L.I.F.T.

There are a few camps around the concept of free-will out there, and whether or not, and to what extent, we have or can exercise choice in our lives.

While I do believe that we can have free will, or free choice, I think that it is extremely difficult to achieve – even once, but especially on a regular basis – and is mostly defined by what “level” of behavior or action you choose to look at.

From the perspective of regular, day-to-day choices, we can choose whatever we want.

However, those choices will be constrained by our environment. If I live in a jungle, I cannot choose to have Golden Grahams for breakfast (let’s say that I actually know of the existence of Golden Grahams). My choice is constrained.

Within social contexts, my choice may be constrained by conditioning I received as to what is appropriate or not. I may really want to choose to go to art school, but my parents have always called art a silly thing, so I go to medical school, the way they want.

I can choose to walk or run (given that I have legs, and a nervous system that complies with that request).

Even below that, are the subtle pre-cognitive signals I receive from my environment that may color my choice in certain areas. If I see a person with a certain countenance, they trigger my mirror neurons, which creates a certain impression of that person and their intentions in my body before I am even able to make a conscious choice about who or what they are or mean to me.

On another level, my friend Mick Dodge would bring up prison. If you want to know what free will is or is not, go to prison. You’ll quickly learn the meaning. That is a very real, physical, palpable level of constraint, and quickly challenges a different, very real, level of the notion of “free will.”

In the end, these discussions are mostly mental masturbation. The concept of free will is only as meaningful as one makes it. Life continues with or without “concepts.”

This post was inspired by this article about the Japanese artist Hayao Miyazaki’s response to the iPad (and to Manga and text-messaging).

Modern technology is not “necessary” for survival or happiness. It is a tool we’ve created. Free-will, to me, is the ability to choose to be a creator or a consumer, as Miyazaki points out. The extent of your ability to choose your actions is the extent of your “free-will.” That can be constrained either by external sources (such as a prison), or by yourself (the prison of your iPad).

My issue with modern technologies is that people are used by them, instead of using them. Choose to selectively use technologies in ways that expand your sensitivity, your awareness, your abilities…or imprison yourself within them.

Another great find by my friend Colin Pistell over at The Fifth Ape Blog got my wheels turning again…here’s my response to the TED talk Colin posted, which I’ve pasted below in this entry. Thanks for the inspiration Colin!

I like the first part…reminds me of a book I just put on my wishlist:

But his finale leaves me befuddled. The “cloud” or network-brain method of technology-making is also extremely fragile. Yes, it creates “innovation” (this question later). But it creates innovation that no one person can recreate if a part of that innovation gets lost.

We used to joke, when I worked at Apple, about what might happen if John Ive (the guy who designed the iMac, iPod, and about everything “i” since) dropped dead. Or worse still, if Steve Jobs did!

We got an inkling of what would happen if Steve Jobs left Apple back in the 90’s, when he was fired from the company. It tanked. And another inkling when he revealed that he had been diagnosed with a rare form of pancreatic cancer. The stock tanked!

So, though the head may be good at running the company – the company that coordinates the “hive-brain” that makes the products – if the head dies, the body dies as well.

Question two is about “innovation.” People always tout “innovation,” and “creative solutions” to our “problems.”

However, most “innovation” only creates more problems. It is innovation built upon a problematic foundation.

That is, our “problems” are based on a dysfunctional relationship with ourselves and with ourselves-in-the-world. We feel the need to meddle in things all the time, when sensitive awareness would be much more effective at increasing efficiency, or effectiveness, or whatever it is we think we need to increase (which is also questionable).

Once we’ve created these “solutions,” we have to justify our efforts. When the “solutions” cause more problems (see our “petroleum solution”), we have to create “alternative fuels,” and chemicals that can clean up the messes we’ve made.

Do we really? Is that really helpful? Or should we instead question the path we’re on entirely? Should we question the depths of our consumption? Should we question the notion of “progress” and “innovation,” that has driven us (further and further from interconnection with the natural world that is our home) since the industrial revolution?

I don’t know. I know the Acheulean toolkit was supposedly our mainstay for 1.5 million years.

For how long will the iPhone be useful?

Just saw a commercial for Progressive Auto Insurance on TV and had a stark realization:

You can’t save money if you watch TV.

It’s physically impossible.

Here’s why:

If you watch TV, you’re watching commercials created to sell things (such as auto insurance).

It costs money to create the commercials.

The companies get the money for the commercials from TV-viewers’ purchases of their products.

If TV viewers did not watch TV, and did not know about the product (auto insurance), they could not buy auto insurance.

Given that TV viewers do watch TV and do learn about saving money with auto insurance through TV, they then go and spend money on auto insurance.

Spending money is the opposite of saving money.

Therefore, you cannot save money if you watch TV.

Good night.

