The Empirical Manifesto

Much of the personal growth rhetoric concludes with the highlight, "contributing to something greater than yourself" and often provides examples limited to volunteerism or helping others. This is one I have struggled with for some time. Admittedly, I limit my "giving" to generous monetary tips - just about everything else denigrates into a racket, even tithes were I so possessed given the overwhelming supporting evidence of televangelism - but much like the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, I see giving, belonging, and contributing as a trinity of mythological beasts; a hypostasis of distinct yet one - the latter of which I now believe being wholly inclusive of, while simultaneously superseding, the former two.

To contribute to something [greater than yourself] is going to require giving more than just time, money or ineffective membership. More than satisfying the instinctual sociological desire to belong - the raw visceral appeal of political parties, organized religion, sports affiliation or violent gang membership - contributing is much more of an investment, requiring an almost sacrifice of self, a rebirth or self-starting intrinsic motivation. We're all familiar with working harder at doing better on projects which interest us - a gazillion job satisfaction surveys tell us so. Think then of that level of contribution to something greater than yourself as a life project, something which pays us back far more than we could ever put in it through simple vocal or monetary alignment. Something which pays us back in unwavering, universal happiness.

To what then, do those who eschew such dichotomous associations vis-à-vis the Two-Party Swindle seek out to contribute? This is what has plagued me. Until I found the answer in the most unsuspecting of places - my past. Looking back, while almost always marred by our own idealized projections, can still provide a unique comparison to our present selves. A veritable built-in time machine function which, if utilized with the understanding that our filters will likely misinterpret the results (The Blindfold and the Chestnuts), can be used to give us a fairly accurate glimpse into one possible future.

As an empiricism junkie, I was authoring a carefully constructed piece detailing flaws in a broad assumption which I admitted I would have made myself had I not experienced it first hand. In trying to be as correct as possible in debunking some very specific (and awkwardly erroneous myths), I settled upon anecdotal troubleshooting.

[Having assumed a position] every problem I encountered proved an exciting challenge to overcome; deep philosophical issues that could touch on every aspect of societal existence. Most people complain about the same three things THEIR ENTIRE LIFE: time, money, and sex. Finding the opportunity to be faced with so much more and joyfully accepting the challenge gave purpose to my life. I wonder how many of my doe-eyed neighbors feel their life is full of purpose? Maybe they each have a story about it happening once. I found myself having created a life-purpose generator which was running full-tilt all day, every day. Life wasn't just very, very exciting - it had purpose.

A fascinating aspect of that experience was how little I focused on time, money, or sex as anything disquieting - the bane of existence for most fell to the wayside. I'm now fairly convinced only those without purpose use those three things as their focus. Hence so much unhappiness in the world.

Contributing to the purpose-filled life may very well be the apex of self-actualization, and I'm the amateur who got a peek behind the curtain. There is a world of difference between "impossible" and "hard to imagine." The first is about it while the second spotlights our own limitation.

For all others, I hear yoga is nice.

I had been thinking about the long-suffering fiancé in Orange is the new Black when I ran across a quote by Stephen Hawking the other day which read, “I have noticed that even those who assert that everything is predestined and that we can change nothing about it still look both ways before they cross the street.” As I thought about the brilliance behind his observation, and only because I had been thinking about the long-suffering fiancé in Orange is the new Black, it also reminded me of Tim Minchin when he sang, “I'm not undervaluing what we've got when I say that given the role chaos inevitably plays in the inherently flawed notion of "fate," it's obtuse to deduce that I've found my soulmate at the age of seventeen. It's just mathematically unlikely that at a university in Perth, I happened to stumble on the one girl on Earth specifically designed for me.” Fate, as a line of thought however, was not foremost in my mind at the time. In fact it wasn't even running parallel though I admit to being amused when it forked that direction. No, specifically I was thinking about the long-suffering fiancé in Orange is the new Black when he made his astonishingly ignorant statement,

“...suppose, theoretically, that someone she loved was [incarcerated] with her, someone she had history with; someone who could understand her life in there in a way that I'll never be able to. It would be devastating to think that that person could give her something that I can't. It would be a betrayal.”

