Very unpleasant dealings that resulted from my trying to be of service to someone in a personal contradiction resulted in experiencing yet again how disturbing it is when someone doesn't interact with basic courtesy, and doesn't follow basic ethics or morals. Every time it happens I say I'll stop trying to be of service where I am not specifically asked for help. But, after enough time has passed, I try again.
So, here are some results of my ruminations, levels of common ground, such as objective systems one can appeal to arbitrate in a dispute:
4. Where there is mutual compassion, one need not appeal to an objective system, but appeals directly to the other.
3. Where there is acknowledgment of mutual social standing, one can appeal to common courtesy.
2. Where there is recognition of mutual reasonableness, one can appeal to ethics (or specific rules, such as the rules for argumentation).
1. Where there is recognition of mutual humanity, one can appeal to morality.
0. Where there is no recognition of mutuality, there is only the law to be appealed to.
We cannot change the other person, or force them to accept arbitration by any objective system other than the legal system we share in common. This is most likely why we have become such a litigious society. If you find yourself in this situation, don't feel bad if you actually need to invoke the law. That is were the other person is at, but it doesn't need to be where you are at. You can pursue necessary legal action compassionately, courteously, ethically, and morally.
Ideally, we should at least try to listen and interact with compassion in regards to others. Unfortunately, you never know when something will set someone you don't know off the deep end when you are trying to help. But, try to always have a compassionate ear open, and try to do no harm if possible.
In any case, we should not see even user's code names and silly avatars as anything other than representing people. You will not want to interact with them all, and some will take delight in going after you and yours, but there are people behind each avatar. Some may act like internet interactions are not subject to morals, ethics, or courtesy, let alone compassion. And, they may hide in places where they can isolate themselves from responses to, or consequences of, their actions. But we are all people, and compassion is the ideal.
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Monday, August 30, 2010
Saturday, August 07, 2010
To question all things
To question all things;– never to turn away from any difficulty; to accept no doctrine either from ourselves or from other people without a rigid scrutiny by negative criticism; letting no fallacy, or incoherence, or confusion of thought step by unperceived; above all to insist upon having the meaning of a word clearly understood before using it, and the meaning of a proposition before assenting to it;– these are the lessons we learn from the ancient dialecticians.
- John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address as Rector, University of St, Andrews, 1867.
(Quoted by Margaret Barker.)
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
GnosCast: the Gnostic Podcast - #15 & 16: Frameworks of Meaning
Episode 15Continuing a users guide to Gnosis, an overview in the form of "you are here." A naive view of meaning sees it as "out there," a property of the object that we perceive rather than something we participate in. Far from being "out there" meaning is something that we make in an interaction of what is "out there" and the many meaning frameworks we exist in, and the interpretations we bring to bear on what is "out there." The many ways in which we construct meaning are important to how we understand the world, ourselves, and the Gnostic tradition.
Topics include: misunderstanding that meaning is objective, early studies of meaning, portrayal of remote scenes in local contemporary terms, paradigm in Kuhn's the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, paradigm shift as change in meaning structure, assimilation versus accommodation, overuse of paradigm, valid and invalid interpretations, interpretations of Gnostic texts, misuse of interpretation by Ireneaus, Heracleon's exegetical use of interpretation, importance of interpretation in making use of Gnostic texts, modern disadvantage of not having gnosis in our meaning framework, importance of gnosis in all of its dimensions, awareness of when we do or do not have gnosis, importance of metaphors in understanding, nature of the metaphor influences the meaning of the concept conveyed, Gnostic meaning framework a part of the path of gnosis, Lakoff's work on frames, frames used to elicit a positive or negative reaction, propaganda, meaning of metaphor, study of metaphors, meaning and perception without cultural context, equivalent to gnosis lacking in language and cultural understanding, encountering the absence of gnosis in artificial intelligence design, perception of objects, limitations from cultural context, ontology as another dimension to interpretation, the ability to change perspectives, emancipatory and transformational learning.
Presented at the Holy Gnosis of Thomas Chapel in Salt Lake City, 13 June 2010.
Episode 15: "You Are Here" (part 3) Making Meaning
Episode 16
Examining meaning frameworks that can blind us and keep us from liberation, and frameworks that can aid us in liberation.
Topics include: Different frameworks of meaning can be a source of blindness or aid in liberation, if we are unaware of our meaning structures we are locked within it, main source of difficulty in approaching Gnosticism is a pre-existent meaning structure, frameworks of religion, in-group out-group bias, orthodox religion framework is belief-centric, religion studied within an orthodox framework, Gnosticism is not belief-centric, Gnosticism in a belief-centric framework is inconsistent or nonexistent, over-determined view of Gnosticism when orthodox frameworks imposed upon it, evidence bias, frameworks that blind, over-determined frameworks, examples of over-determined frameworks in Elaine Pagels's account of drawing lots in the Gnostic Gospels, inappropriate frameworks, invalid conspiracy theory frameworks as predetermined conclusions in search of evidence viewed through a modern idiosyncratic framework, egocentric psychology as framework, using philosophical tools for spiritual liberation, shift from egocentric psychology as major developmental shift of meaning framework, frameworks that aid in liberation, elements of the Gnostic worldview, mythic poetic symbolic as inner-deeper meaning framework, limited imperfect framework, liberation is possible framework, dangers of ego taking over these views, individual self-transformational framework, the truth shall set us free.Presented at the Holy Gnosis of Thomas Chapel in Salt Lake City, 13 June 2010, by Gnostic priest and scholar Troy Pierce.
Episode 16: "You are Here" (part 4) in Frameworks that Blind or Aid
Thursday, June 10, 2010
GnosCast: the Gnostic Podcast - #14: From the Image to the Real
Continuing to explore the distinctions between the image and the real as elaborated by Plato's Analogy of the Divided Line as they appear in ancient Gnostic texts. We look at four general motifs of the relation between image and real in the Nag Hammadi Scriptures, including how to move from the image to the real. (pdf with references) 
Presented at the Holy Gnosis of Thomas Chapel in Salt Lake City, 06 June 2010.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
GnosCast: the Gnostic Podcast - Episode 13: Gnosis and Meaning
Exploring Meaning and Gnosis in the ancient Platonic context and in Gnostic texts; and the connection between Platonic and Gnostic understandings of meaning. Finding a connection between Plato and Gnostic understandings of meaning, in the wee hours lead to a presentation exploring meaning in terms of gnosis in the ancient Platonic context familiar to the ancient Gnostics and terms from Gnostic texts. (Reference Handout available.)
Topics include: brief look at interpretive frameworks, projection of literalist interpretation on ancient Gnostics, Plato's framework for making distinctions between knowing with gnosis and knowing without gnosis in both the sensible and the noetic, knowing without gnosis in sensible and noetic both called images, Jewish Platonic tradition of allegorical exegesis, gnosis and meaning in three passages from the Gospel of Philip, comparison to the hymn of the pearl, uses of Plato's framework in understanding Gnostic texts, reason for emphasis on gnosis after the apostolic age.
Presented at the Holy Gnosis of Thomas Chapel in Salt Lake City, 30 May 2010.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
GnosCast: the Gnostic Podcast # 10: Gnosis Further Considered
The second of a series on advanced essentials of Gnosticism (as opposed to basics). Further considerations on the nature of gnosis and implications for understanding and practice. Topics include: Mistaken notions of self (rational and self-controlling), irreducible nature of gnosis, gnosis in Platonic Forms, recognition of objects and concepts, gnosis of gnoses or epignosis/metagnosis as Gnosis, example of the good art critic, Gnosis as transformation, Gnosis as developmental process, Gnosis as shape of reality, misrecognition, self-gnosis of embodiment.
Health-wise I was worse off while recording this than while recording the previous week.
Presented at the Holy Gnosis of Thomas Chapel in Salt Lake City, 9 May 2010.
Direct link
The science fiction story mentioned is "They're made out of meat" by Terry Bisson.
Health-wise I was worse off while recording this than while recording the previous week.
Presented at the Holy Gnosis of Thomas Chapel in Salt Lake City, 9 May 2010.
