughing, they’d explain that wings most certainly could evolve gradually.
It’s not that I don’t share Wilber’s distaste for the neo-Darwinist paradigm in evolutionary biology. I just think he would be more respected in scientific circles if he did not make outrageous claims without any supporting evidence whatsoever. There are plenty of other approaches to understanding evolution in a non-reductionist way that are entirely scientific and don’t require any such exaggeration, among them Varela’s co-determining theory, which Wilber seems to know well but so often neglects to mention when asked about evolutionary biology. If anything like intelligent design is true, science would become impossible, as positing a demiurge as the designer of nature makes any human attempt to know reality akin to a cartoon character suddenly realizing they are an artist's drawing. It ain't gunna happen.
To sum up this section, we can say that Varela’s ideas would definitely benefit from a greater appreciation for the depth and developmental scope of subjective experience, as Wilber has rightly argued. But Wilber, on the other hand, could equally benefit from a more realistic engagement with the findings of objective biological science. Varela is no longer with us, and so we will never know how he may have appropriated Wilber’s criticisms; but hopefully Wilber will reevaluate his seeming support for intelligent design by fully embracing the truths brought forth by an empirical, systems-oriented approach to biological evolution.
Part 3- Embodied Spirituality
I'd like to begin this section with a few words from Varela himself. This video was shot just before his death in 2001 as part of a documentary entitled "Monte Grande" released in 2005.
1st personal and transpersonal consciousness
It pretty well speaks for itself, reiterating several points I hope were adequately made in the first two sections of this essay about the co-emergence of subject and object. What struck me as significant, though, was what Varela said towards the end about abiding in the questions that strike us as especially mysterious, rather than rushing to pass judgment for or against them. Maybe it is just a reflection of my and Varela’s Buddhist frame of reference, but it has always seemed to me that being spiritual essentially means being unattached. This doesn’t mean we should not love deeply those we share our lives with, quite the contrary. Letting go of our attachments allows us to relate to others more genuinely than when we have specific ends in mind. What non-attachment suggests is that we be constantly on the lookout for the various manifestations of certainty that tend to crop up in our thoughts about the world. Almost always, an unyielding conviction about this, that, or the other is the result of some kind of repression or psychological wound we have yet to fully face and allow to heal.
In The Embodied Mind, Varela repeatedly emphasizes the groundless nature of existence. Even that most universal of spiritual values, love, so often eludes all our attempts to possess or comprehend it. Whether it is our own personal experience of being conscious, or our sense of the world around us, a penetrating investigation reveals no firm foundation upon which to rest our tirelessly seeking minds. The path seems endless, not necessarily because it is long and filled with difficult challenges, but because it is constantly swallowing itself like an Ouroburos.
Holding this image in mind, what are we to make of the many New Age belief systems offering “secrets” (for a fee) that supposedly give us anything we desire? I see in these systems only clever advertising and predation upon those with weak minds. There is not even the hint of anything genuinely spiritual, in the sense that spirituality means letting go of our own wants and desires to focus instead upon compassion and loving kindness. Seeking great spiritual insights from something like the “law of attraction” tarnishes the meaning of the word “insight.” To genuinely see into our condition, we have to forgo the “Cartesian anxiety” that compels us to chase after various forms of security and stability, be they a grandiose sense of self, a youthful appearance, a six-figure salary, or transcendental knowledge of and control over reality itself. When we turn our attention inward, we discover that the self we think we are, with all its desires and wishes and ideas, is rather fragile and impermanent.
Realizing this can lead in one of two directions:
Either we avert our introspective gaze and distract ourselves with kitschy offers of instant enlightenment for 3 easy payments of $19.95, or we go deeper and realize that our lack of an essential self is an opportunity to engage reality on a level more rewarding than anything we could have dreamed of before.
I quote Varela at length:
“The more the fragile self-subject deploys itself, the more compassion deploys itself because that's what it is. The more there is the opening into space to accommodate or to take care of the other, there is kind of an intrinsic decenteredness, and therefore the other appears closer. Solidarity, compassion, care, love –all of the different modes of being together– appear when the self is decentered. Now that, to me, is a great gift of the universe. Since we are not solid and private and centered, the more we get close to all our reality, the more we are who we are. That is, both you and I. Not just me, but the ‘us-ness’ in us. Which is another way of saying that my mind is not my mind. It is a mind that requires that interbeing. There is naturally that kind of concern and care and solidarity. But it is not just how nice I am, or how good a guy I am. It has nothing to do with this. It has to do with how real things are, in reality, that non-distinction between the intersubjective network of things” (http://www.dialogonleadership.org/varela-2000.html).
Varela is here suggesting that our true nature is to be compassionate, not because we are “nice guys,” but because our very identity as individuals arises out of our transactions with others. This, and not the possibility of magical powers, is what an integral and embodied spirituality offers.
To even believe for a moment that our thoughts will bring us whatever we want, we have to already be completely encased and blinded by a lonely solipsistic shell, not recognizing that every other person around us is also hoping and wishing for their own fantasies to be fulfilled. Who is going to end up on top in this struggle for personal happiness? There can only be so many lottery winners… Again, maybe it is just my Buddhist bias, but who can deny that life is suffering? We are made through an act of carnal love in the pursuit of fleeting bliss, grown in the womb at the behest of the crystalline death records of untold generations prior, and born as naked, delicately woven bodies, our intricate dynamics hardly noticed until something goes wrong. And when it does, we’re faced with that ultimate uncertainty– with the completely unknowable, unfathomable reunion with that from which we came.
But could it be any other way? Could our bodies be so capable of deep feeling and intimate contact without also being so prone to disease and decomposition? Life is suffering, but so is suffering bliss. It is our perpetual lack that moves us to love, that guides us into the future where unending forms of life will result from the creative spark that is our being-towards-death. We cannot overcome the circle of becoming, of continual rebirth, but we can embrace it, celebrating the opportunity we so easily forget we have.
I’ll close with one of my favorite Zen koans entitled, “Hyakujo's Fox,” with a comment at the end by Zen master Mumon. Zen is great for cutting through spiritual excess and getting right to the point:
Once when Hyakujo delivered some Zen lectures an old man attended them, unseen by the monks. At the end of each talk when the monks left so did he. But one day he remained after the had gone, and Hyakujo asked him: `Who are you?'
The old man replied: `I am not a human being, but I was a human being when the Kashapa Buddha preached in this world. I was a Zen master and lived on this mountain. At that time one of my students asked me whether the enlightened man is subject to the law of causation. I answered him: "The enlightened man is not subject to the law of causation." For this answer evidencing a clinging to absoluteness I became a fox for five hundred rebirths, and I am still a fox. Will you save me from this condition with your Zen words and let me get out of a fox's body? Now may I ask you: Is the enlightened man subject to the law of causation?'
Hyakujo said: `The enlightened man is one with the law of causation.'
