Of IMPs and Elephants

 

juicy, juicy…lol…i absolutely…oh wait…LOL…am there…this moment…dancing with you on the groundlessness of potential…

 

LMAO…are we pagan's now?  OMG…maybe we should convert back…lol…gonna go check the link out now…

 

i really like this music…i don't think i have ever heard them before…but they sound like my hippie days of the 70's…heck…still…i will always be a hippie…lol…

on a more serious note, i appreciate you bringing those three views so elegantly together…and, i love, love, love the way you always leave it open…that is the thing that is so important to me…i can't breathe now if i even think i might be getting boxed in…lol…that is when the tiger in me shows up i suppose…innate?  an ancient sense of protection maybe…i dunno…but i am aware of it now, so that is what is important…joy*

 

Great post Balder..

I enjoyed reading this, and love the ''Water Boys''

Thank you
Love
Ange

 

Beautiful.
Namaste,
Chris

 

Exquisite. Elegant. Clear. THANK YOU !!!!!!

And now I am a bit confused about enactment. I don't “get” the CO-arising of phenomena from this description above. 

This point:

This does not mean that the phenomena are not objectively there in a meaningful sense; it means the phenomena are not there for everybody. 

Sounds just like “You see it or you don't.” That is firmly within the myth of the given, as far as I can tell. It is not a co-arising enactment.

And it sounds very different from this point:

For tribal man, he might encounter a powerful animal spirit, one who has the power to enter his dreams and communicate with him - a Thou rather than an It; for a man from the early 20th century, he might encounter a biological organism (a machine-like, instinct-driven it) which is the product of a particular evolutionary line of development; for a modern scientist capable of vision-logic cognition, the elephant will “stand forth” for him still differently - perhaps, as Wilber puts it, as “a molecular biological system that is an expression of DNA/RNA sequencing operating through evolving planetary eco-systems.”  And so on.

And this point doesn't sound like co-arising enactment of phenomena either. It sounds like differing interpretations of a given external objective reality. 

I thought that Wilber's perspective and the enactivist perspective were more ontologically oriented, not epistemologically oriented. In other words, about realities and Being, not about interpretations (I see a source of oxygen, you see lumber, she sees a home of fairies) or perceptions (you see it or you don't.)
 
Can you help me wade through these three perspectives: interpretations, perception, or actual phenomena in actual realities, but they are multiple realities not multiple pespectives or interpretations.
 
Hope the question is reasonably clear……

I know there was the whole symposium, but what you said here was more understandable than most of that, so I was better able to engage with your blog and go somewhere with the ideas.

And so beautifully written and didactically clear….

Blessings, OM Bastet 

 

 

Bruce - this is beautiful,…. and I still don't really get enactivism! :-)

Looking forward to your reply to OM's request for clarification as it will most likely shed some light for me too.

James

 

BTW for those who enjoyed the Waterboys link, here's The Pan Within and This Is The Sea... lovely!

 

Sorry been extra busy. Thank you soooo much, Bruce, for your respectful and detailed reply, in words I am likely to be able to understand !!

Upon first reading, and some parts twice or three times, I am not grokking your points yet, so will continue to re-read and chew.

Thank you for affirming the questions are clear.

And yes, I do understand – now that you have pointed it out – that the traditional divisions of philosophy into such areas as ontology and epistemology either dissolve or must be radically re-conceptualized in light of abandonment of the myth of the given in favor of deconstruction or constructivism or enactivism or whatever other jargon term we choose for the basic viewpoint of co-arisings.
 
Glad James and probably others are co-thinking, LOL !!! If anyone wants to re-word your points, have at it !!!

I am a very kinesthetic thinker, even though abstract (kinda like Einstein I think) so I have to “feel/sense” what you have said, and I believe if I can do that, i will have broken through the barrier on this whole given/constructed issue. 

What I mean by “the barrier” was pointed out in the symposium, that my human mind as it functions in daily life MUST operate as if the myth of the given were true (pending my Ascended Master status) while my thinking mind is free to go to a meta-view, similar to the physicist's view of solidity as mostly empty space, and from that meta-view or zoom-out perspective, see things differently from the mind that does my dirty dishes and keeps clear of moving trucks. I co-dirtied the dishes, but I'll be damned if you can convince me I co-enacted them, LOL !!!!!

So having grown up in the myth, I am now attempting to transcend it, and while I “get” the principle of co-arising conceptually, I am more comfortable with the idea of multiple realities but each reality having its “givens,” so that I have multiple myths going, not the idea of co-enactments, which I cannot wholly grok, even though I “know” that my psych/senses do actively co-create what I experience. It's the co-   part that I still don't “get” in my kinesthetic knowing of life as I live it.

Blah blah, that's very awkward attempt to point to my challenges with this material.
 
So I had it all nice and neatly arranged, that what Wilber meant was each reality has its givens, and now you come along and say that's not what he meant, and I am sure you are right, but the bobo clown balloon doll is still bobbing !!!!!!!!

Gratefully, OM

 

I think this is masterful. It transmits. And on so many levels at once! Jewel-like, it turns and reveals its facets in this calm, soothing light you cast with your simply being yourself.

Absolutely savory.

And you know what? It occurred to me just now after reading it,  that your writing would have been confirmation for me a while ago, a powerful re-affirmation of what I already know.

But now even confirmation from others like you, B., is no longer needed, it seems. Everything falls away these days…. and there's only this pure pleasure of seeing the good, the true and the beautiful all layed out in one place without interruption.

m

 

“Glad James and probably others are co-thinking, LOL !!! If anyone wants to re-word your points, have at it !!!”

Well, I am one of those co-thinkers and I am really glad with this exchange. Many times while reading through here and with what Wilber says, I think I ‘get it'.

But that is totally different from re-wording it. I wish I could! The moment I would have to re-word it, it is like my husband is saying: “okay, but what does it mean” . He has such a way of taking me to the day to day reality again.

But again when I am reading this (while following one of the links): “Each moment, or each actual occasion, is a whole/part, or a holon. When it arises, it is the whole truth; by the time it subsides, it is merely a partial truth in yet wider unfoldings” it is like I am totally getting it.