As I toyed with different ways of introducing the entire concept as ignorance without actually using the word "ignorant" (I've known people to get easily offended at that term being directed at them) and double-checking that I wasn't simply disagreeing with his statement as a matter of opinion, I was further mired by own experiences in which I would state something factual about myself which was argued with; "If I could, I would eat Mexican food for every meal."
"No you wouldn't."
"I prefer vanilla ice cream."
"No you don't."
"I think our values ought to change in support of new evidence which invalidates our old beliefs."
"No one thinks that way."


Apparently, I've discovered some people find the line between fact and opinion rather blurry...

I suppose believing something along the lines of `immunizations cause autism` despite the overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary could be considered a difference of opinion rather than ignorance - then again when one is disputing a mountain of proof with the counter-argument, "Nuh-uh" its hard to vote in favor of opinion. (There are those who are unaware an "argument" is NOT a request for battle, so tread carefully). But when I outline my own beliefs, goals, likes and dislikes - where they originated and how they've mutated over a period of time - and someone disagrees with that? Just to be clear, that's not opinion. Its opinion's monotheistic homophobic cousin. To be kind, we'll call him, Ig. That way, people won't react emotionally to a word which means something completely different than they think it means, which is, incidentally, also detailed in Ig's broad coverage policy. While I'm tickled when something someone doesn't understand means, "something someone doesn't understand," I haven't yet found a good way to explain how counter-productive it is to negatively react to something not yet understood. I've tried using the word, "ignorant" to explain the phenomenon, which was, given the nature of the issue, itself counter-productive. See what I have to deal with? But this is getting ridiculous, even by my standards.

To get back on topic, I was running through some possible titles after the first couple of paragraphs, frustrated that it was so difficult to conceptualize stupidity for other's digestion, and thought it humorous to incorporate one of my favorite illustrations, the hierarchical pyramid! So let it be written, so let it be done. Behold! In glad adoration, THE COMPREHENSION PYRAMID (which was a first-draft blending of the pyramids of argument, denial, and bloom's taxonomy). What I particularly enjoy about authoring my own is its clear, unequivocal demarcations. While many of us may believe we've transcended lower levels of similar pyramids based upon ambiguous definitions or a subjective rating system (and a healthy dose of self-deception), its pretty hard to run from this one. I myself continue to reach for the brass ring of pure evaluation without actually ever reaching it. I know people who can rebut flawlessly, but do not count myself among them. Sadly, I also know the trolls which haunt the bottom three echelons, most of whom believe they sit atop it.







Which brings up another wonderful point - what I think I am. People tell me all the time I think I am always right. I readily admit that nothing could be further from the truth - I beg and seek holes in my own theories and logic to discover ways to strengthen them. It would be stupid to come up with a theory based on a feeling or a possibly misinterpreted action then relentlessly bind oneself to it without further input. So yeah, I always assume I'm wrong. Yet someone is always right there to argue the point with me - to tell me what I think. Has anyone picked up on the irony of that yet?


Currently, the only way I know to deduce what someone thinks is through their behavior - and I've uncovered some fascinating (and by fascinating I mean completely antithetical to reason) beliefs. Once intent is gleaned (usually greed or fear though outside myself and a handful of emotionally mature people, I haven't met anyone who readily cops to those) a fairly high-resolution picture emerges. Some would argue irrefutable.


At any rate, in this graphic, I can at least say to those who embrace Ig as a hard-nosed and inflexible belief system, that I think I comprehend more than they do, as I point to the very clear and unambiguous levels, for even astonishingly non-thinking people cannot misunderstand that stating, "Nuh-uh" differs greatly from, "Presents supportive contradictions with reason and evidence."


Anyway, all this inherent frustration on both sides (people who believe logic is akin to witchcraft admittedly frustrates me) got me to reevaluate the way I looked at the long-suffering boyfriend's statement. Thinking back to Kathryn Schulz's TED TALK, "On Being Wrong" reminded me of the attachment to our own rightness. First we think someone is ignorant, then we think they're stupid, then we think they're evil. If the long-suffering boyfriend feels devastating betrayal because of some superlatively unrealistic shit, then I would have to defer to ignorance being his sin. Perhaps his experiences have differed so wildly from my own that even while bantering with his buddies, getting advice from his parents, hitting on the bartender, or having philosophical conversations with the NPR radio host, he's never considered the astronomical improbability that a person should get all their needs met all the time from just one other person. (See how I just did that?)