At the words of Hyakujo the old man was enlightened. `I am emancipated,' he said, paying homage with a deep bow. `I am no more a fox, but I have to leave my body in my dwelling place behind this mountain. Please perform my funeral as a monk.' The he disappeared.
The next day Hyakujo gave an order through the chief monk to prepare to attend the funeral of a monk. `No one was sick in the infirmary,' wondered the monks. `What does our teacher mean?'
After dinner Hyakujo led the monks out and around the mountain. In a cave, with his staff he poked out the corpse of an old fox and then performed the ceremony of cremation.
That evening Hyakujo gave a talk to the monks and told this story about the law of causation.
Obaku, upon hearing this story, asked Hyakujo: `I understand that a long time ago because a certain person gave a wrong Zen answer he became a fox for five hundred rebirths. Now I was to ask: If some modern master is asked many questions, and he always gives the right answer, what will become of him?'
Hyakujo said: `You come here near me and I will tell you.'
Obaku went near Hyakujo and slapped the teacher's face with this hand, for he knew this was the answer his teacher intended to give him.
Hyakujo clapped his hands and laughed at the discernment. `I thought a Persian had a red beard,' he said, `and now I know a Persian who has a red beard.'
Mumon's comment: `The enlightened man is not subject.' How can this answer make the monk a fox?
`The enlightened man is at one with the law of causation.' How can this answer make the fox emancipated?
To understand clearly one has to have just one eye.
Controlled or not controlled?
The same dice shows two faces.
Not controlled or controlled,
Both are a grievous error.
Access: PublicTagged with: enactivism, integralism, ken wilber, francisco varela, new age, buddhism, z4 symposium, evolution, science
Bravo, Matthew! I was expecting your post to be insightful and masterfully delivered, and you did not disappoint!
I'll write something substantive in my next post. Just wanted to let you know I'd read and appreciated this and I look forward to discussing it.
Best wishes,
Bruce
Thanks Balder! looking forward to your comments, qualifications, criticisms, etc…
amazing piece of writing matt! i'm starting to like varela although as julian points out there is enough seemingly obvious persuasion in objectivism that i don't think i'll be buying completely any time soon that the sun didn't exist before we became aware of it……
reincarnation? it seems nonsensical and irratiional to me. perhaps i can buy that our egos are conscious waves in an otherwise nonpersonal ocean and our ego has us convinced that going back to the ocean is something less than being a wave, but i would still have to call the ocean something even if it's nothing it would have to be intelligent to be able to figure are the endless multiplicities of karma, at least in my thinking…..but yes, fun to speculate ……..until it turns deadly…………oh why oh why can't we just get along?
Hey andrew, thanks for stopping by.
Does enactivism suggest that the sun didn't exist before we became aware of it? I don't think it does. what it says is that our particular way of experiencing the sun didn't exist until we came along. the sun still exists in its own right, though.
If one had to distill the central tenet of enactivism, as developed by Humberto Maturana
and the late Francisco Varela, it would be that “everything said is said by an observer”
Matt, don't LOL…or do…i was wondering what their definition of an 'observer includes, and
if it included someone who is blind, or mute, and how that would change, if in fact it did
change, their definition.
i would also like to ask, if this language aspect applies to what you and i, and others,
are doing on this symposium…and maybe try and bring the 'idea' into our experiencing…
as to gain a more coherent understanding of just what is meant…or am i just way off base
here?
but one of the core suppositions of enactivism is that science, as a form of languaging,
is indeed a social activity embedded in a particular historical situation bearing the
marks of the prejudices that affect every other human sphere of life, whether political,
religious, or otherwise.
ok, if this is true concerning science, why is it not also true concerning religion or
spirituality, or anything? even enactivism itself?
There is a tendency in the sciences to assume that the knowledge brought forth by the
scientific method amounts to an objective representation of reality as it exists
independent of human subjectivity. Maturana and Varela want to replace this notion with
that of “objectivity-in-parenthesis.” Their aim is to avoid the transcendental objectivism
which results when the observer “…implicitly or explicitly assumes that existence takes
place independently of what he or she does, that things exist independently of whether
he or she knows them, and that he or she can know them, or can know of them, or can know about them, through perception or reason”
could you address whether or not you conclude if they were successful in this, and your
reasons for stating so?
Conceptually, we can certainly imagine reality and ourselves outside our embedded
perspectives; but such mental exercises remain a function of our operationally closed
(more on this later) nervous systems. In other words, our imagined objectivity is still a
product of our embodiment, and so remains an “as if” objectivity; or, as enactivism
suggests, an “objectivity-in-parenthesis.”
by embodiment, are you referring to our conditioning? and if this is so, then are not
even these views that they are expressing conditioned? as well as any we might have
regarding any subject…including our religious or spiritual convictions? and our conversation right this minute?
There is a bit of a scandal in the biological sciences. After nearly 400 years of what
might be considered modern scientific investigation (and 3,000 years of natural philosophy),a widely agreed upon definition for the central object of study, life, has yet to be produced.
maybe this explains why man had the need to turn to fantasy to explain his reality…and how god and all the religions before and after were really born…but then in all fairness, actual scientific tradition could be considered to still be in its infancy compared to religious tradition, especially those that are ancient, such as buddhism…correct?
there has been a lot to digest within your presentation, so i am going to stop here, it's
late and i need some dream time…lol, but Matt, i think you have done an excellent job of
presenting this, and i so appreciate the time and effort that obviously went into this…
i also want to thank you for sharing your knowledge with us all, and for challenging my
brain and my beliefs…lol…which i'm not sure i have many left that i can voice…lol
but you know what i mean…in a sense you are challenging that too…so i thank you…
this has been a true experience of critical thinking…very enjoyable…
always, star…
Alright star, let's see where we can go with your questions…
i was wondering what their definition of an 'observer includes, and
if it included someone who is blind, or mute, and how that would change, if in fact it did
change, their definition.
a blind and mute person, if they were able to communicate via sign language, would still be a kind of observer. they still have a sophisticated enough cognitive system to abstract certain features of their experience into concepts, even if they are not verbal but gestural (hand signs). their ability to fully participate in the work of scientific investigation would be limited, certainly, but they are still capable of interacting with other human beings on the abstract level of what reality might be like independent of perspectives.
i would also like to ask, if this language aspect applies to what you and i, and others,
are doing on this symposium…and maybe try and bring the 'idea' into our experiencing…
as to gain a more coherent understanding of just what is meant…or am i just way off base
here?
Yes! It definitely applies. We are all trying to coordinate our abstractions such that we bring forth a coherent linguistic description of the world as we all see it. the more words we share, the closer we come to understanding each other (hopefully). the point is that what we end up concluding (if anything) from this symposium will not be a discovery of some fact about the world that already existed, but rather will be a new perspective yet to be embodied. we are trying to create a new perspective that we can all share.
ok, if this is true concerning science, why is it not also true concerning religion or
spirituality, or anything? even enactivism itself?