Maybe the enactment takes place between the arising and the subsiding. Not before the arising ofcourse, because it is not yet there. And not so much anymore when it is ‘taken over'.

Just my current thinking. And I hope this exchange will go on for a while, at best with day to day experiences, so that I can keep discussing it at home!

Annemieke

 

Bruce: ”A molecule is simply “not there” for a dog.  It doesn't ex-ist or stand out in any way as a feature of the dog's phenomenal world.  Does that mean that molecules do not exist in a dog's body or have any role in the structure of the dog's organism?  From a modern human perspective, the answer is, No, of course not.  As modern human beings, we can reasonably expect to find molecules in the body of any dog we examine.  So, does this mean that molecules therefore “really exist,” but dogs just can't see them?  No.  If we asserted that, we would be falling prey to the myth of the given.  Why?  Because we are taking molecules, not as humanly enacted phenomena, but as wholly independent, self-existing,  objects.”

This is a great example, and it makes me want to assert that molecules do exist and also that they are also humanly enacted phenomena - does such an assertion have logically integrity or not? Help!

Bruce: “Molecules are interdependently arisen enactments, not inherently and independently existing things-in-themselves.”

Do you know of any “things” that would qualify as ”inherently and independently existing things-in-themselves.”?

Just trying to get my head round the language and defintions here.

Thanks

James

 

This comment was written in three installments, and I don't have time to edit down to a nice flow, so please forgive jumping around and illogic in the flow.

I'd like to say that I have two purposes in engaging in this discussion and I recognize I am not being really good at keeping them appropriately distinct. One is simply trying to understand what you and Wilber and others are saying. The other is registering my comments and opinions and agreements or disagreements with what I think is being said.

Thank you for visiting the kindergarten classroom, Professor. I am not being snide nor putting down myself. “Out of the mouths of babes….” haha.

Sorry but you err, Bruce. :) I frequently and totally get lost in the technical language you and others are facile in. But I didn't mean to imply that you were “talking down” to me, just choosing words in fashion typical to someone Integral, to communicate with the specific listener(s.)

Now, remind me again why we are discussing all this? Why are we discussing an unsolvable-inside-duality, nonesensical, meaningless question, whose only solution is its dis-solution in a wider scope of awareness? Sure, limited realities are real within themselves, but all contain anomalies pointing to a larger, vaster, wider perspective, and IMO the mind-body “problem” is one of these anomalies for ordinary dualistic consciousness.

Why then are we spending a lot of time discussing an illusion, trying to solve an insoluble nonesensical problem that exists only within the illusion?

I think I talked about my “solution” to the whole conundrum as that matter and mind are aspects of one reality. I don't see that enactivism or any of this attempt to deal with mind-body relationship, by Wilber or anyone, is at all useful, productive, or necessary. It is all being conducted within the illusion of duality, when the only true and sensible resolution is on another level of awareness.

Oh well, we are having fun, so let's chew on this bone some more.

Forgive me if in my discussion I show up as internally inconsistent. I am still working my way through all this, to align what I sense, with what I know, with what I experience, and with what others seem to sense, know and experience. Pointing out of internal inconsistencies is greatly appreciated.

I am responding here only to this first paragraph of your blog, which is as far as I have “understood” so far.

Yes, if he just meant, “This particular phenomenon objectively exists (independently) but not everyone can see it,” that would certainly still be within the myth of the given.  And it would be within the myth of the given because it takes the object in question as simply “given,” just not equally visible or accessible to all, thus failing to recognize the speaker's own involvement in the enactment of that object (as “object”).  I think Wilber recognizes this issue, but wants to stress something different.  Notice in his sentence above that he didn't actually say that the phenomena are not visible to everybody; he said they are not there for everybody.  So, what does it mean to say that a phenomenon is “objectively there in a meaningful sense”?  Here, what I think he is trying to stress is that, even though all phenomena are enacted - in a sense, abstracted from the flux - by sentient beings, we should not confuse this with the idealist notion that everything is just a projection of the individual subject, of the ego.  He wants to avoid subjectivist reductionism - to retain relative independence of the “objective world” (in relation to particular subjects).  Thus, in any particular worldspace, certain objects, although enacted, may nevertheless be considered as “objectively there in a meaningful sense” for those subjects - not merely projections, fantasies, etc, which (for instance) could be “willed away” or otherwise manipulated by wishful thinking.

For myself the entire mind-body “problem,” which this discussion appears to be an instance of engaging with, went away in the realization of nondual, that matter (what we call matter) and consciousness (what we call consciousness) are simply two ways of looking at whatever Exists. What else is there left to the “problem”??

Ontology and epistemology are thus two perspectives on the same “thing,” using the term “thing” loosely to mean the same as the manifest, existence, the not-one, the world of form etc etc.And the term “perspective” loosely, too.

And if the basic “what is” for Wilber is consciousness, how does that make him not an Idealist? And he seems to say that over and over. I keep hearing about Emptiness as pure awareness, an awareness seemingly distinguishable from, but not other than, all Form. But the emphasis is on Awareness as ontologically prior. I get that impression very strongly. Form is regarded as a creation or manifestation or expression of the Formless, which alone is REAL. How is that not Idealism?

I think Wilber is trying to have his cake and eat it too. If it's all co-enacted, then “objective” is moot because unknowable – unknowable whether it exists, and unknowable if it does exist.

IMO there is no need to sneak it in the back door to avoid individualist subjectivist reductionism if one is not restricted to the Buddhist anthropomorphic limitation that the only kinds of Beings/sentient holons/conscious Selves/conscious Existents are humans or the One Self. There are in my experience and view, and that of thousands of others, many sentient holons, identities, Beings, in between, at varying scopes of awareness, or various what one might call depths and spans of consciousness/holon-ness.

In that view, “objective” reality is simply what a group of such Beings agrees to regard [agrees to maintain the illusion of duality wrt] as “outside” their creative power, not subject to their moment-to-moment creative power, thus stable and experienced as “external” by those who opt into that “reality.”

This has been my internal experience in my wanderings in the less dense realms of manifestation, and I am myself quite comfortable with this view. It seems to me that no human has yet come up with a definition of “reality” which does not make it inter-subjective in nature, in essence. Thus also the flipsides of “crazy” and “sane” are simply intersubjective agreements, among particular groups.