In Taoist cosmology/philosophy, there are four states leading to “being”:
Zero – “The Tao” or Huntun (and/or see this entry by Scott Phillips)/Wuji – formlessness, undifferentiation (“none”)
One – Condensation (“one”)
Two – Taiji – differentiation (“two”)
Three – The “two” give birth to three…not sure what this one is “specifically”
Four – Reality/”naming” – 10,000 things

Here’s a quote from Chapter 42 of the Tao Te Ching:
The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things.

In my recent experience, I’ve encountered the distinction between these.

Undifferentiation
There seems to be a realm we can inhabit, mentally, of undifferentiation. Though it may seem like apathy, it isn’t the same. It is a state of ease with the fact that all things are just as-they-are. Some people call this “alchemy.” This would be level zero in the above model.

Ideal/Utopian
Then there is an “ideal-state” mode of thought, where we reside in how we wish things were. There is only one idealized future. I would say this is level one above.

Polarity/Contrastive
The next level is polarity. The place where we make abrupt/acute distinctions between things – either/or. This is level two, Taiji.

Naming
Level three is the place where “naming” begins. Once you’ve identified a polarity, you begin to make discriminations. Yes, something can be black or white. But there are also shades of grey in between. This is the place where you recognize grey. Not all of the shades, that’s next. Level three is similar to level zero, in that it is a transitional state between Two and Four. It is the realm of the trichotomy – the either/or/and situation.

State-Chaser
Level four is somewhat easier to identify. I’d say it’s when we’re in the “state-chaser” frame of mind/being. We’re smelling the flowers, getting drunk, doing feats of physical endurance, swimming in really cold water, going to rock concerts, moving to an ashram in India – in order to experience all of the diversity that life has to offer (as opposed to doing those things with specific ends in mind).

What I realized in my personal life was that I’d been spending too much time in the Undifferentiated and Ideal zones, and had begun taking those as reality.

Or, I would vacillate between Relativism, Idealism, and Polarity.

It made it hard to figure out what to do next.

The solution has been to understand nature as, ultimately, undifferentiated, and accept that. Leave that where it is. Then, to understand my own desired “utopian state.” What is my “ideal” in xyz situations? Then, to leave that where it is. Finally, to come to “reality” and take actions that seem best for me right now, based on my past experience, and the ideal(s) I have in mind for a particular situation.

Action cures all ills.

David McRaney has a great post on the You Are Not So Smart Blog.

He’s talking about conditioning, and our ability to act with “free will,” specifically in his post, with regards to diet.

McRaney mentions the work of BF Skinner, the “father” of Operant Conditioning.

“Skinner became convinced conditioning was the root of all behavior and didn’t believe rational thinking had anything to do with your personal life. He considered introspection to be a “collateral product” of conditioning.”

I’m not sure if that’s 100% true or not, but it’s an interesting viewpoint.

There is leverage, I believe, in what you choose or disagree to become conditioned to/by.

The author makes a distinction between three types of conditioning states:

Classical Conditioning – An “unconditioned stimulus” (a neutral stimulus such as a bell ringing) is used in coordination with a “conditioned stimulus” (one that generates a certain response, such as meat) to create a “conditioned response.” The classic example is Pavlov’s dog salivating with the ringing of the bell. Food was placed before the dog (conditioned stimulus), and a bell was rung (unconditioned stimulus) when the dog began salivating. Over time, the dog would salivate merely when the bell was rung (conditioned response).

Operant Conditioning – The alteration of behavior punishment or reward (“reinforcement”) of normal behavior. For instance, give the pigeon a food pellet every time it presses a lever, or a shock if it presses the “wrong” lever. Obviously, animals usually seek behaviors that lead to reinforcement responses, and avoid behaviors that lead to punishment responses from their environment.

Extinction – Is an element of Operant Conditioning in which a behavior is neither punished nor rewarded. The behavior declines in frequency.

An “extinction burst,” according to the author, is when you have a strong negative reaction to the lack of expected response from your environment.

The author finishes by saying:
“To give up overeating, or smoking, or gambling, or “World of Warcraft,” or any bad habit which was formed through conditioning, you must be prepared to weather the secret weapon of your unconscious – the extinction burst.

Become your own Supernanny, your own Dog Whisperer. Look for alternative rewards and positive reinforcement. Set goals, and when you achieve them, shower yourself with garlands of your choosing.

Don’t freak out when it turns out to be difficult. Habits form because you are not so smart, and they cease under the same conditions.”

Yes, I couldn’t agree more with this. But how do you do that? How do you “weather the storm?”

Goal-setting has always seemed extremely arbitrary, and less than motivating to me. The process has always been my concern – right here, right now.

I prefer to focus on something that grounds me to the present in order to weather my “extinction bursts.”

For me, that comes from a practice of increasing sensitivity, and awareness, or sensitive-awareness, through deeper connection to my physical being (which, for me, is also – spiritual, mental/emotional, environmental, communal/social).