It does apply to enactivism, to everything we do and say. we are all products of our time, of our biological constitution, etc. we cannot escape these limits, though we needn't see them as limits so much as tools with which we can explore reality. without our bodies and particular historical perspectives, we wouldn't even know where to begin trying to understand reality. we need to start somewhere, after all. we just need to remember that the pursuit of truth is forever a work in progress.
could you address whether or not you conclude if they were successful in this, and your
reasons for stating so?
I'd say they were successful. Wilber noticed what they were trying to do. We paid enough attention to put this whole symposium together…. I can only hope that hte next generation of scientists comes to acknowledge the situatedness of their knowledge.
by embodiment, are you referring to our conditioning? and if this is so, then are not
even these views that they are expressing conditioned? as well as any we might have
regarding any subject…including our religious or spiritual convictions? and our conversation right this minute?
embodiment is basically a reference to our conditioning, yes. though not only our conditioning in this life, but in our whole evolutionary history. our embodiment is what constrains he kind of actions we can perform and the kind of knowledge we can have. it is the particular wavelenths of light my eyes evolved to see, the particular frequency of sound my ears evolved to hear, etc. the conversations we are having now are a product not only of the decisions you and i make in this moment, but of our entire evolutionary history, or our karma, if you will.
maybe this explains why man had the need to turn to fantasy to explain his reality…and how god and all the religions before and after were really born…but then in all fairness, actual scientific tradition could be considered to still be in its infancy compared to religious tradition, especially those that are ancient, such as buddhism…correct?
agreed. science is still a child.
thanks for your engagment with my essay, star. hope i answered your questions adequately, but don't be afraid to challenge my answers or ask for clarification.
be well,
matt
Well done! Interesting, understandable, with a variety of approaches to the material. I understand more now about the ideas being described here in the symposium. You provide a good context from which re-reading the first ones would be more rewarding. IOW if I were editing this stuff into a book, I might put your entry first.
The only thing I see which I cannot forgo commenting on is
in the sense that spirituality means letting go of our own wants and desires to focus instead upon compassion and loving kindness.
For me that's not what spirituality is at all. Spirituality for me is about the intention and practice of ever-expanding consciousness, in steps of transcending and including. Embracing our desires, wants, our compassion and our loving kindness, and every other aspect of us, and not getting trapped in our identity as ANY of those. Spirituality to me might loosely be described as never about “instead of” and always about “and.”
When Varela says compassion is “intrinsic” how does that concept “intrinsic” fit into his theory? It certainly fits Wilber's view that compassion (his view of it, anyway) simply arises as a result or manifestation of a certain level/stage/scope of consciousness expansion.
Blessings, OM Bastet
hey OM,
For me that's not what spirituality is at all. Spirituality for me is about the intention and practice of ever-expanding consciousness, in steps of transcending and including.
I don't discount this at all, and like I said, my approach to spirituality is probably biased by my Buddhist practice. Remove the arrow before you try to figure out who shot it, ya know?
Self awareness is the best any human can hope to achieve, the division between spirituality and non-spiritual is not a division at all, but, the premise of a different outlook, all humans need to be in touch with their inner self, inner self, weather perceived of God or nature is the same object of development, just like in spirituality there are no right ways to knowing what individually we aspire to perceive ourselves as part of, all quests of self awareness are individual journeys, the origin of so many forms of independent bodies of spiritual belief are a blessing in acceptance to perceive human logic and it's inability to represent the value of such spiritual belief by failing to embrace them in an environment that is conducive to their origin, since much is a question of origin and origin is to date the captive of time, yet certain data is known and much data is conflicting, dna and creation are the best clues available for stating all humans are equal, as well as all humans are common, as in origins all as far as we know originate from this planet and that in simplistic relevance is enough to know all humans are connected by more than just a common, body, brain, self, energy, love…all have the capacity to hate and hate is a disease, that incurs harm upon others, therefore acceptance of spirituality and non-spirituality is acceptable to self defense, since obsession with domination is obsession with hate, yet the nature of superior, inferior is essential in development of objectives, yet objectives are not procured in a divided envelope of alienation and the nature of time as procured it's own adversity to death by machines, because the same machines utilized in countless wars to the same effect…death, misery, pain or inhuman abuse and these scares take many generations to heal and fade and fade they never will whilst the collaboration of nations remains undecided about it's own human nature, the nature of other species, the nature and survival in this minuscule envelope of life…part of a infinitely more interesting domain, than the one history dictates we are all trapped by to the detriment of every human being on the planet without a credible human right with which to defend the injustice and oppression of humans.
don't be afraid to challenge my answers or ask for clarification.
LOL…
thnx matt for answering everything you did, and didn't…(your bias is showing…lol)
embodiment is basically a reference to our conditioning, yes. though not only our
conditioning in this life, but in our whole evolutionary history. our embodiment
is what constrains he kind of actions we can perform and the kind of knowledge we
can have. it is the particular wavelenths of light my eyes evolved to see, the particular
frequency of sound my ears evolved to hear, etc. the conversations we are having now are a product not only of the decisions you and i make in this moment, but of our entire
evolutionary history, or our karma, if you will.
matt, i would like to discuss something here that i think is quiet relevant…
i watched a documentary a while back, concerning a man who had been blind, not from birth, but from an early age, i can't remember all the details, and was unable to find any
reference to it on google, but much later in life, he had eye surgery, and i can't
remember those details either, but for the sake of this discussion, those details are not
really necessary…
the jest of it is this: his sight was restored, however, it was not stable…iow, he
was able to make out that there were forms of sorts, of his wife, etc., but the form
was not clearly defined…
it was said that because the man had not actually had the 'experiencing' of conditioning
his vision for all those years, that he would have to 'learn' to see, and actually have
what he saw, process via his brain, so that an actual memory could be maintained, and
retrieved (paraphrasing here)…i found that amazing! it was on one of those science shows that i love so much to watch, but i think this is exactly what V. and you are saying…
over time, what we see gets programed, conditioned in the brain, and we learn
to define what is seen by our very experiencing, and that conditions it, reinforcing it
into our patterns of memory.
is that about right?
since i don't remember any reincarnations (that is not to say definitively there have been
none), i can only deal with the programing of what we learn to see in this lifetime, but
it is clear that our direct experiencing reinforces and defines what we actually
remember seeing and to some degree (i am not certain as to what degree) what we actually see, and that it evolves over time…and that what evolves, is a direct intermingling
of ones consciousness and it's interaction with it's environment…
this seems to be what enactivism is saying in a nutshell right?
thnx again for your responses, and don't think i am through with you just yet…lol…i still have the rest of your essay to critique…much joy to you…*
Briefly, an autopoietic system is a unity easily distinguishable from its surrounding
environment, containing components that continually produce and maintain both themselves and the unity. The term is a literal translation into Greek of “self-producing.”
so, what you are saying here, is that a human is an autopoietic system, made up of
autopoietic systems, and contained in worldly autopoietic systems that are also made up
of dare i say…more…autopoietic systems?
how is this so different from systems thinking and systems theory? and where do you see those differences, concerning this explanation for life, wrt, autopoietic systems succeeding and systems theory failing?
a widely agreed upon definition for the central object of study, life, has yet to be produced. There are plenty of qualities that have been ascribed to living systems, but (arguably) the only serious attempt to define it was Varela and Maturana's theory of autopoiesis.
this is an area of your essay that needs some unpacking, as you guys like to say…the
word is growing on me…lol…so i wont proceed any further for now, as i want to get a
clearer understanding of this before i dive into all the deep places of integral theory…
bruce, if you're reading…i would love to here you write about your experience with
integral, weaving it into the AQAL paradigm…many reading, including myself, are not
as familiar with the terms, and in all fairness, if this symposium is going to have the
reaching effect that is desired, you guys are going to have to give more of your life
experiencing of it…
much joy…and thank you all for sharing yourselves and your knowledge with us…
always, star…
Star,
over time, what we see gets programed, conditioned in the brain, and we learn
to define what is seen by our very experiencing, and that conditions it, reinforcing it
into our patterns of memory.
is that about right?