Direct link
The science fiction story mentioned is "They're made out of meat" by Terry Bisson.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
GnosCast: the Gnostic Podcast # 9: Gnosis in Context
Since I have been too ill to write or plan and give a long lecture of late, I plan to use some of the time at services where I am unable to do more to have short presentations and discussions on some of the essentials.
Although it varies within a range, long-term my health isn't getting any better. While I plan and would very much like to write about the understanding I have arrived at after decades of study and practice, it may not happen. So, I hope these short talks will be of service in passing on some of what I have found that may be valuable.
Please, forgive some of the lack of composition and coherence. They are necessarily given at less than 100% ability, the fatigue effects my ability to think, speak, and recall. This podcast has been edited to reduce those effects.
Description:
The first of a planned series on essentials of Gnosticism, this one considering the nature of gnosis and implications from the ancient context. Topics include: meanings and implications of the term 'gnosis' in the context of the Greek language and philosophy and in ancient Gnostic texts, concluding with a free ranging discussion. Presentation and discussion at the Holy Gnosis of Thomas Chapel in Salt Lake City, 2 May 2010, by Gnostic priest and scholar Troy Pierce.
Here is the direct link
Although it varies within a range, long-term my health isn't getting any better. While I plan and would very much like to write about the understanding I have arrived at after decades of study and practice, it may not happen. So, I hope these short talks will be of service in passing on some of what I have found that may be valuable.
Please, forgive some of the lack of composition and coherence. They are necessarily given at less than 100% ability, the fatigue effects my ability to think, speak, and recall. This podcast has been edited to reduce those effects.
Description:
The first of a planned series on essentials of Gnosticism, this one considering the nature of gnosis and implications from the ancient context. Topics include: meanings and implications of the term 'gnosis' in the context of the Greek language and philosophy and in ancient Gnostic texts, concluding with a free ranging discussion. Presentation and discussion at the Holy Gnosis of Thomas Chapel in Salt Lake City, 2 May 2010, by Gnostic priest and scholar Troy Pierce.
Here is the direct link
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
GnosCast: the Gnostic Podcast #8 - the Emergence of Gnosticism
The first part of the Gnosticism Then and Now lecture from March 6th has been added to the GnosCast podcast feed as episode 8. It focuses on the three major traditions from which Gnosticism emerges: the Mystery traditions, Philosophical practice, and Jewish Mysticism. Unfortunately, the battery in the digital recorder failed after this part, so, it is only the first two-fifths of the talk.The next part of the lecture was an overview of Gnostic teachers and developments after Jesus. And that was followed by what connects them all together--Gnosis. (It seems actually possible to get across what Gnosis is in the tradition that way.) I finished with a quick overview of modern history, but that was a preface to even more content that there wasn't time for.
I think I'll follow a suggestion of giving, and recording, a series of lectures covering the same ground in more detail. And also including the aspects of modern science I didn't even touch upon.
Let me know your reactions.
Direct link to the mp3 file
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Temptation of Explanation
The spirit of our time spoke to me and said: "What dire urgency could be forcing you to speak all this?" This was an awful temptation. I wanted to ponder what inner or outer bind could force me into this, and because I found nothing that I could grasp, I was near to making one up. But with this the spirit of our time had almost brought it about that instead of speaking, I was thinking again about reasons and explanations. But the spirit of the depths spoke to me and said: "To understand a thing is a bridge and possibility of returning to the path. But to explain a matter is arbitrary and sometimes even murder. Have you counted the murderers among the scholars?"
- C. G. Jung, The Red Book (Liber Novus), (Liber Primus fol.i/ii)
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Questions: Gnostic Theodicy – Take Two
The theological problem known as 'the problem of evil,' or as 'theodicy' (the justness of God), is the result of a theological definition of God comprising of three elements: all-powerful, meaning that there are no external limits on the power of God; all-knowing, meaning that there are no external limits on the knowledge of God; and all-good, meaning that there are no external limits on the goodness of God. What flows from this definition is the difficulty of avoiding assigning some responsibility for evil to such a being who knows about the evil in advance, has the power to prevent the evil, and, being good without limit, would have to act to prevent the evil.
The problem goes like this: since there is no external limit, there is nothing other than God that can be responsible for evil, but God is all-good and so cannot allow evil that God could prevent. However, there is no limit on the knowledge and power of God so there is nothing other than God that can be responsible for evil, but God is all-good and so cannot allow evil that God could prevent... Rinse. Repeat.
If we modify the definition, the problem goes away. If God is not all-good, then God can allow evil to occur, or even cause it. (A common pragmatic belief, even if denied in theory.) If God is not all-knowing, then God cannot be expected to know each instance of evil that will occur in order to prevent it. If God is not all-powerful, then God may not be able to prevent every instance of evil. The other way out of the problem is to deny the existence of evil in various ways, and that is the usual strategy employed by theologians. (There are also self-limited and all-good arguments.)
From the Gnostic texts we see statements comparable to the all-good part of this theological definition. The other two definitional elements, all-powerful and all-knowing, are certainly not present as understood and formulated in contemporary theology. For example, in Gnostic stories the ultimate divinity emanates aspects of the divine nature rather than acting as a creator wielding power upon a separate creation. There is also the question of whether it is valid and to what extent it makes sense to re-frame ancient Gnostic stories into modern theological arguments.
One of the things that annoys some academic scholars of Gnosticism is the mythic rather than theological nature of Gnostic texts. Our culture is so used to theological ways of thinking that the mythic form seems unwieldy. Yet there is a fundamental difference between the mythic and theological in the nature of meaning.
The analogy that comes to mind is the characters of a story, be it a book or a film, being translated into a game, such as a video game or trading card game. The character is removed from the story, the context of meaning, and is then defined by attributes relative to other things in the game. It may be fun to play the game, to move outside of the story, but it is a fundamentally different enterprise from that of telling the original story. Likewise, translating the ultimate divinity from Gnostic stories into a game piece with theological attributes and moving outside of the story is a very different thing from the telling of the original stories.
The problem goes like this: since there is no external limit, there is nothing other than God that can be responsible for evil, but God is all-good and so cannot allow evil that God could prevent. However, there is no limit on the knowledge and power of God so there is nothing other than God that can be responsible for evil, but God is all-good and so cannot allow evil that God could prevent... Rinse. Repeat.
If we modify the definition, the problem goes away. If God is not all-good, then God can allow evil to occur, or even cause it. (A common pragmatic belief, even if denied in theory.) If God is not all-knowing, then God cannot be expected to know each instance of evil that will occur in order to prevent it. If God is not all-powerful, then God may not be able to prevent every instance of evil. The other way out of the problem is to deny the existence of evil in various ways, and that is the usual strategy employed by theologians. (There are also self-limited and all-good arguments.)
From the Gnostic texts we see statements comparable to the all-good part of this theological definition. The other two definitional elements, all-powerful and all-knowing, are certainly not present as understood and formulated in contemporary theology. For example, in Gnostic stories the ultimate divinity emanates aspects of the divine nature rather than acting as a creator wielding power upon a separate creation. There is also the question of whether it is valid and to what extent it makes sense to re-frame ancient Gnostic stories into modern theological arguments.
One of the things that annoys some academic scholars of Gnosticism is the mythic rather than theological nature of Gnostic texts. Our culture is so used to theological ways of thinking that the mythic form seems unwieldy. Yet there is a fundamental difference between the mythic and theological in the nature of meaning.