Does enactivism pertain to animal consciousness? If not, why not? (This was probably addressed in the Symposium somewhere I haven't gotten to yet.)

People don't “see” molecules either. I am trying to understand the difference, then, wrt your molecules example. I didn't mean “see” literally, I meant that one's consciousness as a whole is or is not capable of apprehending, so the brain/mind can even if the senses don't. Thus, a blind person is different from a dog, wrt let's say “seeing” a poem. But a dog and a mentally retarded person, less difference. The poem might be co-enacted by a blind person, but not by a dog or a mentally retarded person.

Here I am struggling to understand the difference between being “visible” and being “there” because I am not at all sure I “get” that.

So what is co-enacted, what is “real,” what arises for apprehension, depends on limitations of a given structure (nonjargon use of that term) - in the broadest sense of structure - of brain/mind. It seems to me important to note that in the various structure-stages Wilber and others discuss, the brain is actually different for each. So is the body, down to the biochemical, bioelectric level. KW mentions this in a throw-away line somewhere, and I think it is the most under-valued point ever !! Its implications are staggering, and neglected.

What this means to me is that each structure-stage of human development actually constitutes very literally a slightly but very very significantly different sub-species. Thus, of course there will be differing “realities,” or “givens” just as between dog and human. (Though not as big a difference.)

If you have a certain structure of body/brain/mind, you can “see” (apprehend) as that kind of being, whether dog, human, amber or teal. I am not making degree comparisons here, just making an explicative point, but literal, not metaphorical.

Thus, later stages of development are simply BUILT to apprehend things, existents, Beings, which are unavailable for apprehension by others who are built differently. And when state touch-ins happen, they are apprehended by the stage, because the stage is the physical/mental nature and thus capacity of the person.

Hokay, that's it for now. Your second long post to me made a fair amount of sense, but the one paragraph I addressed here was all I could manage today.

Thanks to all here for the great discussion.

Blessings, OM Bastet

 

Hi Om

OM: “Why then are we spending a lot of time discussing an illusion, trying to solve an insoluble nonesensical problem that exists only within the illusion?

I think I talked about my “solution” to the whole conundrum as that matter and mind are aspects of one reality. I don't see that enactivism or any of this attempt to deal with mind-body relationship, by Wilber or anyone, is at all useful, productive, or necessary. It is all being conducted within the illusion of duality, when the only true and sensible resolution is on another level of awareness.”

Indeed! Still, what we are doing here reminds me of this by ee.cumings:

”- how fortunate are you and i,whose home

is timelessness:we who have wandered down

from fragrant mountains of eternal now

to frolic in such mysteries of birth

and death a day(or maybe even less)”


And as you say: “Oh well, we are having fun, so let's chew on this bone some more.”

And why not! :-)

James

 

WOW, James, thanks for that!! I always wondered whether he might have been Enlightened. Like others we think of as only “wise,” like Goethe and Ralph Waldo Emerson. When you know what to listen for, you can spot it. [I am aware that the term “Enlightened” easily becomes meaningless when probed, so I use the term casually here.]

I knew you would say that, Bruce, am I psychic or what ?? LOL !!!!

And I knew I would answer that I do NOT see them as different questions, or rather, this discussion as initially posed was to me a sub-question of the mind-body question. Am I way off base about that? Do you see them as totally separate or only mildly related?

I will go check THAT blog. Even though I subscribe to your blog now, I might have missed that one, or it was before my time, or I gave up because too technical; there was one like that.

Wilber himself says that the “hard problem” is ultimately not solved conceptually, but only through satori.  But I think you have to be somewhat careful with that claim, because you still have to interpret such experiences if you want to communicate them, and that's where discussions like this one can be useful.  Is your interpretation coherent?  Does it have any important gaps in it?  What does it presuppose…?

YES!!! AND….. coherence, gaps, presuppositions, those are all useful to ferret out, but ultimately whatever is being interpreted or communicated stands or falls on something other than those criteria, for the person.
 
“If you want to communicate them.” Sometimes I wish I didn't want to !!!

I think we communicate partly so we can spot ways our own interpretations might be sharpened or widened or improved, but ultimately we want to go on to more “experiences,” and into a later “stage” not better interpretations of the same experience, isn't that so?

So now I am seeing that the actual “state” experiences, shall we call them, and their interpretations, and their communication, and others' responses, interact in complex ways, and that multiple purposes would be operating amongst all those. And matters of internal consistency, coherence, presuppositions, gaps are not relevant to ALL of them, only to some.

For example, I think perhaps the poetic or right-brain communications serve a “pointing” purpose the quality of which probably does not depend on the “adequacy” (=rationality?) of the poet's interpretation. Does that seem plausible?

And while I am interested in making ever-more adequate wordings and interpretations for myself, I mostly look to others' accounts, and these discussions, for “aha!” moments that I can identify with, that resonate with my own experiences or Being, that offer to me more possibility for putting the ineffable into communicable words/pictures/sounds.

I think that's my personal bottom line, other than enjoying word-slinging, so now I am transparent about my motives in all this, LOL !!!!

So here I am as usual, ending up on a meta-level (in this case, two or three different meta-levels) to the original discussion. Bad habit, LOL !!!

Plus I gotta run now and get into my f2f day.
 
Yummmmm.

OM Bastet

 

Bruce, to understand what you just stated, i think the reader has to have an understanding of biological evolution, which Matt brilliantly related to in his symposium entry…here is the link for those that wish to refresh their understanding…

http://karmabuster.gaia.com/blog/2008/8/enactivism_integral_theory_and_21st_century_spirituality

if we don't understand this, it is easy to 'fall into' the new age idea of things, or to go to the other extreme, of completing rejecting what you just said…b/c on the surface, it does not make logical sense…

on another level, i watched this documentary called Aftermath: population zero…it is a scenario where all humans disappear, and remarkably enough, it does not take the rest of life remaining (which i include here animals and plants…etc) but a few centuries to undo most of the harm that humans did…so in this sense, the life forms left on earth,  enacted their own environment…

good conversation here, excellent questions from OM and James…always, star…

 

btw…i think it very important to discuss these things as it gives us a logical explanation of them and leads to understanding, especially as it relates to nonconceptual awareness, and the reality of being human…it also increases awareness, and enables us to exlain in understandable terms what it is we know and don't know…again Bruce, i commend your efforts along this line of understanding…

 

Thanks for taking the time to answer Bruce.