I don't know that a better example exists! That is exactly right. This fellow who had his eye sight restored but was unable to see until he “learned how to look” is much like the kitten that Balder mentioned in a comment under his essay. If we do not have the opportunity to condition ourselves, we cannot make heads or tails of the world “out there.” So in a very real way, a lot of what we see around us is a product of not only our evolutionary “karma” (the specific DNA and epigenetic factors we inherit) but of our individual experience in this life. Not entirely, mind you. There is something out there for us to train our gaze on. But it is just “some sort of a something” until we learn to dance with it in an appropriate way.
how is this so different from systems thinking and systems theory? and where do you see those differences, concerning this explanation for life, wrt, autopoietic systems succeeding and systems theory failing?
Autopoiesis IS systems thinking! So ST has not failed, it is just being applied at the level of individual organisms instead of whole ecosystems.
a widely agreed upon definition for the central object of study, life, has yet to be produced. There are plenty of qualities that have been ascribed to living systems, but (arguably) the only serious attempt to define it was Varela and Maturana's theory of autopoiesis.
Unpack it? You mean what some of the qualities that have been ascribed to living systems are? They move around, they take in and expel energy, they reproduce, etc. Varela, unlike most biologists, did not see reproduction as essential to life, because in order to reproduce, autopoiesis had to occur first. So as a consequence, we might suppose that 4 billion years ago when the first free-living cells were emerging, most of them were confined to a single generation, unable to reproduce, until finally some figured out the trick. Stuart Kauffman (theoretical biologist) suggests that reproduction could have been a pretty easy trick at first, as if you have an autocatalytic (self-propelling/reacting) chemcial system within a semi-permeable membrane, it will grow until eventually the membrane just cuts itself in two, with equal bits of molecules to continue the autocatalysis in each daughter cell. Reproduction without any DNA (which evolved later).
I would love to unpack more… I love this stuff… but i have to go shower and take a ride to the subway to meet someone! be back later.
thanks star!
-Matt
matt…i love it too!
this is what i am understanding about my own understanding…much like the little kitten, or the blind man who gained his ability to see again, the ability to think for myself was not encouraged as a child, so i did not learn how to do that…
i feel that i, by interacting with all of you on such levels, am exercising that part of my brain that never got a good work out when i was growing up…so in a sense, i am experiencing the process of enactivism on what i find to be an amazing new level…
this leads me to consider that although i may be able to go within my own autopoiectic system and reach a level of awareness and understanding with my own being and discover and stabelize my own true nature within my own body, mind, and voice…without any interaction (iow, kinda like going to meditate in a cave…lol) to truly experience the all that life has to offer, one must carry their autopoiectic system of systems into the arena of other autopoiectic systems to be stimulated further…LOL…what fun this adventure of discovery is…thnx matt…more later…
here for research into brain reorganisation and plasticity
great discussion, lots of interesting stuff here…
This is great! These ideas are getting closer to my own thinking. There is much that I could respond to, but let me just pick out a few things you wrote.
This may be hard for materialists to swallow, but one of the core suppositions of enactivism is that science, as a form of languaging, is indeed a social activity embedded in a particular historical situation bearing the marks of the prejudices that affect every other human sphere of life, whether political, religious, or otherwise.
I'd like to elaborate on this with my own later presentation, but for now I just wanted to highlight it. Knowledge is situated. Its a simple but profound notion that could transform science.
Remember, for enactivism, “everything said is said by an observer.” This is to remind us that all of our descriptions come from a particular perspective. There is, strictly speaking, no such thing as pure objectivity. As philosopher Thomas Nagel put it, pure objectivity amounts to a ”view from nowhere,” which, when taken literally, is contradictory.
There has been many questions about enactivism so far in the symposium, but a basic question is… what is the point of it all? Is there something more to this than abstract theorizing? As I see it, enactivism is trying to be more grounded than supposedly objective views. The grounding of enactivism is in our own direct experience which like it or not is what science itself is grounded in.
To genuinely see into our condition, we have to forgo the ”Cartesian anxiety” that compels us to chase after various forms of security and stability, be they a grandiose sense of self, a youthful appearance, a six-figure salary, or transcendental knowledge of and control over reality itself. When we turn our attention inward, we discover that the self we think we are, with all its desires and wishes and ideas, is rather fragile and impermanent.
Thanks, Matt, for introducing me to the idea of Cartesian anxiety! That connects to some other ideas that have been on my mind, but I'm still working out those connections.
matt this is thrilling!
i will be back monday to comment as i have a workshop to teach tomorrow…
I don't have a wise and insightful comment to leave… but Matt, I'm both blown away by and deeply appreciative of your essay / presentation. I'll digest it some more and see what comes, if anything.
And Star… I'm open-mouthed in admiration at your insightful questions and comments.
All best,
Lol
Thanks for that reference, Nicole!
It is amazing how much neuroscience initially underestimated the degree to which the brain constantly rewires itself, and even grows new neurons, throughout life. You really can teach an old dog new tricks. And it also highlights how active our nervous systems, and therefore our perceptual abilities, are. We do not passively observe life from afar, receiving information from something out there already; we must participate in and be transformed by that which we are aware of before we can know it.
Marmalade,
Yes, put simply, knowledge is situated. Simple and profound, but when fully appreciated, it certainly does change the traditional relationship between science and life.
Enactivism can get rather theoretical, even metaphysical, but it is trying to undo, or at least re-think, literally thousands of years of Western philosophical discourse. So there are a lot of words to wade through, a lot of calcified conceptualizations to scrub clean, etc. Nonetheless, its aim is to bring science's attention to its attention, so to speak – to turn our gaze upon our own ability to know in hopes that what we discover transforms not only our theories, but our lives.
Julian,
So glad you enjoyed it, I can't wait for your further comments, Good luck this weekend.
Thanks for your comments everyone!
-Matt
Glad you enjoyed it, Marigpa. Thanks for taking the time to read it, i know it is rather long!