And that's just ignorance. Stupidity and malevolence are far worse, and though it scares me to admit it, probably just as prevalent. While I love and embrace Kathryn Schulz's idea behind the deathgrip many of us seem to have on our own myopic opinions, she only had it half right; some people are stupid. Some people are out for their own self-interests no matter the cost. They are all resting comfortably at the bottom of the comprehension pyramid.

I don't recall acute bouts of sleeplessness until around 2006. Looking back, a lot was taking place which directly conflicted with my worldview. Not that I was consciously working things out - many times I was not; it was subconscious which somehow differs from my unconscious processing insofar as it presumably required conscious components as part of its operating parameters. What, I couldn't say.

But as the elasticity of my mind stretches to accommodate all this new data, and my thoughts recompile, my conscious mind can now seemingly access glimpses of what my subconscious mind is processing. Which is fascinating from the perspective of bridging the two, but unsettling because this unordered raw data is without structure and makes no logical sense. I generally work on a problem by running a series of assumptions through algorithms to a conclusion, then change the assumptions and run them again, then change the alorithm and run it again, ad nauseum until something usable is spat out. Its these conclusions I attempt to reassemble here in a way that make sense.

Perhaps I'm just seeing the collating of the raw data - which is currently useless - because without form there are no assumptions, therefore nothing to run through an algorithm and no conclusion. I am tired, but wide awake. The problem with raw data, if that's what I'm seeing, is that its fleeting. There's nothing to grasp onto, nothing to hold; the ones I capture have no visible metadata associated with them so I don't know why they're there. Again, useless.

Most of my life I've been told I "think too much." I see the problem now as being most people don't think enough. There was a mind-blowing (and humbling) article in the August Psychology Today which outlined how dumb (and poor) the "top 1%" are IQ-wise as compared to the real processing power (and wealth) of the top .1% and exponentially, the top .01%. I'm not nearly as smart as you people think I am, I just think a lot. Perhaps more importantly, when I am aware of it, I attempt to suspend my own beliefs about life, the universe, and everything if something doesn't immediately fit. Think of it as a reverse confirmation bias - call it invalidative impartiality. To a fault I will drill down into even that which is rooted in unquestioned truth in an attempt to verify all its components individually. You cannot dig that deeply and then ignore the results if the outcome conflicts with your expectation.

Empiricism is exhausting.

"You can suffer for as long as you wish, and when you no longer want to suffer, you can stop." So says Cheri Huber, Zen Leader. It often is that easy. Unless you think its not. Then all of a sudden it isn't. Why is that? In my experience, many people refuse to believe it. Or think they deserve their suffering. Whatever the reason, its wrong. How can I use such a strong word so unabashedly? Wisdom. And while my clone and I politely disagree over whether greed or fear is the the root of all suffering, we do agree that allowing either to make or influence decisions - even unconsciously - leads to suffering.

"Suffering" is an interesting topic to apply to everyday things. Most people probably don't understand it or think it doesn't apply to them. I can make that assumption because I didn't understand it and thought it didn't apply to me. Until I was introduced to it by thinking about all the things I think about which have nothing to do with suffering. In some form or another, it touches just about everything. I cannot seemingly discuss or research any topics anymore which don't end in some form of mindfulness.

Mindfulness has become a word loaded with much ambiguity. Probably due in part to its multifaceted application and in part to its broad definition. To critical thinkers who immediately acknowledge its potential power, the word itself is self-defining. But abstraction can be a difficult thing to illustrate to the unfamiliar. It is, in a matter of speaking, awareness. Awareness not only of oneself, but of oneself as it relates to the environment we're in, and the fluid situations surrounding us at any point in time as that environment changes; mutates. If that sounds easy enough its because most of us do not know how to be aware of ourselves. Again, I make this assumption because I spent years trying, and can therefore see it easily in others.

In my woefully limited view and layman's comprehension of both Buddhism and Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT), I have nonetheless been fascinated by them both - or more directly - by their eerie similarities. I first touched on this phenomenon in the "trifecta" section of my Interdependence post. The deeper I looked, the more I discovered.