You said: “Can you say more about the differentiation you are drawing between molecules existing and being human enactments?  How do they differ? ”

Actually I think that was the question I wanted to ask you! :-)  I think I was saying they are probably not different!

Your point about Wilber possibly saying molecules subsist rather than exist makes sense- this is the first time I've come across that differentiation, though at first glance it also feels a little bit like splitting hairs.

But going along with this, I guess I could reword it as “molecules do subsist and also that they are also humanly enacted phenomena”  Hmm,…doesn't feel quite right! It feels like I am denying my daily experience of the “reality” of the “independent existence” of “things” in my world. Subjective experience, which Varela tried to get inside of, tells me things are “real”, so to say they “subsist” - even though I can cognise the reason why Wilber might use such language - feels like a clever semantic game and not adequate for daily life!

Bruce: “Every “thing” is dependently arisen…” 
Well yes, and yet for me I am still more than comfortable also saying that “molecules exist” within the context that when I or any modern human says “molecules exist”, we are doing so within a framework of our current human knowledge and our current use of language and our current capacities to “know”, which are dependent on a whole range of factors, and that this is likely to change and evolve in the future.

Does that sound like a definition of a kind of enactivist perspective? To me it's like simple common sense, and don't most intelligent modern scientists see their work within this context?

I think a basic reason for us still missing each other on the subject of enactivism is that you seem more concerned than I am about “falling prey to the myth of the given” as you previously phrased it.

For me there is something about the way we have discussed enactivism in these forums that on some very subtle level feels to me like throwing the healthy Orange mechanistic, scientific, representational baby out with the bathwater simply because we now know there is more.

Maybe what I really want to say is “Molecules subsist and modern humans enact them into existence - and I'm a modern human who is saying that, therefore the word “exist” is appropriate!”  Haha.

Fun isn't it.

James

 

it's not that enactivism is saying that it does not exist, but that it exist b/c consciousness co-created it into existence…at least this is my understanding of it…but then it becomes necessary to look at the biological evolution of consciousness itself…which is not excluded to human consciousness or human awareness…independant of consciousness…nothing can exist in awareness…i am not speaking specifically of individual consciousness or awareness here…

 

on the other side of that, without something being created, there is no awareness either…there can be no consciousness with out a creation to be conscious of…therefore, one affects the other, and without one, you cannot have the other…but then they are not one and other…not one, not two…emtiness is form and form is emtiness…whether or not the ancients knew the significance of biological evolution or not, their word Karma addresses this, not in the usual definition of the word; Matt also had some good information concerning this too…

 

 

After thinking about these matters since yesterday, I reached several insights, and lo and behold! One is what (if I am interpreting correctly) you wrote just above, Bruce.

My thoughts went like this: (This is me talking to myself in my head, written out in simplified form here:) OK, on what basis could I go about persuading people that one illusion is better than another? Yes, I agree with Bruce (and Greg Desilet and others) that CONSEQUENCES in life, in living, in actions, of any POV held as “truth” are of extreme significance, and a basis for choosing. But ultimately I am lying about the truth, as I myself see it so differently from what I would be trying to persuade someone of. None is the truth that I see. And persuade, that's a wasted effort, people don't change by persuasion.

But yes, back to the concept of the healthy fully-experienced version of a stage, ON ITS TERMS. So, talking about all this stuff might just be laying out some options for those in the market for new possible points of view. Yeah, that's what I'm into. OK, on that basis, I could speak one step ahead of a potential audience, instead of 3 or 4 steps ahead.

So yeah, that could be “why we are discussing this illusion.” For those who do not yet realize it is an illusion, some versions might just lead to less suffering than other versions, and “those who have ears to hear, let them hear.”

(I continued to talk to myself thusly:) So what have I been doing in my various posts here and in the symposium? I guess, trying to lay out some options that I see BEYOND enactivism and the POVs being expressed. But not too many ears seem to be available. At this time, anyway. So, I'll just plant seeds where I can, and I think I will focus more on understanding what others are saying, and less on putting forth my views. Yeah, that is probably the most useful thing for me right now. At least if I understand fully what others are saying, on their own terms, and what stage they are coming from and which stage they are addressing, I can address more precisely my communication about options. I'll know what is ripe to be transcended/included.”

So that's where I got to, and where I am. Does that sound similar to what you were just saying?

Persuant to that, I went back and looked at the previous blog you linked to above, Bruce. I did see it at the time, and did skim it and the comments. I found myself cycling through the following responses, as I skimmed: “Yep, that's intuitively obvious to me.” “Right on.” “Amen.” “Of course..” “Duh.” About 20 times through each cycle. So I concluded there was nothing there that would advance my understanding, and didn't read it thoroughly.

Now I would go back and read it as being an example of a well-done bridge from one meme to another, a laying out of possibilities for some folks, even if not for me. As such, it would be worth studying. And of course I might be very wrong in thinking it wouldn't advance me in any way !!!

Thanks for answering the question about animals. It really helps to broaden the spectrum. And I had the following heretical, amused, and admittedly contentious thoughts: Yeah, the nice and relaxing thing about dogs is you never hear them going around saying that symphonies are impossible, or are figments of your imagination, or that such a thing as poems are sheer speculation. Or criticizing Beings who go about creating what the Beings call “works of art” as egocentric and delusional.

Cats, OTOH, clearly convey their POV that these large Beings are wasting their time in delusions, when Truth is that the priorities in life are, in order, nap, eat, groom, with a bit of hunting, fighting, and mating thrown in for entertainment.!!! :))

I'm not saying that I think Wilber or Buddhism limit consciousness to human beings. I know they don't, in the “zooming in” direction. But I have yet in my encounters with either to hear about any conscious Beings that shall we say have more depth than human beings, going into the “zooming out” direction. Except perhaps Wilber might say there is a Galactic conscious identityBeing. Dunno.