Matt,
I was particularly moved by this from Varela that you quoted:
”The more the fragile self-subject deploys itself, the more compassion deploys itself because that's what it is. The more there is the opening into space to accommodate or to take care of the other, there is kind of an intrinsic decenteredness, and therefore the other appears closer. Solidarity, compassion, care, love –all of the different modes of being together– appear when the self is decentered. Now that, to me, is a great gift of the universe. Since we are not solid and private and centered, the more we get close to all our reality, the more we are who we are. That is, both you and I. Not just me, but the ‘us-ness’ in us. Which is another way of saying that my mind is not my mind. It is a mind that requires that interbeing. There is naturally that kind of concern and care and solidarity. But it is not just how nice I am, or how good a guy I am. It has nothing to do with this. It has to do with how real things are, in reality, that non-distinction between the intersubjective network of things.”
To me it beautifully illustrates the mutuality between compassion and wisdom… and, by extension, the famous “two wings needed to fly to enlightenment”of mahayana buddhism, bodhicitta and sunyata…
and reveals how ''our'' “attainments” and “realisations” are dependent on other beings … “.. my mind is not my mind. It is a mind that requires that interbeing.”
And it got me reflecting on karma (as explained in buddhism), with its face-value (and, in this way, simplistic) notion that 'fortunate' outcomes come as a result of positive or 'good' actions and 'unfortunate' outcomes come as a result of negative or 'bad' actions… it would follow from what Varela is saying here that the more decententered we are, the less likely we are to perform actions that are harmful to others… or to the environment.
That said, this quote from the Karmavibhanga sutra
“Beings evolve through karma, take birth because of karma, enjoy (life, the fruits of) karma, and (function) through karma.”
may be a propositional statement unacceptable to many (here).
In an earlier response to Starlight you wrote:
”it is the particular wavelenths of light my eyes evolved to see, the particular frequency of sound my ears evolved to hear, etc. the conversations we are having now are a product not only of the decisions you and i make in this moment, but of our entire evolutionary history, or our karma, if you will. ”
Do you see a way in which (the buddhist notion of) karma plays a part in the enactment of our “worldspace” … or our 'karmic vision', if you will.
All best,
Lol
Lol,
That quote really struck me, as well. I knew I had to include it from the very first time I read it a week or two ago. That all our individual attainments and realizations are dependent on other beings is so true. What we attain, we attain together or not at all. The notion of lone cowboy enlightenment never seemed quite genuine enough. It is a compelling storyline for a movie, maybe, but in real life things are far too sloppy and interconnected for that. Certainly some may have a keener realization than others, having dipped into the cosmic pool of compassion a bit deeper; but this realization is sustained and made possible by the need of all other sentient beings to love and be loved.
It may just be that the Buddhist/Hindu traditional wisdom surrounding karma was a premonition of what we now call evolution. A strict materialist may say that this process is blind chance; but I think a more integral view of it makes clear the role that we each play (however small) in the course of karmic flow/evolution. It is a conscious path of development if only we are brave enough to take on the responsibility, which really just means opening to that “interbeing” which is the subject/object of evolution.
thanks for your insightful words,
Matt
Hi, Matt,
A number of thoughts come to mind as I read through your essay again this morning. First, regarding your contextualization of Varela and Wilber in relation to their work: I agree with your views on the shortcomings of both and the ways they can complement each other. Varela's work, for me, stands as an exemplary form of Integral Methodological Pluralism. At the least, by walking it, he has helped lay out a useful pathway between first-person contemplative methodologies and third-person cognitive science. Wilber's work is valuable in relation to this because it can contextualize it in a way that reveals gaps or points to other fruitful avenues of inquiry, even if Wilber's own scientific pronouncements on evolution or whatever leave something to be desired.
Two, regarding the video interview with Varela: Perhaps it is my Buddhist bias too, but I also appreciate his willingness to remain open (grounded but open) in relation to notions such as subtle consciousness. An integral scientist is not obligated to remain open to, or to take equally seriously, every first-person claim that comes along just because it is first-person and the integral ideal is to include first-person data. But in the case of a discipline which has expended a great deal of energy exploring and working with consciousness via first-person methodologies, I think its claims regarding consciousness-related phenomena merit open-minded (but still scientifically grounded) consideration.
Third, regarding your comments about the New Age: I think you may be caricaturing this movement somewhat, and, in so doing, being overly dismissive of it. After all, Wilber's work is considered by many to be New Age! But beyond Wilber's work, I think that there are so many approaches, beliefs, practices, and so on, that go under the label of “New Age,” that we should be careful about making broad generalizations about it, particularly if we use those generalizations to dismiss (or endorse) the “movement” as a whole. I lived for a number of years in one of the US's New Age meccas: Sedona, AZ. So, I have seen my share of New Age nuttiness – I have encountered plenty of teachers and teachings that are confused, childish, and escapist, not to mention (in some cases) deliberately deceptive and predatory. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that nothing genuinely spiritual is going on at all within the New Age; I don't think that's the case. And perhaps you didn't mean to imply this, anyway. I just wanted to acknowledge here that, in addition to the essentially narcissistic trends you've rightly pointed out and criticized, there is nevertheless something of value in the movement as well. I have long disagreed with the focus on “manifestation” and “creating your own reality” that I've encountered in many New Age teachings, and … well, I won't give the litany of things I disagree with or fail to appreciate. I'll just leave it at this, since this is off topic anyway: genuine spiritual searching and quickening are present in this movement as well.
Lastly, like you, I have appreciated Varela's thoughts on “compassion” and empathy as our true nature. I think you and Lol have both just highlighted this topic beautifully, so I won't try to say much more. But I would add that perhaps what is missing from Varela's account is the acknowledgement of the developmental dynamics that play in a role in the dawning of mature, spiritually awakened compassion. In our early stages of development, for instance, our intersubjective grounding is interpreted, or really unreflexively experienced, narcissistically – where “my mind is not my mind” shows up, instead, as “your mind is my mind.” There is a “what is” component, an objective component, to what Varela is describing, but also an interpretive, developmentally situated one. Would you agree?
Best wishes,
Balder
Hey Balder,
I appreciate your remarks. Certainly the call to remain in the question and not leap to any premature conclusions is not a blank check that ought to be applied to every claim we come across. We can still use discernment to weigh what sounds genuine and what an exaggeration.
About the New Age, I agree with you. i didn't mean to sound as though I was dismissing it all. The is a tremendous amount of value in it, and I think one of the reasons is has sometimes gone overboard is because it is reacting to the equally imbalanced materialist paradigm. A great book to check out about this very issue is William Irwin Thompson's and David Spangler's “Reimagination of the World: A Critique of the New Age, Science, and Popular Culture.” It's actually a transcript of a talk they gave together in 1988. Throughout the 70s and 80s, Thompson brought together what he affectionately calls “New Age scientists” to his contemplative community at Lindisfarne. Among them were Gregory Bateson, Varela, Lynn Margulis, and James Lovelock. He contrasts these scientists with others like Sheldrake because they chose to “hang in there in the laboratory, hard at work trying to answer the refutations of their skeptical colleagues. This… is a radically different kind of behavior than we encounter in the case of the ex-scientist… it is the 'difference that makes a difference' between 'new age' –which is Robert Bly's phrase that he rhymes with sewage– and real science.”