The analogy that comes to mind is the characters of a story, be it a book or a film, being translated into a game, such as a video game or trading card game. The character is removed from the story, the context of meaning, and is then defined by attributes relative to other things in the game. It may be fun to play the game, to move outside of the story, but it is a fundamentally different enterprise from that of telling the original story. Likewise, translating the ultimate divinity from Gnostic stories into a game piece with theological attributes and moving outside of the story is a very different thing from the telling of the original stories.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Escape requires becoming like God
"But it is not possible, Theodorus, that the force of evil should be utterly destroyed—for there must always be something opposed to the good; nor is it possible that it should have its seat among the gods. But is must inevitably haunt human life, and prowl about this earth. Therefore we should wholly endeavor to take flight to that place (of the gods); and such flight means becoming as like God as possible; and a man becomes like God when he becomes just and holy, through understanding. ... In God there is no sort of wrong whatsoever, he is supremely just, and the thing most like him is the man who has become as just as it lies in human nature to be." - Plato [Theaetetus 176 b-c]
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Plato on unwritten subjects
I know indeed that certain others have written about these same subjects; but what manner of men they are not even themselves know. But thus much I can certainly declare [341c] concerning all these writers, or prospective writers, who claim to know the subjects which I seriously study, whether as hearers of mine or of other teachers, or from their own discoveries; it is impossible, in my judgment at least, that these men should understand anything about this subject.
There does not exist, nor will there ever exist, any treatise of mine dealing therewith. For it does not at all admit of verbal expression like other studies, but, as a result of continued application to the subject itself and communion therewith, it is brought to birth in the soul on a sudden, as light that is kindled [341d] by a leaping spark, and thereafter it nourishes itself.
Notwithstanding, of thus much I am certain, that the best statement of these doctrines in writing or in speech would be my own statement; and further, that if they should be badly stated in writing, it is I who would be the person most deeply pained. And if I had thought that these subjects ought to be fully stated in writing or in speech to the public, what nobler action could I have performed in my life than that of writing what is of great benefit to mankind and [341e] bringing forth to the light for all men the nature of reality?
But were I to undertake this task it would not, as I think, prove a good thing for men, save for some few who are able to discover the truth themselves with but little instruction; for as to the rest, some it would most unseasonably fill with a mistaken contempt, and others with an overweening and empty aspiration, as though they had learnt some sublime mysteries.
Plato (Epis. 7, 341b-e)
There does not exist, nor will there ever exist, any treatise of mine dealing therewith. For it does not at all admit of verbal expression like other studies, but, as a result of continued application to the subject itself and communion therewith, it is brought to birth in the soul on a sudden, as light that is kindled [341d] by a leaping spark, and thereafter it nourishes itself.
Notwithstanding, of thus much I am certain, that the best statement of these doctrines in writing or in speech would be my own statement; and further, that if they should be badly stated in writing, it is I who would be the person most deeply pained. And if I had thought that these subjects ought to be fully stated in writing or in speech to the public, what nobler action could I have performed in my life than that of writing what is of great benefit to mankind and [341e] bringing forth to the light for all men the nature of reality?
But were I to undertake this task it would not, as I think, prove a good thing for men, save for some few who are able to discover the truth themselves with but little instruction; for as to the rest, some it would most unseasonably fill with a mistaken contempt, and others with an overweening and empty aspiration, as though they had learnt some sublime mysteries.
Plato (Epis. 7, 341b-e)
Monday, September 22, 2008
Philosophical view of Gnosis
“I can find nothing on which to hang a world view. The best certainties are either too flimsy or too hard to pin down. The best reasoning is often simply wrong. All the knowledge I have is on its very best days merely provisional.”
Looking for certainty in philosophical propositions in the postmodern era isn't likely to succeed. All formulations of knowledge are provisional, but that is the nature of knowledge since it involves ourselves.
Yet, there is deeper knowledge than the formulations we can make. And while formulations and conclusions are provisional, this deeper knowledge is not. It is simply what cannot be any other way given the shape of our existence. What is certainly true is isomorphic, it cannot be any other way. It is a part of who we are, not something we can directly articulate or determine.
We come to understand more of it by living deeply, by exploring who we are. Knowing oneself in this deep way isn't a pass-time, it is a necessary pursuit -- an investigation into the nature of being. At the same time it is liberating for it frees us of false notions, non-provisional formulations of knowledge, and overreaching conclusions. It is a process of becoming who we truly are and achieving excellence. This is what I call the path of Gnosis, following an ancient understanding.
“You and I might agree, but I'd shy away from the word gnosis. I do like living deeply.”
Unfortunately, there is no equivalent word in English. It is the Greek word originating from the Proto-Indo-European root of gnō. We could use the Sanskrit jnãna, but Indian philosophy developed its terminology somewhat differently from Western philosophy. Of the four words in Greek covering the meanings of "knowledge" in English, gnosis is the most primary and direct: meaning both recognition and investigation.
In the fifth chapter of the Republic, Plato developed his epistemology of types of knowledge. It is generally impossible to make out in English translations, but he is determining what forms of systematic knowledge (epistēmē) and perceptual judgment (doxa, used as a technical term) are based on gnosis.
Whatever terminology we may use to point to this deeper form of knowingness, it is the primary form. Basing certainty at the level of a secondary type of knowing seems inherently flawed, it certainly has failed so far. One can do as Plato did, and try to move from the primary form to a secondary type, but there are severe limitations. In Plato's view one can have systematic knowledge based on gnosis only of noetic content, for example.
In general, this deeper approach takes one beyond the level of cognitive logic and mental "work space" to that which generates/encapsulates them. So, instead of considering contents, one considers the structure of the container. I would also argue that this is a way of understanding notions of no-self. There is no "self" as a being in the way in which we ordinarily understand "self". Yet there is an emulation of a "self" that is a process within a deeper structure.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Socially Engaged Spirituality
I've been intending on writing about this for months now. When I returned to graduate school it was primarily to pursue my research interests in psycho-spiritual development. However, I found myself quite drawn to the certificate program in Socially Engaged Spirituality despite reservations about relevancy, time, and additional cost. Long story short, I followed my intuition and applied for the program. Since starting, I've gained a great deal of insight into spirituality and spiritual practice by approaching from this outer form of mysticism, directly connecting inner and outer transformation. The program director is Donald Rothberg, who has recently written The Engaged Spiritual Life exploring engaged spirituality from a Buddhist perspective. You can also listen to a radio interview with Donald Rothberg on KPFA's Living Room. Interview begins about twenty minutes into the program. |
In my coursework so far, I have not only made connections and gained insight into Gnostic practice, but in the process have developed a theory on psycho-spiritual transformation. So, the program has directly benefited what I had thought was an unrelated research interest. Score another one for intuition. And, yes, Engaged Gnosticism will have its place in the Gnostic Studies program at the Gnosis Institute.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Following the Path of Gnosis: The Spiritual Exercise of Attention
Gnosticism can be seen as flowing from the joining of three major streams of Western practice and thought: the philosophical traditions, particularly the practices of Platonism; the mystery traditions (aka “schools” or “cults”) of mythic and symbolic experiential religious transformative practices; and, the “apocalyptic” (in the sense of visionary) traditions, principally those within Judaism. Because of our modern understanding and modern practice of philosophy, we often view ancient philosophy through a modern lens, seeing it as an abstract, theoretical, or system-bound way of thinking. However, in the ancient world philosophy was primarily a way of life, a practice of self-transformation.
Spiritual exercises are essentially intentional techniques for growth and transformation that include: modifying consciousness, training the mind, preparing/preempting reactions to experiences, developing mental and emotional capabilities, focusing attention, etc. Pierre Hadot (1995) has traced the use of spiritual exercises in the philosophical practices of antiquity at least as far back as Plato. And, similar types of practices are a hallmark of religious and spiritual practice.
Attention (prosoche) is named in both of Philo of Alexandria's lists of spiritual exercises. This is the focus on the present moment, a vigilance and readiness to act and react to what is present. This is a practical emancipation of ourselves from being caught up in past or future, or any other dissociated state, through applied attention. The present is the only situation in which we have the freedom to act, in considerations of the past and future we can only be reactive. We are more familiar with this exercise from the Buddhist tradition where it is called “mindfulness.”
As a meditation teacher instructed a group I was in, “We often say that it is very easy to be mindful. The difficulty is remembering to be mindful.” This points us to the core of the exercise: it is not simply having the capacity for attention or mindfulness, but applying attention that is the spiritual exercise and that application is were the difficulty lay and where some discipline is required. The description of this as an “exercise” is apt, for just like a physical exercise, one has to actually perform it to gain any benefit. Knowing how to exercise, being capable of exercise, and knowing that exercise is beneficial, isn't enough—it must be performed regularly. This failure to exercise is a particular danger in the case of spiritual exercises, as we may have a tendency to dismiss them as merely “mental” exercises. And in a sense think that thinking about them is somehow equivalent to doing them.