 I know Tibetan Buddhism includes “evil spirits” but that's about the extent of it. And it's not clear those are imagined as having more depth than humans, haha.

Want to address one exchange above:

OM wrote:  In that view, “objective” reality is simply what a group of such Beings agrees to regard [agrees to maintain the illusion of duality wrt] as “outside” their creative power, not subject to their moment-to-moment creative power, thus stable and experienced as “external” by those who opt into that “reality.”

You replied: I understand what you are saying, but this sounds too “New Age” to me - plugged too much into a narcissistic sort of paradigm which suggests that everything we experience and encounter in the universe is an option of the individual. 

It appears to me that you read in a stereotype, perhaps a knee-jerk assumption about what I was meaning. By “the individual” I did not mean human individuals. And I didn't say “individual,” I said intersubjective agreement. That is specifically NOT individual. My paradigm not that “sort of” paradigm.

Is it narcissistic to entertain the notion some Beings have some creative power over their experiences? Isn't that what co-enactment is? Except that most co-enactment is imagined to happen on the subconscious level, outside of conscious awareness and control. What if, even for humans, there is some kind of participation in creative power over experience?

Oh well, there I go looking for open enactivist ears…..

That's as far as I have gotten today. Thanks for the encouragement !!

Finding all the contributions interesting !

Blessings, OM Bastet

 

YIKES !!! the Spirit of Cathood hahaha just chided me for misrepresenting the True Priorities of Life. Wrong order and left out an important two: Eat, nap, groom, play, observe, then a bit of hunt, fight, and mate for entertainment !! Humans are verrrrry slow at “hearing” this message they teach by shining example !!!

LOL !!!
OM

 

i HOPE it goes without saying that the bit about dogs above is not meant to directly compare the consciousness of any human to that of a dog, relatively. Dogs just happened to be a handy species to use in a metaphor.

And Bruce, I wanted to say that your reply to James about the language of daily life and the language of sophisticated understanding and adequacy of a paradigm to daily life has – I believe it has, anyway – disposed of that issue/those issues for me. Thank you !!

Blessings, OM

 

Hi Bruce

Bruce: “the enactive (or Integral tetra-enactive) paradigm is incommensurate, in important ways, with the “healthy, Orange mechanistic, (pre-postmodern) scientific, representational” paradigm.”

Could you say briefly in what ways the two are incommensurate? Isn't healthy Orange, which has been transcended and included within higher stages, a part of the enactive paradigm?

Thanks

James

 

I have had this entry on my mind since I first read it.  I really enjoyed it and though a little late, wanted to express my appreciation.  I plan on also expressing a comment, tomorrow :)  Really, you can hold me to that. 

Very best,
E.

 

Thanks for this Balder, it was an amazing read, an education in many respects - and the pictures you punctuated that with from the Nomadic Museum genius gave it an 'Ahhhhhhhh' quality.

Lisa

 

Before I get to the entry itself, I'd like to share that the comments answered some of my questions (particularly James').  Next, I'd like to mention that your comment regarding New Age reality creation had me wanting to shout, Yes!  I agree!  I always enjoy reading such well-articulated positions; admittedly, especially when I agree with them.

To the entry :)

Love the images.  They prompted me to search for “Snow and Ashes” before I came to the end of the entry where you provided the link.  Reminded me of a book, When Elephants Weep, that I recently sent a friend for her birthday.  Beyond the aesthetic beauty of the images and their relation to the story you shared, I like how they (sub)consciously opened my mind to a wider “focus” of the material discussed here; wider in respect to animals' “awareness” levels.

You wrote:  The Jain view, with the upper perspectival horizon represented by the “wise man,” recognizes a sort of development of understanding; but the Integral view takes this understanding further, pointing out that development runs through all perspective-taking, endlessly. 

I believe ”that development runs through all perspective-taking, endlessly” as this creates for me, a philosophy of a “passionate mind” remaining engaged in endless, timeless learning forays and expansion of awareness and knowledge.  It also supports the beauty of unlimited potentials rather than absolutes. 

Something that is very basic but continues to tangle my brain is the “myth of the given.”  It's been mentioned so many times in so many places, I have lost understanding of its meaning/context.  I'd love any (very basic :)) assistance!

May I pose a question regarding “co-enactivism” and “enactivism” here:  isn't enactivism basically engaging, creating a relationship with, awareness and therefore, consciousness, of what exists?  I don't misunderstand “seeing” with “seeing” but I wonder if some of the confusion is with taking some words very literally or not?  As I read the comments and came across “co-enactivism” I felt confused as enactivism, as I understand it, is already a co-something or there would be no”thing” to “enact.”  I hope my questions are not too foggy :)

Let me offer an example  Let's place one human and one goldfish in a bowl each in front of a TV.   The human can enact the TV, but the goldfish will be aware of a dark box with a shiny screen.  In both cases, the TV physically exists, but only one can enact its existence.  Is my understanding on or off?  Is that similar to how a human being and a dog would see Shakespeare?  As in for the human being, he or she would be enacting Shakespeare where the dog would be aware words were being spoken but unable to enact the actual Shakespearean words?  Would this in any way reflect say, living or existing?  Enacted or “just there”?

I'm curious not to misunderstand that not enacting doesn't suggest something doesn't exist.  I'm sure I don't understand references to illusory existence.  I'm probably at the bottom of the class here, but hey, can't learn if I don't ask :)

This entry really intrigued me; thank you!
E.

 

PS - Waterboys, excellent music!  Really liked This is the Sea :)

 

Bruce

For someone like me who seems to be coming from a desire to “respect the healthy Orange worldspace”, then it is a great idea to point in the direction of quantum physics in the discussion about enactivism.

I loved this: “The reason we see our world as we do is because of what we use to observe it.  The human body is a just barely adequate measuring device.  Quantum mechanics does not always wash itself out, but to observe its effects for larger and larger objects we would need more and more accurate measurement devices. We just do not have the sensitivity to observe the quantum effects around us. In essence we do create the classical world we perceive”

Now to me this is again just stating the plain bleedin obvious, just in a very clear way and in a highly scientific context.

But I realized that I disagree with the use of the word create in the final sentence. I would say we have been bound to select to see the universe in terms of the classical world because historically we have used something on the classical scale - our bodies - to measure it and interact with it.