I think this practice also leads to the shedding of “unnatural” habits.

I have the tendency to think of things I ought to do, or ought to have done. But that way of looking at events is very passive.

Instead, I can choose to look at those things as choices.

For instance, if I think “I should have done xyz…,” which leaves me in a position of regret. I can re-tell that story as “I chose not to do xyz…”

At that point, I’ve changed the locus of control from the past (external) to myself (internal).

Relating to my past and future in this way not only “empowers” me, but also leads to more active decision-making.

I’m playing with this right now…definitely interested to hear other perspectives on this type of practice.

My good friend Colin Pistell over at the Fifth Ape blog put up a fantastic post about the notion of “crossed syndromes” in the body, and as a general metaphor for action.

To my knowledge, Vladimir Janda was the first researcher to recognize and categorize the crossed syndromes. If you Google Janda’s name, you’ll find at least a couple of good articles about the crossed syndromes. Click this link to download a great article about him and his method.

In addition, many practitioners have been releasing books recently detailing Janda’s methods. Check out Assessment and Treatment of Muscle Imbalance, The Janda Approach, and Back Pain, a Movement Problem, for a couple of approaches.

Colin mentions that we often get “crossed” through dysfunctional habitual patterns in our lives. Read Colin’s post for his take on this.

Below is my response to his insightful message:

Great post Colin!

Your thoughts?

Please consider taking action to support the welfare of marine life at the Miami Seaquarium. This is from a Facebook post by John Kielty:

To whom this may concern:

As you may be aware, Andrew Hertz, General Manager of Miami Seaquarium, Miami, FL has recently stated his intention to file a $3 to $5 million dollar claim against BP citing his requirement to upgrade the marine park’s filtration system should the waters of Biscayne Bay become contaminated from oil resulting from the Deep Water Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico (www.justnews.com/news/23910898/detail.html). By this action, the Hertz family has admittedly demonstrated that they are not prepared, equipped or otherwise capable of carrying out a disaster contingency plan to provide emergency sources of water and/or arrangements for relocating marine mammals as is required by APHIS Regulation 9 CFR section 3.101(b). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicts an 80% chance that the oil will hit the Miami area in August and I am deeply concerned the Miami Seaquarium wildlife is in jeopardy. In addition to Killer Whale Lolita the lives of 30 dolphins, 15 seals and sea lions, dozens of reptiles/fish, sea turtles, and at least eight manatees are in peril. Your immediate action is required to ensure their safety.

Should the Hertz family be successful in securing funds for this major reconstruction effort, it is my contention that Miami Seaquarium be required by USDA-APHIS to bring ALL provisions of animal welfare, including marine mammal housing size, into compliance with current APHIS Regulations under the Animal Welfare Act.

Since the brutal capture of killer whale (orca) Lolita in 1970, she has been kept in a tank that is illegal by current APHIS standards for space requirements as provided in Regulation 9 CFR section 3.104. Now 42 years old, Lolita (also known as Tokitae) is approximately 21 feet long and 7,000 pounds. Her tank is 20 feet deep at the deepest point, a mere 12 feet deep around the edges and 35 feet wide. Lolita’s life of misery in these substandard confines has continued long enough. The Hertz family has been profiting from Lolita’s exploitation for more than 40 years and the time has come to end her suffering and provide her the protection and quality of life she deserves. They should not be allowed to continue operating with no emergency contingency plans, under outdated regulations, and making piecemeal improvements aimed solely at protecting profits. Now is the time to act on Lolita’s behalf. Time is running out!

As a part of Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at The US Department of Agriculture, I know that you are concerned with the future of marine mammals in captivity and the urgent crisis developing at the Miami Seaquarium. Please do your part and ensure immediate action is taken and provisions are provided that require Miami Seaquarium’s compliance with all current APHIS Regulations under the Animal Welfare Act for this emergency and any future construction and/or upgrades at their marine mammal park. If the Hertz family finds that complying with all current APHIS Regulations is not cost feasible, alternative viable solutions are under development to provide a safe retirement for Lolita in her native habitat in the Pacific Northwest. Details of this proposal can be found here: www.orcanetwork.org/captivity/2007proposaldraft.html. There are many wonderful people and organizations willing to work with the Miami Seaquarium and are ready, willing and waiting to move forward with a rehabilitation/retirement plan for Lolita.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,

This post is about the story (or stories) we tell ourselves.

I just read Semiotics: The Basics, by Dan Chandler.

It was a fascinating book. Semiotics is the study of signs. Not just “traffic signs,” but anything that signifies something else, and how that signification functions.