Attention is also like a physical exercise in that it is more difficult when beginning, and that one encounters resistance and may discontinue after trying it a few times when immediate dramatic results do not manifest. A number of strategies will help with this. One is making a commitment to a mindfulness meditation class or group. These can be found almost everywhere. An experienced and knowledgeable instructor can greatly aid in getting started and save you time in developing skill as you progress. However, the benefits of committing to a class or group can almost be replicated on your own by having a specific place, a specific time, and a conducive environment to work through the issues in beginning the practice of attention. The “technique” is simple yet there are a lot of skills that can help. The usual method of beginning is to focus your attention on your breathing for a set amount of time. There are many variations possible, such as different targets of the focus of your attention, the main thing is to find a focus that works for you. When you catch yourself having drifted in your focus, re-focus and continue. Over time you become capable of maintaining focus for longer, and catching your mind wandering more quickly. When you have performed this basic focusing exercise for long enough, you can begin the actual exercise of maintaining attention in more circumstances and for longer in your life.
The most frequent excuse or complaint concerning any exercise is that you don't have enough time. However, as you practice mindfulness you will realize that it is the only time when you are really living. So, it isn't that you don't have time in your life, but this is when you actually get to live your life. The indirect benefits also vastly outweigh the cost in time spent, as research shows that even a little mindfulness exercise improves focus and performance (University of Pennsylvania, 2007). Furthermore, as you progress you can exercise in more situations. Being mindful while washing dishes, for example, makes washing dishes a spiritual exercise. It is something of great value that can be added to many situations. Such as, enjoying the time spent waiting, instead of feeling frustration. Or, being able to give our full attention to someone as the precious gift that it is.
This exercise of attention is exercising and developing consciousness of awareness itself. And, every situation we can exercise attention in, it another situation where we are now free not only to act, but to be. This is not only a basic skill and a place to start on the path of Gnosis, it is a very powerful tool in its own right, for it is the ability to focus, to shine, the light within. As the Gospel of Thomas says, "within the person of light there is light. If it shines, the world is illumined. If it does not shine, there is darkness."
The philosophical act is not situated merely on the cognitive level, but on that of the self and of being. It is a progress which causes us to be more fully, and makes us better. It is a conversion which turns our entire life upside down, changing the life of the person who goes through it. It raises the individual from an inauthentic condition of life, darkened by unconsciousness and harassed by worry, to an authentic state of life, in which he attains self-consciousness, and exact vision of the world, inner peace, and freedom. (Hadot, 1995, p. 83)The means of achieving these goals of living out a philosophy were spiritual exercises. When there is mention of “spiritual exercises,” there is a strong association with the work by Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus (aka Jesuits). However, Ignatius is not the originator of the concept, but a later exemplar of a long tradition that predates Christianity.
Spiritual exercises are essentially intentional techniques for growth and transformation that include: modifying consciousness, training the mind, preparing/preempting reactions to experiences, developing mental and emotional capabilities, focusing attention, etc. Pierre Hadot (1995) has traced the use of spiritual exercises in the philosophical practices of antiquity at least as far back as Plato. And, similar types of practices are a hallmark of religious and spiritual practice.
Attention (prosoche) is named in both of Philo of Alexandria's lists of spiritual exercises. This is the focus on the present moment, a vigilance and readiness to act and react to what is present. This is a practical emancipation of ourselves from being caught up in past or future, or any other dissociated state, through applied attention. The present is the only situation in which we have the freedom to act, in considerations of the past and future we can only be reactive. We are more familiar with this exercise from the Buddhist tradition where it is called “mindfulness.”
As a meditation teacher instructed a group I was in, “We often say that it is very easy to be mindful. The difficulty is remembering to be mindful.” This points us to the core of the exercise: it is not simply having the capacity for attention or mindfulness, but applying attention that is the spiritual exercise and that application is were the difficulty lay and where some discipline is required. The description of this as an “exercise” is apt, for just like a physical exercise, one has to actually perform it to gain any benefit. Knowing how to exercise, being capable of exercise, and knowing that exercise is beneficial, isn't enough—it must be performed regularly. This failure to exercise is a particular danger in the case of spiritual exercises, as we may have a tendency to dismiss them as merely “mental” exercises. And in a sense think that thinking about them is somehow equivalent to doing them.
Attention is also like a physical exercise in that it is more difficult when beginning, and that one encounters resistance and may discontinue after trying it a few times when immediate dramatic results do not manifest. A number of strategies will help with this. One is making a commitment to a mindfulness meditation class or group. These can be found almost everywhere. An experienced and knowledgeable instructor can greatly aid in getting started and save you time in developing skill as you progress. However, the benefits of committing to a class or group can almost be replicated on your own by having a specific place, a specific time, and a conducive environment to work through the issues in beginning the practice of attention. The “technique” is simple yet there are a lot of skills that can help. The usual method of beginning is to focus your attention on your breathing for a set amount of time. There are many variations possible, such as different targets of the focus of your attention, the main thing is to find a focus that works for you. When you catch yourself having drifted in your focus, re-focus and continue. Over time you become capable of maintaining focus for longer, and catching your mind wandering more quickly. When you have performed this basic focusing exercise for long enough, you can begin the actual exercise of maintaining attention in more circumstances and for longer in your life.
The most frequent excuse or complaint concerning any exercise is that you don't have enough time. However, as you practice mindfulness you will realize that it is the only time when you are really living. So, it isn't that you don't have time in your life, but this is when you actually get to live your life. The indirect benefits also vastly outweigh the cost in time spent, as research shows that even a little mindfulness exercise improves focus and performance (University of Pennsylvania, 2007). Furthermore, as you progress you can exercise in more situations. Being mindful while washing dishes, for example, makes washing dishes a spiritual exercise. It is something of great value that can be added to many situations. Such as, enjoying the time spent waiting, instead of feeling frustration. Or, being able to give our full attention to someone as the precious gift that it is.
This exercise of attention is exercising and developing consciousness of awareness itself. And, every situation we can exercise attention in, it another situation where we are now free not only to act, but to be. This is not only a basic skill and a place to start on the path of Gnosis, it is a very powerful tool in its own right, for it is the ability to focus, to shine, the light within. As the Gospel of Thomas says, "within the person of light there is light. If it shines, the world is illumined. If it does not shine, there is darkness."
Hadot, P. (1995). Philosophy as a way of life: Spiritual exercises from Socrates to Foucault. Cambridge: Blackwell.
University of Pennsylvania (2007, June 26). Meditate to concentrate. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625193240.htm
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Critical Approaches to Religion & Gnosticism
Use the skills and tools to multi-dimensionally examine, contextualize understandings, and articulate findings, in the study of religion in general and the Gnostic tradition in particular. This course is required for most Gnosis Institute programs and is suggested for everyone interested in exploring religious traditions and the Gnostic tradition.
Course begins April 24th at the Gnosis Institute.
Course Description
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Gnosis, Episteme, and Doxia, Oh My!
One of the biggest misconceptions concerning Gnosticism is the oft repeated phrase: “Gnosis is the Greek word for knowledge.” This is then frequently followed by the claim that “Gnostics thought they were saved by possessing secret knowledge,” or some variation thereof. It is also a common mistake to view Gnosis as if it either were information, or could be summarized as information.
The reason these are false is that Classical Greek had more than one word for knowledge: there are essentially four words for different types of knowledge, and there are additional words having to do with the source or origin of the knowledge. As the title suggests, we will be considering three of them.
Doxia: Opinion or Statement, with the connotation of mere opinion. It is part of the word “orthodox”, with “ortho” meaning: straight. correct, or right. As in orthopedic ('leg straightener'), or orthodontist ('teeth straightener'). A less frequently used sense of doxia as 'praise' is preserved the the “Great Doxology.”