I really think the use of the word “create” here is misleading. As you and others have said, no human being created the hill outside my window. It existed before human beings. We name it a hill of course, for reasons stated above, even though we now know that on one level it is also a bunch of minute particles,  within which is mostly empty space.

But to our eyes it's a hill, because the arrangements of those particles when viewed by the human body look and feel like a hill. It's a human observational process of a  form in the environment that already exists. Now of course we interact with that environment in different ways, but we don't “create” the particles that make the hills. So why is the word “create” used here do you think? Even the word “enact” still has no real meaning for me - I still don't “grok” the essence of it. For me it is more accurate to say that we are inevitably bound to select to see the classical world because that is the level, the human physical scale, we have evolved to survive in. But we're not creating it.

To me the choice of language is still not careful enough, not precise enough. It can still too easily be interpreted in the narcissistic way of the “co-creating reality” myth.

Do you think we can refine the terminology even more? Or am I now putting myself in line for the Mr Pedantic Award?

James

 

Back with the java :)

Thank you for addressing my wonderings and questions!  I found the further into the material I was reading, the less I realized I understood;  I needed to go back and explore the fundamentals more thoroughly.  The meaning of the phrase, the myth of the given, is more clear to me now.

You wrote:  However, the suggestion that enactivism involves creating a relationship between awareness and “what exists” doesn't quite get at the dynamic, emergent nature of the process enactivism describes.  It seems to place the dynamism as an activity between two static entities (awareness and objects or “what exists”), while the enactive view suggests a more process-oriented view that involves the dynamic co-determination of both of these poles.  I'm not sure if you meant to imply what I'm critiquing here, but I'm mentioning it because it is something that came up in my conversation with Julian:  the difference between an object ontology and a process ontology. 

I appreciate your reply and highlighting my misusing the word, “relationship.”  It hadn't occurred to me that my use of the word implied what it naturally does; I see I was off the mark.  I am glad for your answer clarifying what I was trying to ask, and for your understanding and answering exactly what I was trying to understand.  

You wrote:  This is actually, I think, a pretty straightforward thing that most people cognize: an animal sees and interprets the world differently from human beings.  No big news there.

Agreed.  I did a fairly clumsy job of trying to show two different entities experience enacting (or not) :)  I wonder if “meaningfully” is a key component of determining enactment?  Is something enacted because it is meaningful, or is it a result of enacting something that it becomes meaningful? 

I think it would be helpful to redefine the terminology futher, and I also struggle with the words, “create.”  James, I'm getting in line for the Pedantic Award right behind you :)  Seriously, I take the words very literally sometimes, and struggle with their meanings not always able to understand relative to what seems obvious context.  I really appreciate the time you take, Bruce, to answer these questions and clarify the terminologies, because it helps me go deeper into the material.

I love the article…savoring it and probably back for more…

E.

 

Hi again Bruce

You said that rather than being “an activity between two static entities (awareness and objects or “what exists”),”  the enactive view “suggests a more process-oriented view that involves the dynamic co-determination of both of these poles.”

With appreciation like Erin for your patience - I'm sure I've asked you a similar question before somewhere - can you give an example of this dynamic co-determination between awareness and objects? Would you say the conclusions of some of the scientists contained in the article on quantum physics is exactly that?

And again, my favourite question, can you also see this kind of co-determination in everyday life? I fail to see the true value of these discussions if they do not throw light on our daily experiences. I feel like I'm missing something again…. ho hum. Nothing new.

Re. “the difference between an object ontology and a process ontology” - do you think it is possible, or logically coherent, for a person to hold both a process ontology and an object ontology?

In the words of one of my favourite Mike Scott songs (leader of the Waterboys):
“Why do I feel like I'm sinking,
What does it mean,
What does it mean….?!”

Arrgh,…

James

P.S. Hi Erin!

 

Hey Bruce,

Much thanks for offering us this short gem. The Jain story about the elephant is a perfect way to express some of the core tenants of enactivism. I have not read the comments in depth yet, but I noticed a few recurring themes concerning the nature of objects. Using the elephant as an example, we can see that each man, depending on their perspective, will describe a different object. But this does NOT mean that no elephant exists apart from these perspectives. After all, the elephant (and all objects, if we take Whitehead seriously) is not merely an object, but a subject in its own right. It has its own sentience which, for it, constitutes what it means to be “elephant.” Now, we have to be careful not to reify this subjectivity. It is not a separate thing, a definable entity that can be isolated from its spatial and temporal context. The elephant's subjectivity is intrinsically related to each of the men's subjectivity, just as they, in turn, are related to it. This is where the “co” in “co-enact” comes in. Not only do human beings co-enact the objects they share perception of; all beings enact a shared world where subject and object interpenetrate and evolve together. If we are willing to toss out the materialist metaphysic and think with Whitehead instead, we can say that even molecules and atoms have something it is like to be themselves. So even if human beings had not classified certain forms as “hydrogen” or “oxygen,” these forms would still exist for themselves; water would still “feel” (prehend) itself flowing and “seek” (aim for) the path of least resistance. Whitehead is really helping me to steer clear of the subjectivist reductionism that many interpret enactivism as espousing. By remembering that every concresence/actual occasion, biological or not (ie, organisms, molecules, atoms, etc), feels and acts (feelings and actions become more novel as the complexity of the occasion increases), we recognize that no object is “merely” the projection of a human subject, but rather constitutes itself as subject-object in relation to human (or any other species of) subject-objects. Every occasion is autonomously in communion with others.