In Eastern philosophies, mindfulness is an attentiveness to seeing the reality of life without engaging our human filter. Epistomologically, a daunting task. Meditation is the tool those sage monks use to get there. Here in the West we have psychotherapists. Basically, to see truth without bias mindfulness suggests accepting your thoughts without reacting to them emotionally. The Centre For Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy defines it as observing thoughts, images and feelings in an accepting way without engaging with them, interpreting them in traditional ways, or using distraction techniques to try to suppress and/or escape from them.

Contemporary mental-health practitioners increasingly find ancient Buddhist practices (such as the development of mindfulness) of empirically proven therapeutic value.^*

My current struggle (and don't let anyone tell you that the path to enlightenment isn't fraught with struggle) is continuing down this path of self-improvement without alienating everyone along the way. I feel exactly like a born-again who's enthusiasm to share the Good News with everyone he's ever known his entire life causes him to get his ass kicked. Sharing the Gospel can be rewarding work. And by rewarding I mean downright boggling. Apparently, not everyone appreciates their faults being pointed out. As for me I am fascinated when someone takes the time out to point out mine. Differing opinions on how to draw the oar for a collective of people from a diverse culture. Attachments are always painful.

If we stay or go, and whatever else we do, it must be our choice, our decision, and for our own benefit. Family and friends are a part of life, but cannot be our life. If we don’t like what we are and how we are, we can change that. It might take time and effort, but everything changes.^*

Learning to walk the narrow path between two extremes is intimidating at times. Especially when you don't have all the answers. Sometimes its not knowing what the right answer is, just knowing which two are the wrong answers. But when either extreme is the familiar territory, the draw can be overwhelming - the desire to slip back into old habits like slipping on a comfortable pair of shoes.

The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things.^*

So why do it? Happiness. Not the fleeting kind material things provide, rather the repeatable deep joy one experiences through wisdom; questioning the world around them to better understand their place. I skirt it from time to time as I have epiphanies about everything surrounding me. Often though, I have trouble holding onto it, retaining it. I think I've figured out some great mystery when another issue either invalidates it or supersedes it. It can be exhausting.

Perhaps more than any other religion, Buddhism is associated with happiness. According to Buddhist thinking, happiness and sorrow are our own responsibility – and completely within our control. A central tenet of Buddhism is that we are not helpless victims of unchangeable emotions. In the words of Buddha himself, "We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world." It's an idea that's in line with current thinking in psychology. In fact, this simple philosophy – that changing the way we think can change the way we feel – underpins the very practice of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT), an approach widely used in clinical psychology and counselling, as well as stress management programs.^*

Buddhism uses the word, desire instead of expectations and Buddhism too is about thinking realistically, that is, impermanence, law of causes, conditions and effects, suffering etc. Buddhism emphasizes wisdom which is similar to rational thinking promoted by Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.^*

And yet I was skeptical of the "middle way" where giving up attachment is paramount to inner growth. Logically, it made sense to me, but emotionally I struggled. My emotional struggles are almost always hidden from public view, where I can express them and scrutinize them openly to myself, outside judgement and comment. I can be quite introspective.

Surely there is a "middle way" between attachment and giving up everything and everyone you've ever loved? This is where my path led me, to eschew that Buddhist extremism and find the middle way of the middle way. Of course the only obstacle in my path was my own ignorance. The solution to attachment is simply non-attachment, or being responsible for your own happiness.

In order to be happy, we need to be fully committed to life, we need to be passionate, we need to care, we need to get emotional, we need to be able to positively direct our desires toward constructive goals. Genuine non-attachment is the key. A person who has balanced non-attachment is someone who is able to fully enjoy and engage in their relationships, work, leisure activities and so on without being totally reliant upon those things for his or her inner happiness and sense of wellbeing.^*

I have my work cut out for me.

Presupposing for just a moment that everyone in the world I may ever interact with breathes air, is beholden to the laws of physics, and can articulate why they hold a belief, "That's just how I feel" is woefully inadequate. Inadequate because it leaves no room for discussion or compromise. Woefully because there will never be a possibility for understanding or compassion between us. Relationships, be them friends or lovers or coworkers in order to be successful demand these four things beyond the fleeting interests of feelings or activities.

• Discussion - A spontaneous, interactive relatively equal exchange of information.
  
  
  
  • "That's just how I feel" imparts very little usable information.
  