In English: Doxia corresponds to statements of either fact or opinion. For example: “green is a color” or “green is the best color.” Doxia is a type of knowledge that may or may not be the real case, that is, it may not correspond to what we can test by reason or measurement, or may include what cannot be tested.
Cognitively: this type of knowledge can be thought of as one type of memory. If someone asks you a question and you remember the answer, then that one example of doxia as knowledge. A piece of doxastic knowledge can be isolated, or unrelated to other knowledge. It can also co-exist with a contradictory piece of knowledge.
In Learning: Learning doxia is often referred to derogatorily as “regurgitation” in the sense that one memorizes (ingests) then demonstrates memorization (regurgitates). However, essentially all education begins by learning doxia, as the other types of knowledge occur within the individual.
In Argumentation: Staying at level of opinion or statements of “truth.” Or, considering everything to be a matter of opinion. Such as, “My opinion is as good as anyone else's.”
Episteme: Systematic or interrelated knowledge, or Understanding. Also, professional or practical skill. Episteme is a compound word in Greek, literally meaning: “to stand or erect upon.” It is constructed upon previous knowledge and can in turn be constructed upon itself, hence the systematic or interrelated nature. Classical philosophers referred to the understanding they gained from reasoning about it as episteme. For example, the Socratic Method is one that examines doxia through reasoning in dialog. Part of the word “epistemology”, with “logos” meaning speech, account, or reason.
In English: episteme corresponds to most of what is meant by the word “knowledge”. It is also the term that described professional skill, such as the practice of: science, law, and philosophy. It is the type of knowledge or understanding that would qualify someone as an expert witness in a court of law, for example. This knowledge may not already exist within the knower as doxia, but can be derived from the system of existing knowledge. Someone who is knowledgeable in the sense of episteme, can not only present a conclusion (which would be doxia), but can derive or explain the conclusion as well, that is, take someone through a process to gain episteme of their own.
Cognitively: episteme is much more complex and uses more than one type of memory. It involves agentic cognition (from “agent”), that is, the active use of and direction of thought. This thought utilizes skills in reasoning, already established system of related knowledge, and a general understanding of the situation or framework for meaning (a paradigm).
In Learning: This is the level where a student not only remembers the facts, but has developed an understanding. The knowledge has been internalized and can be considered in part, as a whole, and in relationship. It remains theoretical or abstract knowledge in many ways. The limitations of episteme can be seen in such contrasts as “knowing versus know-how,” and in “education versus experience.”
In Argumentation: Justifying statements and deriving conclusions using valid reasoning demonstrates some level of episteme. However, there is a difference between systematic knowledge and simply related knowledge. Merely giving a reason for a statement that is only another statement, whereas episteme is demonstrated in a way that someone could follow in constructing their own episteme. Often following such demonstrations requires a great deal of prior knowledge, skill, or even experience.
In the Republic, Plato uses the distinction between a doxastic cognition and an epistemic cognition as the justification for the statement that “philosophers should be rulers, or rulers philosophers.” The philosopher is better suited to rule because he uses epistemic cognition as the basis for judgment.
Gnosis: what enables recognition, an ingrained familiarity, experientially derived (as opposed to sensed), structural or irreducible “being” knowledge. The word gnosis is used to describe knowing someone, or knowing a landscape. It is a part of “diagnosis,” the process of recognizing an illness.
In English: there is no corresponding term. We can see echoes of it in notions like “hands-on experience,” but they fall short. Usually we are reduced to analogies, like the “difference between knowing the path and walking the path.” Or, “the map is not the territory.” Some aspects of an eye-witness refer to gnosis, such as recognizing a perpetrator. Yet, the circumstances may limit the process of gnosis, and this has been demonstrated to be susceptible to recognition of the suspect rather than the perpetrator. A better example in the use of gnosis is the practice of having a body identified by the next of kin.
Cognitively: Gnosis is outside of the range of agentic cognition. It is developed through an experiential process in the individual, but not directly through consciously directed thought. While derived from and related to experience, it is not simply sensory in nature. It isn't a memory of the senses, for example. This can be seen in the process of recognition. We are able to recognize people after dramatic changes, or written text that is fuzzy, scrambled, or misspelled.
In the general sense particular types of gnosis are related to particular regions of the brain. This can be seen in cases such as facial agnosia, where a brain lesion leaves someone unable to recognize faces. They still have the sensory data from looking at someone's face, but there is no recognition. It takes an epistemic process of deduction to determine who someone is. In general, gnosis is a type of meta-knowledge that is fundamental to who we are in the world.
In Argumentation: Difficulties in using gnosis in argumentation go back at least as far as Plato. Early dialogs that use dialectical reasoning to examine a matter of opinion or statements of definition (doxia), end without a firm resolution of whether what was examined was mere opinion or merely inadequately expressed. In later works Plato introduced the notion of Forms as a way to include aspects of gnosis.
When it appears in English, particularly when it is capitalized, Gnosis refers to a particular type of gnosis: the redemptive or liberating gnosis that was sought by the ancient Gnostics, and mentioned frequently in their scriptures. In these scriptures Gnosis is related to a particular mythological/symbolic framework. This reflects some kind of participatory view, an understanding that this framework was a vital (if not necessary) tool for attaining liberating gnosis. However, this framework does not exhibit the hallmarks of episteme, it isn't consistent, and has many variations—it just isn't systematic. What these stories reflect is efforts to express Gnosis in a way that might lead someone to their own gnosis to some limited extent.
We've all read gripping stories that made us feel like we were “there.” The Gnostic scriptures, as we have them, don't have the narrative qualities that might engage us as a modern reader. The New Testament, for example, is very terse. There are no rich descriptions of events, for example, just the bare bones. They are more in the line of “seeds” of a full narrative that a contemporary storyteller might give. We see this particularly in the Gospel of Thomas, where the longest story is only a few sentences. Yet, they are still stories, and the type of gnosis that they were seeking to lead one towards isn't gnosis of the scenes or of how the characters looked.
Gnosis is also developmental. One seeks it. One attains it. Yet, one already has it in some way, but it isn't manifest. In the Hymn of the Pearl there is the recognition of the truth of the letter (or call to awaken), because the letter was written in his heart.
Gnosis is also transformational. Descriptions of the transformation of the individual through attaining Gnosis in ancient texts include: rebirth, resurrection, redemption, liberation, and awakening.
Gnosis was not the goal of Gnostics, but rather the means. Gnosis was the path. As GRS Meade wrote:
The reason these are false is that Classical Greek had more than one word for knowledge: there are essentially four words for different types of knowledge, and there are additional words having to do with the source or origin of the knowledge. As the title suggests, we will be considering three of them.
Doxia: Opinion or Statement, with the connotation of mere opinion. It is part of the word “orthodox”, with “ortho” meaning: straight. correct, or right. As in orthopedic ('leg straightener'), or orthodontist ('teeth straightener'). A less frequently used sense of doxia as 'praise' is preserved the the “Great Doxology.”
In English: Doxia corresponds to statements of either fact or opinion. For example: “green is a color” or “green is the best color.” Doxia is a type of knowledge that may or may not be the real case, that is, it may not correspond to what we can test by reason or measurement, or may include what cannot be tested.
Cognitively: this type of knowledge can be thought of as one type of memory. If someone asks you a question and you remember the answer, then that one example of doxia as knowledge. A piece of doxastic knowledge can be isolated, or unrelated to other knowledge. It can also co-exist with a contradictory piece of knowledge.
In Learning: Learning doxia is often referred to derogatorily as “regurgitation” in the sense that one memorizes (ingests) then demonstrates memorization (regurgitates). However, essentially all education begins by learning doxia, as the other types of knowledge occur within the individual.
In Argumentation: Staying at level of opinion or statements of “truth.” Or, considering everything to be a matter of opinion. Such as, “My opinion is as good as anyone else's.”
Episteme: Systematic or interrelated knowledge, or Understanding. Also, professional or practical skill. Episteme is a compound word in Greek, literally meaning: “to stand or erect upon.” It is constructed upon previous knowledge and can in turn be constructed upon itself, hence the systematic or interrelated nature. Classical philosophers referred to the understanding they gained from reasoning about it as episteme. For example, the Socratic Method is one that examines doxia through reasoning in dialog. Part of the word “epistemology”, with “logos” meaning speech, account, or reason.