There were bits and pieces throughout the book that have given me a new perspective on the way(s) we (actively) construct our world and our lives. One of the claims made by semiotics is that, in language (and perhaps in “thought”) we construct opposites like:
good/bad (or evil)
light/dark
male/female
science/art
reason/emotion
man/nature
nationalism/individualism

What’s interesting about such opposites is that one is always preferred over the other. I’ve put the opposites above in the preferred/non-preferred sequence (or at least, how I perceive those to be in our culture).

What’s even more interesting, is that, once we tell ourselves a story (with its inherent opposing-pairs), we eventually forget that we made up those opposites to begin with. That is, we determined the preference based on something. There is no “objective truth” to the determination of those opposing pairs.

What that forgetting leads to, is an assumption that our story is reality itself. But how “real” is this “reality?” As we’ve seen throughout history, the story changes. In different cultures, different realities, and different preferences within those opposing pairs, prevail.

Again, the story we tell/create/manufacture is what will guide the way we use whatever technologies we develop or embrace, and also how those technologies will use us.

The way I see this process is this – we experience something, then we create a “reason” for that thing happening – we tell a story to ourselves (and/or others) about what happened, and why.

As soon as we’ve told the story, we believe in it. This is called “faith” in certain circles. In order to believe in it, we have to forget that we created the explanation/story ourselves…that is, we made up the interpretation of events that we now accept as “truth” or “fact.”

Why do we forget? I think it’s a matter of efficiency. If we had to question every assumption or “rule” that we follow every time we follow it, we’d never get anywhere. We’d be stuck in a mire of endless self-reflectivity.

Beneath it all, is Reality itself. I think. Semioticians aren’t so sure of this (having accepted their story as reality). To me, there is a common ground that we experience – Nature, Reality…whatever you want to call it. It is how we can create language. We reference the same “ground.”

Are some “realities” (stories) more “real” than others?

I’ve often wondered why European methods prevailed over Indian ways in America. Why did the Indians not fight? Surely, for one, they couldn’t imagine what their future would look like. But I think what lies beneath this is a deeper story.

Science is a tool of the mind. It is a way of grasping reality, taking it apart, and using it to achieve our ends. Any “technology” is a tool – a way of taking reality apart – separating ever-flowing “being” from the process of continual becoming/unfolding – and using it.

Your Personal Story
The other book I’m reading on this, which I haven’t finished yet, is Jim Loehr’s “The Power of Story.” Loehr has taken this process of story-telling, and provided a way for readers to unearth and re-write their personal (or “business”) story. It’s a powerful book, a powerful technology. I highly recommend it.

Ultimately, our story-telling process, our sign-making process, is a technology. It’s a tool we created somewhere in order to be able to survive.

The end to which any technology is always used is that of Life itself. That end, or purpose, is – to expand, to live, to grow, to become.

If we look at all of life, it is all constantly striving to become more of what it is. It acts to LIVE, regardless, in spite of, or directly against the circumstances in which it finds itself.

Having given life to our technologies, they too, like Frankenstein’s monster, seek to grow, expand, become – to live.

Instead of “love will find a way,” “live” or “life” will find a way. And it does.

One thing that we tend to do, in our creating and forgetting, is to mistake the tool we create for life, or Reality.

Then the monster is the ruler. We are at its whim. We are helpless to change things. Until we wake up and see that that is a decision as well…to be helpless.

Recognize the stories in your life. The ones you tell yourself, the ones you were told. Recognize them as stories, and ask whether or not they are helping to create the world and life you want.

Then re-write them, so that they are.

There are several tendencies and assumptions we have in our culture, here in the United States. Here are a few:

Being a specialist is better than being generalist
You have to have certain credentials in order to do certain things
Only experts are allowed to have opinions about things
People who publish things or appear in media (film, tv, etc.) are experts
Boys are X way and girls are Y way

What all of these things have in common is this – we recognize certain differences between oppositions that we’ve created in our minds and then we cling tenaciously to those differences.

Once we’ve done that, we do what’s called “meaning making” – we create the reasons why the differences we’ve decided upon are right (correct).

We do it after the fact. Rarely are we allowed to come to our own decision about something. As a matter of fact, once you’re old enough to read and understand the words in this blog post, you have enough prejudices about the precise definitions and meanings of different things, words and relationships, that, unless you’re consciously trying to be open (or doing some kind of drug), you are automatically using meanings that were given to you from the day you were born by your parents and culture.

A person’s “qualifications” (usually seen, in our culture, in their resume or “curriculum vitae”) simply list the types of things they did before they started to do what they’re doing now.

That is, a resume or CV is relatively meaningless by itself. When the person began doing what they’re doing now, they were in the same position as any beginner.

This is not to say that you can just start doing something and be as proficient as someone who has been doing it for 10 years. That doesn’t make any sense.

What I am saying here is that everyone starts from where they’re at, at the moment at which they start.

What I’m saying here is – no matter how far you’ve gone down the wrong road, turn back.

What I’m saying here is – whatever it is that you want to do in life – START NOW.