Hope that all makes sense! Thanks for the provocative discussion everyone!
-Matt

 

i think it is important to understand that mountains just do not appear out of nowhere…lol…and this in and of itself is an explanation of enactivism…
tectonic plate movements that cause continents to collide over time enact these mountains, which also play a part…so, we can say with confidence that the enviroment enacts with itself to create these mountains…in turn the elements grind these mountains down and create smaller hills…until eventually even the hills will be gone…

this is a very simple illustration of how living things enact their environments and vice versa…if you could think in terms of systems theory it becomes easier to understand that over billions of years the world as we see it has been enacted by all of life, whether it be human or animal or plant or the elements…and continues to do so…so in terms of what is given…it is impossible to deduce this fact b/c there is really no given…everything is in a flux of change, and is continually evolving as something other…it is just that we do not see the evolving necessarily, and we look out the window and say, whow, that's a hill…but the same enviroment and life and elements are continuously enacting…and whether we see it or not…the illusional given is in a state of change…as we are…

even if you think in terms of a piece of wood that is made into a table…the table just doesn't appear out of nowhere…builder and built enact it…

it is not a relationship between subject and object…it is a concsious living experience that involves both and affects both…at some level…

i think maybe what we might want to ask, is if awareness or consciousness is the driving force behind all that has evolved…and continues to evolve…even before there was human awareness of it…i say yes…

 

Hi Bruce

Thanks for dipping back in here despite your busy schedule. Thanks also for the distinction between the epsitomological and ontolgical views. Looking forward to your responses.

Hi Star

Thanks for the analogies:
“so in terms of what is given…it is impossible to deduce this fact b/c there is really no given…everything is in a flux of change, and is continually evolving as something other…it is just that we do not see the evolving necessarily, and we look out the window and say, whow, that's a hill…but the same enviroment and life and elements are continuously enacting…and whether we see it or not…the illusional given is in a state of change…as we are…”

Yes, in a previous comment of his Matt pointed out to me that much of the enactivist approach is presented for consideration within long periods of time, such as your reference to tectonic plates etc.

Sorry if I've been giving the impression that I'm not aware of these processes of interaction / enaction(?). I love watching the Nat Geo documentaries about how Scotland was once at the equator and covered in jungle :-) I really do get that stuff. In fact it's obvious to me.

But even though the hill is in a state of flux, it is also for me a given of my environment. Human beings might be interacting with it by changing its surface features through sheep farming, rivers might be interacting with it by cutting valleys into it, but as everyone seems to agree, it doesn't disappear when human beings aren't looking and it existed before human beings did. There is an “out-there” quality to it, the aspect of the hill that Orange science is really good at investigating.

So, for me, the use of the phrases such as “In essence we do create the classical world we perceive,” or humans “bringing forth a world” or “enacting a worldview” still does not allow for or explain or include this “out there-ness” of the physical environment as exemplified by “the hill outside my window”.

Star: “it is not a relationship between subject and object…it is a conscious living experience that involves both and affects both”

Well for me it is BOTH a relationship between subject and object AND it is part of an ongoing dance of Oneness. I like what Varela says about the veil, the membrane, that distinguishes a being from its environment, even though that veil is porous and interactions flow through it. 

 Matt said: “Every occasion is autonomously in communion with others.” What a wonderful quote –thanks Matt. My interest in these discussions is in the word “autonomous” . How do we talk about the aspect of separateness, otherness, those distinguishable and distinctive features that separate one form from another, but talk about them within the context of a wider perspective which also holds that all these separate forms are all part of an evolutionary morphing wholeness, and in a way that also recognises that the simple act of adopting a human perspective helps to shape* this wholeness - this is what I’m most fascinated by.

Whew!

All The Best

James

* Note I said “shape” not “create”!  J

BTW: not sure if tectonic plates or chairs count as living beings Star ;-)

 

dear james…lol…i did not say that these forces were living beings, in the sense that you and i are human…but they ARE living forces…and the question remains if they too are not formed by consciousness…even that which appears to our human minds to be dead, when looked at under a microscope…appears very much alive…on some level…even a rock!  LOL…

as far as the relationship between subject and object, the relationship does not stand on it's own, is more to the point of what i was trying to say…any relationship affects that which is involved within that relationship, and the relationship is not possible without the interaction…iow, the wood could not become a table without the builder…the builder could not build a table without the wood…i appologize for my simple examples…but i am pretty damn simple…LOL…

bruce, that was excellent, esp. those last two paragraphs…but is not the deeper question still one of how consciousness interacted within itself to form all of what we as humans are now becoming aware of?  i see everything as being filled with life, or consciousness…maybe a rock is aware…maybe not…since consciousness cannot be measured at this time, or even proven really…at the very basic level it is all energy…but is this energy conscious…is it aware…this may be off point, but i think it relates to this idea of possible understanding beyond the idea of what our human idea of what an elephant is…lol…

also, something you stated bruce, about kant's view being called into question by enactivism…

As enactivism would put it, the “structuring elements” of consciousness and the “phenomenal structures” of the world (or our worldspaces) appear to be, in some sense, co-determinative and evolving (structural coupling).

this reminded me of the example of the blind man who had surgery and could see, but b/c he had not had the actual years of experiences in relationship to forming the actual neural patterns of seeing in his brain…he could not see things clearly…this scientifically proves that we in fact co-enact our world spaces…through experiencing and relationships…and that our actual seeing is conditioned…as well as all our other senses…

now i am not saying that just b/c the man couldn't see his wife clearly that she was not there…LOL…but just how far does this rabbit hole go?  lol…i find this so very fascinating…but i think it important to remember that each of us have our own awareness, limited by conditioning to a great degree, what we think we know, and what we believe to be real, and anything we might look at conceptually, we still should try and be open to what is constantly being revealed through awareness….

bruce, i don't usually bring up dzogchen on any of these threads,  but within the deeper teachings,  you have touched on many of them in a scientific way…and it is just kinda blowing me away…in a good sense…LOL…i love what you said here…

But we cannot say that the notion of “matter” simply corresponds to or “labels” a given feature of reality-in-itself.  Rather, from an enactive / constructivist point of view, “matter” is a line we have drawn in our co-emergent phenomenal space.

thank you for your dedication to science, and for all that you do to help us understand this journey…always, star…

 

Hi Bruce

Thanks for a great repsonse. I think your summary of developments from Hume to Kant to enactivist structural coupling is great and well worth reminding me of!

I also appreciate the insight re. New Age possibly and ironically making an Orange misinterpretation of enactivism, looking only at the ontological and not also the epistemological. I think I have been confusing the two aswell, but again I keep coming back to the accuracy of the language we use - examples to follow!