In English: episteme corresponds to most of what is meant by the word “knowledge”. It is also the term that described professional skill, such as the practice of: science, law, and philosophy. It is the type of knowledge or understanding that would qualify someone as an expert witness in a court of law, for example. This knowledge may not already exist within the knower as doxia, but can be derived from the system of existing knowledge. Someone who is knowledgeable in the sense of episteme, can not only present a conclusion (which would be doxia), but can derive or explain the conclusion as well, that is, take someone through a process to gain episteme of their own.
Cognitively: episteme is much more complex and uses more than one type of memory. It involves agentic cognition (from “agent”), that is, the active use of and direction of thought. This thought utilizes skills in reasoning, already established system of related knowledge, and a general understanding of the situation or framework for meaning (a paradigm).
In Learning: This is the level where a student not only remembers the facts, but has developed an understanding. The knowledge has been internalized and can be considered in part, as a whole, and in relationship. It remains theoretical or abstract knowledge in many ways. The limitations of episteme can be seen in such contrasts as “knowing versus know-how,” and in “education versus experience.”
In Argumentation: Justifying statements and deriving conclusions using valid reasoning demonstrates some level of episteme. However, there is a difference between systematic knowledge and simply related knowledge. Merely giving a reason for a statement that is only another statement, whereas episteme is demonstrated in a way that someone could follow in constructing their own episteme. Often following such demonstrations requires a great deal of prior knowledge, skill, or even experience.
In the Republic, Plato uses the distinction between a doxastic cognition and an epistemic cognition as the justification for the statement that “philosophers should be rulers, or rulers philosophers.” The philosopher is better suited to rule because he uses epistemic cognition as the basis for judgment.
Gnosis: what enables recognition, an ingrained familiarity, experientially derived (as opposed to sensed), structural or irreducible “being” knowledge. The word gnosis is used to describe knowing someone, or knowing a landscape. It is a part of “diagnosis,” the process of recognizing an illness.
In English: there is no corresponding term. We can see echoes of it in notions like “hands-on experience,” but they fall short. Usually we are reduced to analogies, like the “difference between knowing the path and walking the path.” Or, “the map is not the territory.” Some aspects of an eye-witness refer to gnosis, such as recognizing a perpetrator. Yet, the circumstances may limit the process of gnosis, and this has been demonstrated to be susceptible to recognition of the suspect rather than the perpetrator. A better example in the use of gnosis is the practice of having a body identified by the next of kin.
Cognitively: Gnosis is outside of the range of agentic cognition. It is developed through an experiential process in the individual, but not directly through consciously directed thought. While derived from and related to experience, it is not simply sensory in nature. It isn't a memory of the senses, for example. This can be seen in the process of recognition. We are able to recognize people after dramatic changes, or written text that is fuzzy, scrambled, or misspelled.
In the general sense particular types of gnosis are related to particular regions of the brain. This can be seen in cases such as facial agnosia, where a brain lesion leaves someone unable to recognize faces. They still have the sensory data from looking at someone's face, but there is no recognition. It takes an epistemic process of deduction to determine who someone is. In general, gnosis is a type of meta-knowledge that is fundamental to who we are in the world.
In Argumentation: Difficulties in using gnosis in argumentation go back at least as far as Plato. Early dialogs that use dialectical reasoning to examine a matter of opinion or statements of definition (doxia), end without a firm resolution of whether what was examined was mere opinion or merely inadequately expressed. In later works Plato introduced the notion of Forms as a way to include aspects of gnosis.
When it appears in English, particularly when it is capitalized, Gnosis refers to a particular type of gnosis: the redemptive or liberating gnosis that was sought by the ancient Gnostics, and mentioned frequently in their scriptures. In these scriptures Gnosis is related to a particular mythological/symbolic framework. This reflects some kind of participatory view, an understanding that this framework was a vital (if not necessary) tool for attaining liberating gnosis. However, this framework does not exhibit the hallmarks of episteme, it isn't consistent, and has many variations—it just isn't systematic. What these stories reflect is efforts to express Gnosis in a way that might lead someone to their own gnosis to some limited extent.
We've all read gripping stories that made us feel like we were “there.” The Gnostic scriptures, as we have them, don't have the narrative qualities that might engage us as a modern reader. The New Testament, for example, is very terse. There are no rich descriptions of events, for example, just the bare bones. They are more in the line of “seeds” of a full narrative that a contemporary storyteller might give. We see this particularly in the Gospel of Thomas, where the longest story is only a few sentences. Yet, they are still stories, and the type of gnosis that they were seeking to lead one towards isn't gnosis of the scenes or of how the characters looked.
Gnosis is also developmental. One seeks it. One attains it. Yet, one already has it in some way, but it isn't manifest. In the Hymn of the Pearl there is the recognition of the truth of the letter (or call to awaken), because the letter was written in his heart.
Gnosis is also transformational. Descriptions of the transformation of the individual through attaining Gnosis in ancient texts include: rebirth, resurrection, redemption, liberation, and awakening.
Gnosis was not the goal of Gnostics, but rather the means. Gnosis was the path. As GRS Meade wrote:
They are now generally referred to in Church history as the Gnostics, those whose goal was the Gnosis,—if indeed that be the right meaning; for one of their earliest existing documents expressly declares that Gnosis is not the end—it is the beginning of the path, the end is God--and hence the Gnostics would be those who used the Gnosis as the means to set their feet upon the Way to God.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Questions: Seeking Certainty, Finding Gnosis
What does it mean to "achieve Gnosis"? I gave up all things on the basis of a series of very powerful spiritual conversion experiences. Are you suggesting that Gnosis is a permanent state of this spiritual state? I don't know If I could survive such a level for a long period. ... There is a God, or there is not. There is a hierarchy of Gods or there is One. If all beliefs are in some way "true", even when contradictory, ideas must in some way be reconciled.
If you are seeking certainty, you will not find it at the level of doxa, of opinions, beliefs, or assertions. Although there is a long tradition of clinging to such things and acting as if they were certain as means to convince ourselves that they are. This is the strategy of "faith" as it is generally understood. Even while it seems to close the question and give that desired certainty, it never really does. It requires the construction of a system of constantly reinforcing beliefs, or an unconsciousness of the process. Once we are aware of, conscious of, the process involved, it usually cannot satisfy. The exception seems to be the construction of the elaborate and rigid systems of modern fundamentalist movements. We all seek certainty, and this is not to denigrate those who try this strategy, who are many, just to point out its fundamental limitations. It has its price and its remaining elements of uncertainty. But that is a struggle and path that most have been on to some degree and so know. It is like the line from the Matrix, you've been down that road, you know exactly where it goes.
Rather than tying to find certainty, it seems more possible to find trustworthiness. And that requires a different type of approach. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says, "do not cease seeking until you find. When you find you will be troubled. When you are troubled you will marvel and will reign over all."
Gnosis is not a mental state, or any set of mental states. Such things change. If we feel happy today, we may feel sad tomorrow. If we feel an epiphany today, we may feel half-asleep tomorrow. That is the medieval wheel of fortune. It goes round and round. There is a tendency to use the term "Gnosis" as an "acceptable alternative" for terms like mystic or spiritual, for example; but, that isn't the proper use of the term.
At a recent conference I was at dinner with a group of people who where mainly of an Eastern spiritual orientation. One of the individuals was Buddhist clergy as well as a psychologist. He was trying to describe the process of enlightenment, saying that the focus wasn't on the enlightenment experiences, the higher states of consciousness that are experienced, but was rather on the time in-between of day-to-day life. I told them that this was the difference of emphasis in the Gnostic tradition, that Gnosis is the knowledge that is psycho-spiritual development in that day-to-day life. When people compare the two traditions, they want to equate Gnosis with these higher states, when it is focused upon the overall growth that is seen in-between these spiritual experiences. These states and transformative experiences are a part of the journey, but Gnosis is knowledge that is knowledge that we are, that we have gained by being on the journey. Often when we go on journeys in the world, what we bring back is a greater knowledge and understanding of ourselves and the world. That is the type of knowledge that is gnosis.