I was really aiming at the J.Z. Knights and Fred Alan Wolfs of the New Age world in my criticisms. They just make it seem too easy; nothing they are selling requires any egoic sacrifice whatsoever, at least based on what I've heard. It is all so much feel good praise for “me,” and absolutely no genuine inquiry into what “me” even means, and further, how “me” relates to “we.”
I agree that Varela's project would benefit from the added context of how interior subjective experience unfolds through life. But then maybe he wasn't trying to make a contribution to this area. Science so often requires at least a bit of specialization, even though he was able in his life to freely float through so many fields (theoretical biology, immunology, neuroscience, cognitive science, consciousness studies, etc.).
In our early stages of development, for instance, our intersubjective grounding is interpreted, or really unreflexively experienced, narcissistically – where “my mind is not my mind” shows up, instead, as “your mind is my mind.” There is a “what is” component, an objective component, to what Varela is describing, but also an interpretive, developmentally situated one. Would you agree?
Yes! This notion of how intersubjective co-arising is first experienced as my mind swallowing other minds is well taken. It takes quite a while in this interpretive worldspace before one begins to realize that really owning up to their nature requires letting go of the notion of possession, even possession of what had previously been experienced as their own mind. This is why I don't see teachings offering “me” more control over reality as progressive; on the contrary, they are quite regressive, burrying our heads deeper in the sands of separation. Not that, as has been discussed elsewhere, there aren't important senses in which we are not all the same, I don't think saying we are not separate is misleading. We are distinct, but not separate. There is no gap between my being/becoming and yours. That would subvert the meaning of co-dependent arising.
Thanks for brining these issues up, Bruce!
be well,
Matt
ps - how was that Star Wars flick?
To those interested, I found a paper called Some Differences between Maturana and Varela's Theory of Cognition and Constructivism.
Constructivism is a relativist theory that is very popular in education that is, more or less, the view that there are no objective facts, only constructed reality. Students should be encouraged to discover what's true for them rather than what the teacher says. “Constructivism drops the requirement that knowledge be ‘true’ in the sense that it should match an objective reality.”
Varela and Maturana are sometimes placed in this camp - wrongly, according to this paper. I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say about this.
Matt, somewhere in one of your comments on this entry or one of the others (i can't seem to find it right now), you explained with a few words what exactly you meant by your use of the word karma…as it related to enactivism…could you expound on that? karma has lots of buddhist baggage, but the way you used the word gave it an entirely new embodiment…lol
what i got out of it was that your interpretation of karma, is that it is the entirety of the history of consciousness, and its continual evolution…is that accurate?
could you maybe compare this new take against the old?
i find too often many are quick to dismiss the real horrors of this reality by saying something like…well, they're just reaping what they sow, or they are living out their karma…which although that might be true to a degree, and i am not certain that it always is…it is nonetheless nonproductive…and in the face of countless children dying, humanity cannot continue to just sit back and do nothing…it is like saying someone 'deserves' to get aids…ridiculousness…we could reduce everything to that, and we are left only with another judgmental system that cares only for itself and those who follow it…don't misunderstand, it has been my experience, that i am responsible for my own behaviour, and if i expose myself to certain healthrisks, then i have to take responsibility for that and learn to make healthier choices…but i can see how the larger part of society has turned its back on these lost children of aids and drug addiction, and somehow reduced everything into karma…
we saw a famous movie star make the reference to china's tragedy; a pastor said similiar things concerning katrina…i could go on, but i am certain you get my point…
maybe the word karma has outlived its usefulness for all intents and purposes…*
Thanks, Mr. Teacup. I've read that paper, and, in short, I think the difference between constructivism and enactivism are subtle, but important. While Varela et al. would agree that much of our human world is constructed by the particular kinds of discourse we use, they also point to our biological structure and/or evolutionary history. These quite concrete facts constrict and shape the kind of worlds we can live in way before our words and cultural practices get a chance to. Granted, a lot of our biology is influenced by these words and practices, but it pays to keep in mind that there is a matter of fact about how our bodies work, even if it is difficult for us to at first perceive it. And don't mistake these matters of fact for ossified truths; they co-evolve with the knower like everything else. Did I leave anything out that was mentioned in the paper? It's been a while since I read it…
Star,
I am in no way attached to the word “karma,” but let me explain what I mean when I use the word. Far from being an excuse to write off the suffering of others, karma is one of the reasons compassion arises for others to begin with. That is because much of the accumulated habits we have picked up through the course of evolution (my modern definition for karma, which literally translated just means “action”) remain unconscious in those who react based upon them. So instead of blaming people for their karma, I would be more inclined to be less judgmental of them. In the pre-evolutionary meaning of the term, it may imply that karmic choices are voluntary, just as free as me deciding to pour myself a glass of OJ a few minutes ago. But in this new context of evolutionary theory, I think it becomes clear that much of the actions of past incarnations of ourselves (of the genetic lines which preceded us) are no direct fault of our own, but nonetheless, we are connected to them and in fact constituted by them. So there is no transcendence of karma per-say, but their is owning up to it, which would include accepting our bodies, not repressing our appetites, recognizing the inherited condition of others and because of that dealing with them more compassionately, and so forth.
i love your idea of karma…and give it my ***** rating!
just had a chance to really read through your piece matt and enjoyed it thoroughly!
how profound to see an embodied varela in his refined elder-hood complete with cat and mountain, talking about his perspective…
will follow more of the links inpreparation for my piece tomorrow, and maybe offer up some more comments here later…
Yeah I really dig the stuff about karma and action, I really think karma is real and restricted by the choices of evolutionary conciouss development to be restricted by awarness of the self in the now and the now in the self culminating in awareness of collective self and it's many facets of independant awareness and knowledge, conditioned by events, yet, still central to the cultural attitude of rejection to the apperance of continuity and the continuity of reason in logic to define all actions as predermined responses to cause and effect within the social matrix of existence , the validity of human rights to distinguish our own make-up from that of animals, without law, based on humanity, instead of independent nations there is no law or democracy and the right to kill is the only equality we share between nations when life is supposed to have a basic value, without adhearing to basic laws of co-existence that protect life, life is meaningless to quality of existence, if knowledge and wisdom have not made a decision about life and death, that equates to democratic representation of the total representation, democracy and justice are false to the concept of life in existence and if existence as a meaning it's about supporting life and not exploiting it…by putting more in you get more out, not less than you put in as per the norm…disinvestment, the free for all is a turkey shoot and we are all the turkeys…gobble gobble
Matt,
Thanks for clarifying your thoughts about the New Age movement. You're the third or fourth person recently who has recommended a William Irwin Thompson book to me. I've got to check him out! He's remained outside of my radar until now, but his name has been floating around a lot. A week or so ago, at the Integral Theory Conference, Allan Combs was referencing his work during his presentation.