I read and re-read your central paragraphs. Several statements stood out for me.
“The organism doesn't just see “different parts” of reality-as-it-is.  The brain doesn't simply mirror “what is there” - it actively shapes what appears, causing certain features of that field to “stand forth.”  (My underlining)

Here's where the confusion between ontological cf epistemological may be occuring: When you say the “brain shapes what appears” or causes things to “stand forth” do you mean to say that it shapes what appears in the consciousness of the observing/enacting  animal, or that the brain shapes the actual appearance of its phenomeal worldspace in such a way that it could potentially be observed by a neutral observer ( at this point, voice in james' head says “hey but this is enactivism right,.. there's no such thing as a neutral observer dammit!”)

You also said: “They are enacted appearances - phenomena shaped and constructed by the embodied consciousness of that organism as it navigates the “field” of the world.”
How is this different to Kant's “even if we can't know the world in itself, we can know very precisely the human world, the world as filtered by human consciousness.” ?

Lastly, I really like this example: “But we cannot say that the notion of “matter” simply corresponds to or “labels” a given feature of reality-in-itself.  Rather, from an enactive / constructivist point of view, “matter” is a line we have drawn in our co-emergent phenomenal space.”
I think for much of the discussion on enactivism we've been having, on the symposium and elsewhere, I've never really accepted that modern science continues to investigate the world as if it were measuring “reality-in -itself”. Rather I have unwittingly assumed that modern science is now doing so with a knowing smile that says something along the lines of “well we all know now that what we're measuring here is as much a reflection of the  current evolutionary capacity for understanding of the human race as it is of “what-is-really-there”, and what we like to think we know is going to change and develop as we change and develop”.

In other words, what you're pointing out re. matter, is something that most intelligent scientists now accept, i.e. “matter” is just a line we have drawn in our worldspace. Do you think I've been to generous to modern science?!

My own take on this is that since we are evolving (hopefully!) human beings, we will see and talk about our worldspace in such way that makes sense to us. And in that context “matter” is an excellent desription for us of a significant feature of our worldspace. Therefore we might as well talk about it as if it were “reality-in-itself”, because for us it is the equivalent of reality-in-itself on a day to day level, and also because forever adding the qualifier “but we all know don't we that this is a much a product of our co-emergent blah blah…. etc.” would be extremely clumsy, but maybe very funny!

Or to put it more simply, I am happy saying matter is both a line we have drawn in our co-emergent phenomenal space, AND it really is there!

Thanks for all the clarifications you've brought to these discussions Bruce.

Here's what may be a final question from me, and one which changes the direction of the discussion: In what ways do you think enactivism can help to relieve human suffering?

James

 

Hi Star

Thanks for the clarifications! :-)

On a different angle, I like your example of the chair and I had been considering this when previously reading Ken Wlber talking about developing complexity within systems. Excuse my clunky language here but he was talking about when  a form that is made of constituent parts exhibits or contains new qualities which the components parts in their simplest form do not have.  I think in Integralspeak a chair is an “artefact”, right? (rather than a “holon” or a “heap”).

So I was picturing the individual bits of wood and nails laid out on the floor which obviously do not have the qualities to sustain the weight of a seated person. Add a dash of human ingenuity and, voila!, the more complex arrangement can now do stuff that it's component parts can't. Stuff emerges ( or in this case stuff is nailed together!) - amazing!

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here, other than that I've been thinking about chairs………. I'll stop now. Goodnight.

 

dear james…if you are looking for enactivism to relieve suffering in terms of children starving or being abused or wars being fought…or just in relieving all the unnecessary crap that we harbor in our minds that cause countless hours of misery…just understanding enactivism will not help that much…putting it's principles into action however; will…

in the sense that one can understand that at every level we create our own worldspace, then we have the power to recreate it in a more positive light…

that does not mean that we can 'magically' undo what we have done…iow, someone who has eaten unhealthy all their lives and weighs 600lbs, is not going to wake up trim and slim in the morning just b/c they will it to be so…but like the dude that began eating at subway, and a few years later…he was healthy…we can undo what we have done one moment at a time…and those moments add up in reality…

when we learn to be responsible for our own actions, when we learn that there are consequences for those actions, then what will logically follow is that we can then become more aware of our actions, and begin choosing healthier ones…we learn to accept what we cannot control, and have courage to change what we can…wisdom is in knowing the difference…

in accepting responsibility for ourselves, we also learn to allow other's to be responsible for themselves…and their worldspaces…iow, a woman that continues to return to her abusive husband, continues to allow this to happen on some level…

as long as we are controlled by our beliefs and feelings, we will continue to react
like puppets of our own conditioning…and we will continue to suffer b/c of it…

if a tornado is coming, the logical thing to do today is to get out of it's path…and face the aftermath by rolling up our human sleeves and cleaning up the mess…

i pretty much made a mess of my life…now in all fairness, there were lot's of tornado's…but the biggest tornado was the one that i created myself…
at some level we have to accept that a hole in the ground is a hole in the ground…for whatever reason…but that does not mean that i have to keep falling into that hole…i can learn to walk around it…only when we learn how to stop falling into the same holes, can we help other's…but first we have to learn to see the holes…

enactivism helps me to understand that i play a part in my life…the part that i play, helps create my worldspace…if i want a different worldspace…i can choose to play a different part…

if you are trying to rock in a chair that has no rockers…you have to build it some…
hope that makes sense…always, star…

 

Hi Star and Bruce

Thanks for your repsonses.

Bruce , I revisited your symposium addendum blog where you quoted Adam's list of ways in which he has benefitted from looking more deeply at enactivism. Thanks for directing me there again.

Regarding enactivism, the words that jumped out at me most from that entry:
“to the degree that it is a modern reframing of emptiness, it can be used to reorient us psychologically, helping us to cut through and relinquish self-grasping;” Yes this was one exceptional aspect of reading Varela that got lost for me when the symposium discussions got started, because I think his reframing is one of the most elegant, moving, beautiful and crystal clear ways I have ever read that link the terminology and approach of buddhist contemplation with explorations in modern psychology. I think I would personally benefit from revisiting this feature of his writings.

And I still think that writings on enactivism could do with greater care in their choice of words and phraseology, especially with a view to making a clearer disitinction between epistemological claims and ontological claims….but you know  that already!  :-)

All The Best

James