  
  
  
• Compromise - To make a deal between different parties where each party gives up part of their demand - a concept of finding agreement through communication and a mutual acceptance of terms.




• "That's just how I feel" has zero demands and zero terms therefore zero room for compromise. All of a sudden its "my way or the highway!" Very poor relationship material.
  


• Understanding - A psychological process whereby one is able to think and use concepts to deal adequately with that object with respect to knowledge sufficient to support intelligent behavior.




• "That's just how I feel" is the opposite of sufficient knowledge and does not support intelligent behavior.




• Compassion - There is an aspect of compassion which regards a quantitative dimension.
  
  
  
  • "That's just how I feel" is void of quantification - there's nothing in which to measure. For those of use who lack empathy, compassion is our guiding star. But compassion demands we know why the feelings are there - not what the feelings are.
  
  

The proclamation of, "That's just how I feel" speaks volumes to me. None of them complimentary.

Sadly, my presupposition is fantasy for most, because while our bodies instinctively process oxygen and physics cannot be ignored, people do hold beliefs without knowing why. Unlike physics where incomprehension behind the science does not negate being subject to them, I'm not asking that they understand the complexity of their beliefs - only that they know why they hold them as such. "Why believe in x?"

"That's just how I feel."

Interestingly enough, feelings, like ideas concluded from logic, are also subject to change. But because feelings are psychophysiological in nature and subject to biochemical and environmental influences, they're much less stable. What I think about something is not dependent upon my mood - and that's downright frightening knowing that those who have no logical basis behind their beliefs can be swayed by a emotional state.

When I'm considering changing my viewpoint on an issue or idea, I don't change the logic I used to get there - I review the information, and if applicable, apply new data to the logic to see if it fits. People who don't know why they believe something cannot assimilate new data into their construct because that's not how they arrived at their conclusion - it was something they felt. And because they have no arguable basis for their ideas, they're disallowed from even recognizing the new data as applicable to their conclusion. In other words, there is nothing in which to apply new data even if they were to recognize it as such.

This brings me to two ultimatums which invariably follow - both of which are falsehoods; lies. I have personally heard both myself. The first ultimatum is:

"Why won't you just trust me?"

Pretending that the above four items necessary for a relationship are not really necessary, let's define how I perceive use of the word trust, and why that's the wrong word to use. First of all, questioning a belief is not an accusation - and seeing it as such is indicative of much deeper problems, of which asking for trust is not going to solve nor fix. Furthermore, questioning that belief is not an attack on honesty, fairness, or benevolence - things in which trust are built upon. I'm questioning their origin. I trust that before it was embraced as an idea it was given due course. What I want to know is the confidence of the data used in its acceptance. Its that I don't inherently "trust."

Certainly I should be expected to trust the source if I trust the person who trusts the source, right? Wrong. Ever since unearthing the Govering Dynamics of lessons learned, I've been very wary of statements of absolutes - for those reek of misapplication of concepts. Every time I hear, "I do" or "I do not" I cringe at the possibility that the knowledge that it comes from may be a long line of recent decisions built upon incorrect assumptions based upon the mishandling of past errors. Simply put, I would not be doing my due diligence by not asking, thus potentially perpetuating the cycle of endless fail. In short, I'm showing my honor of the belief by asking how it came to be without relying upon the supernatural. [I wrote this prior to dentin's comments on Within Reason which should certainly be considered.]

The second ultimatum:

"I'm entitled to my feelings."

Nope! And this is why - entitlement itself is nothing more than another feeling. In asking for reasonable evidence behind a belief, I instead get "I feel that I have the right to feel." Yes! And I would never deny that! Only - it means almost nothing, and certainly cannot be expected to suffice as reasonable evidence. Entitlement is the belief that one is deserving of some particular reward or benefit. Which simply means, whomever is unable to explain why they believe something to me, is also unable to articulate why they're entitled to feel that entitlement. "Double Fail."

I ask because I thirst for knowledge and want to either enrich, or deprive our relationship based upon the depth of our discussion, compromise, understanding and compassion. Guess which one "That's just the way I feel" engenders within me?

I'm not asking for everyone to be a genius. Only that they have a very basic comprehension of themselves.

Sometimes, that's asking too much.