You said: I agree that Varela's project would benefit from the added context of how interior subjective experience unfolds through life. But then maybe he wasn't trying to make a contribution to this area. Science so often requires at least a bit of specialization, even though he was able in his life to freely float through so many fields (theoretical biology, immunology, neuroscience, cognitive science, consciousness studies, etc.).
Yes, I agree. And although we seem to be highlighting enactivism a bit more than “Integral Theory” or “21st Century Spirituality” in this symposium, maybe because it is less familiar and needs more introduction, this is the value of the particular constellation of approaches we're exploring here together: to help highlight where other fields can contribute to the “piece” that enactivism brings.
You wrote: This notion of how intersubjective co-arising is first experienced as my mind swallowing other minds is well taken. It takes quite a while in this interpretive worldspace before one begins to realize that really owning up to their nature requires letting go of the notion of possession, even possession of what had previously been experienced as their own mind. This is why I don't see teachings offering “me” more control over reality as progressive; on the contrary, they are quite regressive, burying our heads deeper in the sands of separation. Not that, as has been discussed elsewhere, there aren't important senses in which we are not all the same, I don't think saying we are not separate is misleading. We are distinct, but not separate. There is no gap between my being/becoming and yours. That would subvert the meaning of co-dependent arising.
Yes, well said. One thing that I touched on but haven't really opened up yet in my discussion with James is that, while enactivism posits the oneness (or, better, the “inseparability”) of my being/becoming and yours, it also introduces a “division” where representationalism insists on oneness or uniformity, through its notion of “the world” (which is pre-given and the same for all).
Best wishes,
Bruce
P.S. The new Star Wars cartoon was pretty good! I enjoyed it more than I thought I would – and it was great to be doing this cross-generational thing with my son, watching him delight in a “universe” that also thrilled me when I was young.
Matt, Wow!
What a gift! I am impressed - This well written and information packed essay expresses a lot of valuable thoughts, ideas and concepts too. I especially appreciate all the links, illustrations, video and references. I'm grateful you wrote in language reaching a wider audience, for scholars and less educated alike. I found it to be profoundly poetic and helpful (though some of it is a little over my head at the moment and I have a lot of study ahead of me.) Bee Well, Debs
Bruce
This is interesting:
“enactivism posits the oneness (or, better, the “inseparability”) of my being/becoming and yours, it also introduces a “division” where representationalism insists on oneness or uniformity, through its notion of “the world” (which is pre-given and the same for all).”
But I continue to struggle with the somewhat abstract language…doh!
I've asked you this before I know but… is there anyway you could say the same thing in a different way? I know, I'm slow…
Maybe Matt could put it better than me? That is, if he gets what I'm trying to say! I'm on my way to lunch right now, but will answer your question when I get back (in about 30 minutes)…
Bruce,
I humbly suggest that you run as fast as you can to Amazon and pick the Thompson book that looks most interesting to you! You really can't go wrong, though I'd recommed “The Time Falling Bodies Take To Light,” which explore the often hidden mythos of science.
—–
Enactivism is, after all, a theory of cognition. It isn't meant to cover all the bases, though it certainly seems capable of touching them all, adding something important to each.
—–
Important distinction!
Thanks Bruce. I'll probably go check that film out.
Be well,
Matt
James, Bruce,
“enactivism posits the oneness (or, better, the “inseparability”) of my being/becoming and yours, it also introduces a “division” where representationalism insists on oneness or uniformity, through its notion of “the world” (which is pre-given and the same for all).”
I can try to flesh this out a bit. Enactivism is a process ontology of sorts, which entails moving past the sense in which the world is made of discrete objects existing in their own right independently of one another. Entities in the world are instead all a function of each other; when you change something over here, you necessarily change something over there, no matter how subtle. The measurement problem in quantum physics is really what makes the old objective ontology untennable, because it shows that we cannot know anything about the world without interfering with it. So in a very important sense, everything is one process.
When it comes to the division also maintained by enactivism, what we're essentially talking about is what I mentioned over on your blog just a few minutes ago, James. There is a difference between an organism and its environment to an observer, and the world as lived by the organism. There is not just one world out there that all organisms operate within, though we as observers can usefully abstract one thanks to our linguistic capabilities. There are multiple worldspaces brought forth by the biological structure/organization of each organism. We aren't just talking about different cultural worldviews here, we're talking about different organs of perception bringing forth entirely different worlds. There are some similarities between these worlds, but then again, how are we to distinguish these similarities with our objectifying language if what makes a worldspace a worldspace is exactly the sense in which it is non-linguistic, an experiencing between subject and object, never entirely one or the other?
So while it seems like an affront to rational discourse to say something like “there is not just one matter of fact about what the world is,” such a realization is essential to even begin to take enactivism seriously.
Hope this makes sense, James. Both you and Bruce, let me know how you agree/disagree wit this.
-Matt
matt - forgive my late entry, i linked to your piece which i continue to find engaging, but neglected to congratulate you on the enviable clarity of your writing style, depth of knowledge, and mental acuity. not to mention thank you again for stepping in to save my day!
i'll be back, and look forward to being both picky and challenged as usual.
nice one.
adam
i am up and ready to play!
James,
I think Matt has done a nice job of fleshing out what I was saying…or at least an angle on it. One thing that I think might be worth bringing up here is Whitehead's fallacy of misplaced concreteness. It might be clarifying – but then it might not be! Are you familiar with it?
Best wishes,
B.
what happened to the conversation here - has it died out?
let's talk about whitehead..
Fallacy of misplaced concreteness From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Whitehead's fallacy) Jump to: navigation, search
In the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, one commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness when one mistakes an abstract belief, opinion or concept about the way things are for a physical or 'concrete' reality.
Whitehead proposed the fallacy in a discussion of the relation of spatial and temporal location of objects. Whitehead rejects the notion that a concrete physical object in the universe can be described simply in spatial or temporal extension. Rather, the object must be described as a field located in both space and time.
“…among the primary elements of nature as apprehended in our immediate experience, there is no element whatever which possesses this character of simple location. … [Instead,] I hold that by a process of constructive abstraction we can arrive at abstractions which are the simply located bits of material, and at other abstractions which are the minds included in the scientific scheme. Accordingly, the real error is an example of what I have termed: The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness.” Whitehead (1997), p. 58. “[The Fallacy] is merely the accidental error of mistaking the abstract for the concrete… This fallacy is the occasion of great confusion in philosophy.” Whitehead (1997), p. 52.Also Whitehead (1925), Part III.
The Victorian fantasy Flatland makes an analogous point; just as humans cannot perceive of a line that has width but no breadth, they also cannot perceive an object that has spatial but not temporal position (or vice versa).
anyone here?