When you find, you will be troubled. It is a part of the process. When we truly seek, we find the limitations and failings of the answers we have been given, the strategies we have tried. External authority claims to offer certainty, but it is a certainty that requires belief, that is, it requires certainty. It is supposed to work, yet it doesn't. And this same strategy is to be found in many places once one recognizes the pattern, has gnosis of it. It feels like the foundations have been pulled out from under you. It is disturbing and troubling. There is a hope that, maybe, if there were a different source of authority, the same strategy could be tried again. A hope that, maybe, it would work this time. Probably (almost certainly) not.
Yet we do not stay in such a state. All states are transitory. There is another strategy, and this one is very different. It involves a big shift in perspective. We can find trustworthiness in something other than doxa with the backing of authority. Rather than base the trustworthiness on something external, or upon something internal but changeable, we can base it upon our Gnosis. In that way we might say that we know God because we have experienced God, our spiritual growth is towards God, and we have been transformed by God. But this "God" is not an idea, not an abstract entity that we can logically construct, but rather is what we know from our own limited Gnosis.
While one can create a long list of positive attributes for the God of theology, the God of Gnosis is generally a negative list, a list of things you can't say about God. Yet there is no doubt of existence, anymore than you doubt the existence of anyone else you know in the world. The interpretation, the understanding is provisional and incomplete. It is not an idea we can hold in our minds, but a reality we know from our deepest experience of being.
While this may not be intellectually satisfying, it is not subject to doubt. We can doubt the expressions of Gnosis, and recognize that all expressions are preliminary rather than final. But Gnosis is a part of who we are, not something we need to be convinced about. And in that way we reign over all, our Gnosis is the ordering principle of our approach to everything.
By its nature, Gnosis is difficult to communicate. We can only tell stories and use symbols even about Gnosis itself. Yet we all have Gnosis to some degree, and we may recognize it in these stories. I would suggest that you are passing through a state of being troubled, as in the passage from Thomas. If you refrain from seeking certainty among the opposites, you will find the trustworthy and the truth that frees—because they are within you. It requires a metanoia, a turning about of the mind. Be patient with yourself, and trust in your own process when things seem unclear. No state is permanent, yet one can cycle through states without apparent end. Seek the center.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Some Fallacies, Biases, & Tendencies towards Error in Argumentation
Argumentation
Argumentation is integral to communication. Without argumentation, we are left with mere assertions and opinions. It isn't just that there is a lack of valid argumentation in online discussions, but a general lack of any argumentation, good or bad, valid or invalid.
When most people think of arguments, they think of the emotionally charged shouting matches that are not only not arguments in the formal sense, but are antithetical to them. Rather, those types of exchanges lack the qualities that make something an argument: clear thinking, valid reasoning, and a valid conclusion reached through the application of these. Argumentation makes the reasoning involved explicit. Communication is dependent on argumentation in that it is the only way to communicate with someone who does not share our assumptions, schema, and methodology.
In his book A Rulebook for Arguments, Anthony Westin describes argumentation as a form of inquiry. This is central to the philosophical tradition, and can be viewed as an initial inquiry, that is determining if a conclusion can be supported. It can also be an inquiry into an accepted conclusion or belief, to see if or how it may be a valid belief, and what such a conclusion rests upon.
Argumentation is much more a form of inquiry than it is a form of persuasion. It is as a form of persuasion that it most often looses its way, because a well-constructed argument is by no means the most effective means of persuasion. Fallacies continually crop up because they are often more effective ways to persuade, even while they fail as arguments. However, a valid argument does more than persuade, it adds to knowledge and understanding. An argument is a careful construction that explicitly shows relationships between thought and data otherwise obscured. Thus argumentation is the way much of scholarship is done.
This brief consideration is not meant to cover argumentation or all of the fallacies and tendencies to error in argumentation. We will consider only some that seem particularly relevant to our context. Readers are directed to the works cited and other works on argumentation and critical thinking for more information.
Summaries & “Antidotes”
The following quotes are from Tools for critical thinking: Metathoughts for psychology by David Levy which, features not only logical fallacies, but also tendencies to bias and error known from psychological research. It also offers “antidotes” or active ways to resist these tendencies in our own thinking and arguments.
Differentiating Dichotomous and Continuous Variables: Dichotomous phenomena can be classified into either of two, mutually exclusive categories. Continuous phenomena, in contrast, can be placed somewhere along a particular dimension, depending on their frequency and magnitude.
Antidotes: Remember that most person-related phenomena (especially psychological constructs) lie along a continuum; thus, it is both artificial and inaccurate to group them into categories. (Levy, 1997, p. 212)
This helps us to avoid the all-too-common mistake of false dichotomies. A false dichotomy imposes a logical “exclusive or” on phenomena—only one or the other is the case, with no nuances or overlap. This is sometimes characterized as “black and white thinking.” An example is “you are either for us, or against us.” Such a position excludes a nuanced view in which someone might be in favor of some parts of an agenda, not in favor of others, and indifferent about the rest.
This view is often imposed by means of assuming the argument, where the proponent of a false dichotomy assumes that anything they associate with one side of the dichotomy indicates an argument for that side and against the other. For example, someone who believes in a false dichotomy between institutions of religion and individually pursued spirituality may encounter someone who makes a statement in support of an institution of religion and then assumes that the statement or individual is opposing individually pursued spirituality. This is a position conjured out of the expectations of the reader without any basis in the original statement itself.
The Consequence-Intentionality Fallacy: We have a propensity to assume that the effect of people's behavior reflects the intent of their behavior. However, consequences alone are not sufficient proof of intentionality. That is, we cannot determine others' intentions solely by the effects of their actions.
Antidotes: Make an active effort to consider other plausible causes or pathways of behavior in addition to the ones implied directly by its consequences; in short, consider alternative intents. (Levy, 1997, p. 217)
This fallacy shows a very common tendency to try to demonstrate intention from effect. This ignores not only our own experience, but also the lyrics of the Rolling Stones “you can't always get what you want.” In day-to-day life actually having only the consequences we intend is a seemingly rare thing, and when writ large it is rare indeed.
To go back to the previous example: the existence of instances of religious or spiritual oppression resulting from institutions of religion does not indicate an intent to do so.
There is an opposite application of this fallacy is the claim that since a result was not intended as a consequence of an action, the action cannot have that result. Although obviously flawed,such a defense is by no means rare in online discourse.
The “If I feel it, it must be true” Fallacy: One's experience of emotional comfort or discomfort is not necessarily a valid gage for differentiating what is true from what is false.
Antidotes: Do not rely on your emotions as the sole barometer for distinguishing truths from falsehoods. There may be certainty in what you are feeling, just not in what it “proves.” (Levy, 1997, p. 217)
There are many variations of this fallacy. A common one is the identification fallacy that goes “I identify with x, I do not identify with y therefore y cannot be x.” We see this as a common method of argument in the online “Gnostic scene.” In that context the argument has the explicit or underlying form of: “I am a Gnostic” that is to say, the individual identifies with Gnosticism. “I do not like/agree with/embrace _____” that is, the person does not identify with what is being considered. “Therefore, ______ is not Gnostic” or, if the person identifies with one thing and not the other they have been “proven” to be essentially different in nature.
This fallacy also reminds us not to think of Gnosis in terms of personal preferences, ego-identity, or emotional comfort. While Gnosis may effect all of these things, they are not in and of themselves indicators of validity and should never be equated with Gnosis. Gnostic scripture bid us to attain self-gnosis. The path of Gnosis is a process of transforming oneself not a process of trying to make the world conform to oneself. It is not a path of identification nor of psychological comfort or reassurance.
The Spectacular Explanation Fallacy: the tendency to seek extraordinary explanations for extraordinary events.