In part 3, embodied spirituality, as someone well versed in Law of Attraction concepts, I would agree that there is much opportunism and appeal to the lower desires for more and ever more of the more that is desired, never completely satisfying a longing that is beyond that. Yet, I believe if such a concept allows individuals mired in base pursuits and victimization (whichever side of that they find themselves on) to rise above and believe that by changing their perception, their trajectory through life will improve, I really see no long term harm and many true spiritual seekers find themselves at that stage of development at some point but it isn't the end of the journey, there is better yet to discover as experimentation and practice yield varying results which the contemplative mind will assess.
Certainly, non-attachment is an important stage and realization and compassion relevant to improving the human condition and in these concepts there is a form of compassion for those who struggle regardless of how it can be abused for personal financial gain. The deeper, more rewarding level is a worthwhile path to seek.
I enjoyed very much part 1 on the biology and the Zen story at the end that I will be faced with pondering for some time. No time to read comments on any (though some of the first) essay. I hope to revisit when your collective output slows down.
Julian,
Thanks for bringing up Whitehead. I haven't studied him in depth, only read of his work in other philosopher's books. I'm starting a course on his cosmology and philosophy next week, though; so I should have more to say soon.
I think that a video I just posted of Alan Watts lecturing speaks to the sense in which “the object must be described as a field located in both space and time.”
Hey debyemm,
Glad you stopped by, and thanks for reading. I don't know that there isn't ANY harm in the teachings surrounding The Secret, but there are certainly bigger problems to worry about outside the context of New Age spirituality, like fundamentalist religion and so forth. But I think there are better, deeper, and more empowering ways of coming to gain a sense of purpose in life. The very notion of being offered a simple “secret” that will make everything better just seems disingenuous to me. It is not that easy. When it comes to spiritual awakening, there are many, many factors involved, some of which are beyond our immediate control. People have to realize that they must put their whole being (body, mind, soul) into the effort if they want to transform, not just their mind. Adopting a new way of thinking is not going to lead to the genuine transformation so many desire, at least not in my experience.
-Matt
hmm..
neurons tangled?
What do you think about the “fallacy”? What does it say to you about the nature of the world “out there,” the many “objects” that exist independently of subjectivity?
Whitehead was a theist. We should let those bubbles up to the surface. He felt the need to talk about “God.” Not just a theist, but a panentheist.
His major works are basically a critique of what we in the Wild West call “Rationality.”
It's not looking good so far, I'd imagine.
Matt,
I understand your concern. I am not saying that The Secret method is the best path (and yes, fundamentalist religion is much, much worse - give me a New Ager any day), only that for some it is the only hope of getting their attention to begin with. Until one feels a measure of relief in simply surviving - and that means being financially supported enough not to be obsessed with that, for some it means having a relationship that stabilizes their life, for some, it means gaining a measure of improvement over a medical condition. If such a simple formula, allows them to see their own role in the unfolding of their life - then it is all for the good.
The more “difficult” aspect that you mention will make itself clear soon enough. Still, a mild taste of success is enough to set some on a life-long path of spiritual inquiry, discovery and growth that they might not have embarked on except that their own self-interest motivated them. And frankly, while it may not have been your own experience, I can tell you that I have personally been rewarded countless times for understanding the interconnectiveness of life on a subtle level. There is nothing wrong with natural magic, for it isn't magic at all and science is proving the field of subtle influences more and more every day.
Of course, spiritual awakening involves many factors. Many of these are not evident until one has been “caught” in the net so to speak. Each has their own path and I would never dissuade you from yours. The highly intellectual level that you guys are operating on is great for challenging the inquiring nature of my mind and encouraging me to take a slightly different perspective and thereby moderate my own approach when called upon to help lift another up from a state of being they wish to escape.
Is that easy? By no means, but highly satisfying, when it accomplishes some good. The truth is that a holistic approach (body, mind and soul) is needed for the best expansion in this lifetime. Some (and I would put the mass of people in this category) are not ready for the higher levels of consideration that you are exploring in this symposium. We must meet the people who are drawn to us at a level they are able to comprehend. They will then be able to rise to whatever level they have the capability to, in this lifetime. Not to get into a discussion of whether reincarnation is a reality, which I personally can not say, but I hope is true; for I have already set an intention regarding rebirth 3 or 4 generations hence to my own descendents in this beautiful wilderness in which I currently live.
Deborah
hi guys just checking in to say i had 3.5 hours of dental work today and just got done seeing a client - so i have been awol… sorry!
j,
did you have any molars removed? do you think teeth are alive?
It is interesting to think about which parts of us we consider “our body,” and which we don't. And how our considerations change over time, depending on circumstances…
we've been talking a lot about enactivism. but what about the theory of autopoiesis, the theory of biology atop which enactivism floats? what does it mean to you that life is self-producing on a cellular and molecular level?
You left me hanging on a space hook early on. You don't know what is going on the the brain. Nobody knows. It is all guess and by gosh. I don't think about breathing. Where do I think? Has everything a place? You guys don't think beyond the ends of your noses. Even the Big Bang has a starting place.
Sir Isaac Newton was famous for his mathematical explanation of the three laws of motion, which layed the groundwork for classical mechanics. It's ironic. Classical mechanics replaced the theological theory of the universe. Newton, by the way, became interested in mathematics due to his interest in astrology.
Einstein had the perception of more in his unified field theory, but was talked out of it by his colleagues. He had his reputation to consider.
The physical domain notwithstanding, quantum mechanics perceives of more. A lot of what we cope with is left to our minds. We have wills and inexplicable communication quantum physics is explaining (much to the consternation of classical physics).
inlink,
Quantum physics has opened up a can of worms, that's for sure. But I'd say about it what you said about the brain: we don't know what is going on.
In the brain, however, we know quite a lot. And don't misunderstand me, I am talking about the physical organ in the skull. We have dissected it and MRI'ed it and run countless experiments, etc, and while there is plenty more to understand, the basic architecture is well understood. What we know little or nothing about (in a scientific way) is conscious experience. That is where the exciting research is, so far as I am concerned.
thanks for stopping by!
-Matt
Matt, i know that you are busy with your studies and stuff, but have had some questions evolve where the 'observor' and 'language' is concerned…
Antonio Damasio, a neuroscientist and humanist, has done extensive work and research with actual patients…i did not set out to question these perspectives, but have nevertheless felt uncomfortable about the limits that were given to 'observer' and 'language'.
his research suggest that an observer does not always have to see…nor does language constitute consciousness…what ties consciousness closer to being defined, is feeling, and how that unfolds…(which Bruce's new blog on the hard problem of consciousness addresses).
iow, the processes and symbols within consciousness, many which are archetypal, are themselves consciousness, and need not be communicated to be so…this is also backed up by Jung's research…
as far as language goes, this is a way of communicating one's experience, but it does not constitute consciousness, who's processes are within prior to being voiced…
i suppose my main question, is what effect, if any in your mind, does this have on the entire theory of enactivism? although i agree with it's main assertions, i find it's limiting in these areas questionable…what say you? lol…