Antidotes: Keep in mind that very ordinary causes are capable of producing very extraordinary effects. Whenever you are confronted with instances of human behavior that are particularly unusual, rare, spectacular, or odd make a deliberate effort to consider ordinary, commonplace, or mundane causes or explanations. (Levy, 1997, p. 218)
This is a tendency that often shows up around spiritual experiences. For example, instead of considering a spiritual experience to be a part of human experience, an explanation is invoked with the physical presence of a supernatural being, or perhaps an extraterrestrial one. Alternatively, an extraordinary explanation involving psychopathology might be invoked to account for spiritual experience, that the person experiencing it is mentally ill. Another variation on this theme is looking for extraordinary explanations like extraterrestrials for extraordinary things like Stonehenge or the Great Pyramids.
The Assimilation Bias: A schema is a mental structure that organizes our preconceptions, thereby providing a framework for understanding new events and future experiences. Accommodation means to modify our schema to fit incoming data; assimilation, in contrast, means to fit incoming data into our schema. In general, we are more prone to assimilate than to accommodate, even if this entails altering or distorting the data. Thus, assimilation can profoundly bias our perceptions of reality.
Antidotes: Don't underestimate the extent to which your prior beliefs, knowledge, and expectations (schemata) can affect your current experience, impressions, and perceptions. Try to become as aware as possible of schemata that are important to you; awareness of schemata increases your ability to modify them. Experiment with temporarily lowering or altering your “perceptual filters” or “schema-colored glasses” by attempting to understand someone else's subjective (phenomenological) experience. Learn to differentiate your use of assimilation versus accommodation, particularly when you are faced with a discrepancy between your beliefs (schemas) and the information (data). Beware of the general tendency to assimilate, rather than to accommodate. Prod yourself to accommodate when, out of habit, reflex, or just sheer laziness, you would typically be inclined to automatically assimilate. Strive toward flexibility; guard against “hardening of the categories.” (Levy, 1997, p.220)
This is a very big issue because it involves the nature of how we go about making sense of the world. Assumptions about this are rarely explicit, rarely even conscious, and there is a natural resistance to making them conscious so that they can be examined or stated explicitly. This is the psychological mechanism that lies behind the often overused phrase of “paradigm shift.” However, we often focus on the accepted paradigm or schemata to the extent of ignoring data. If we really seek to understand we must be willing to change our schema when holding on to it means choosing an idea over the reality.
The Confirmation Bias: We more actively seek out information that will confirm our prior beliefs and expectations than information that might refute them.
Antidotes: Be aware of the ways in which you search for evidence, such as the questions that you ask, may lead you to arrive selectively only at those conclusions that corroborate your initial beliefs. Make it a point to seek out evidence that could, in principal, disconfirm your prior expectations. (Levy, 1997, pp. 220-221)
This is a ubiquitous tendency that not only serves as a filter for the evidence that we seek out, but it also shapes the sources of evidence, and more, the sources of data we use for understanding the world as a whole. So that we can see this both as a bias in actively seeking and also in the types of information we may be exposed to through various channels of information. One of the reasons for the extreme political polarization in the US are the many sources of information that are "pre-biased" in that they only present information that confirms their intended audience's beliefs and expectations. The recent influence of the neo-conservative movement grew out of plans that take advantage of this bias. Think-tanks were funded to provide content, various channels of information were turned into soapboxes for this viewpoint and for information and opinion that confirmed it. This ended up doing the disservice of effectively undermining serious considerations of disconfirming and critical information.
This bias takes us back to the consideration of Gnosis as transformative, as it is another tendency to try to avoid data and information that may lead to or require a transformation if only of our beliefs.
The Belief Perseverance Effect: We have a tendency to stubbornly cling to our beliefs, sometimes even in the face of disconfirming evidence. This is especially likely to occur when we feel personally invested in our beliefs. Thus, when these beliefs are challenged, we feel impelled to protect them, almost as if we were protecting ourselves. One consequence of this phenomenon is that it generally requires much more compelling evidence to change our beliefs than it did to create them in the first place.
Antidotes: Keep an open mind to different, and especially challenging, points of view. Remind yourself (and others as well) to think carefully about how you evaluate evidence and to monitor your biases closely as you formulate your conclusions. Make it a point to actively counterargue your preexisting beliefs. That is, ask yourself directly in what ways your beliefs might be wrong. When faced with a discrepancy between your beliefs and the facts, resist the natural tendency to assume that your beliefs are right and the facts must somehow be wrong. (Levy, 1997, p. 221)
A vast preponderance of evidence against a belief or position is rarely enough to provoke serious reconsideration by those who hold it. The reason is often that of identity, we identify with a belief or position and thereafter defend it as if it were ourselves. This can be used strategically as a type of fallacy by a pretense of acknowledging a belief or position as established as a part of a communal identity. This can be seen in accepting the statements of authority as if we were convinced by them as arguments. So we need to be careful not only in the beliefs or positions we may hold individually, but also those we may hold by virtue of our identification with, or participation in, a communal identity.
A further technique for resisting this bias is not to base our identity upon belonging to a group and participating in that communal identity. Even basing one's identity of being an independent or non-conformist evokes this bias.
Also bear in mind that this effect involves more than consciously adopted or considered beliefs. We can see it in the strong influences of cradle creeds on subsequent religious considerations. This is the effect of one's original religious upbringing or culture on both of the contents of religious beliefs, and beliefs about religion. These survive in many respects regardless of whether or not the original religion was rejected—shaping the way any religion is approached.
The most compelling and frequent evidence one is likely to encounter is the holding of positions critical of religious groups that where rivals of the cradle creed, or of religious aspects rejected by it. One example is that of someone opposed to official clergy in a neo-pagan setting, not realizing that this is due to the rejection of official clergy in their Quaker upbringing. Another is that of someone rejecting the use of statues and incense in a Buddhist temple, not realizing that this is due to a protestant rejection of such things as they were associated with Roman Catholic practice in another culture and religion altogether, but remaining as a personal belief from childhood. A way to recognize when this is happening is when the reasons given for the beliefs are the same as those of the cradle creed. For if it were the result of an independent consideration, why would it have such ties to the reasoning of another religious tradition?
Remember that the “truth” of a belief is only one reason for holding a belief, and is often less compelling than other reasons for maintaining it. Be careful about what you choose to believe and how you choose to believe it. Having a provisional or pragmatic attitude towards knowledge can aid in the “costs” of maintaining a belief. Rather than being “true” in some absolute sense, a belief may be “the best account” of the situation and therefore subject to improvement.
Also remember the limitations of context on constructing knowledge. A “truth” in one area does not make a universal “Truth,” for example.
Conclusions
Hopefully, these brief considerations show not only the importance of critical thinking and sound argumentation, but also its real power of emancipation. For its real purpose isn't to “win” arguments or to not appear to be intellectually lazy, but its real purpose is as a tool for liberation. To avoid fallacies and counteract biases isn't just to have good form, it is to be free from their traps. Gnostic texts speak of the Archons, Greek for “the powers,” that keep us ignorant and serving them. What they meant by this was much broader, but we can also see it in this context. If we do not set ourselves free from outworn beliefs, from schemata that blind us, from what defends us from change and transformation, and from other errors of thought and judgment—we are under their power, and are more easily kept ignorant.
We may attempt to not be persuaded by the beliefs and arguments of others, but even then, we are still under the influence of our own. The freeing of our thinking minds is aided in arming ourselves with tools such as those outlined above, and consciously considering our schemata (paradigms or frameworks for understanding) and our beliefs. It is only a part of who we are, and for some of us it is more central to the living of our lives than for others. Thinking is one of four functions identified by Jung. It is one way to assess and to judge. So, if we are one of those who are more guided by it, we must be all the more diligent in obtaining what freedom we can for it.
Levy, D. A. (1997). Tools for critical thinking: Metathoughts for psychology. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Weston, A. (2000). A Rulebook for Arguments. (Third edition). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Highly recommended. An affordable, well-written, and concise book that covers the construction and forms of arguments, as well as, logical fallacies.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
From Experience to Ontology
The first frame is getting hit in the back of the head by something unseen, in case that is unclear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)