Last week I got an email from Jacob Winkler, my spiritual coach (see parts 1 and 2) checking in on how I felt about the process.
I told him it was frightening me a little. The words in Jacob?s Guidance writings in particular invited me to a kind of personal transformation that?s uncomfortable to contemplate. I don?t want to become another crazy person living on the streets of Berkeley. And I don?t want to alienate the people I care about.
He thanked me for the feedback. Jacob is learning through this process as well. He told me I should ?take what I want and leave the rest? when it came to his Guidance. That though he believes that God is speaking through him, he is an ?imperfect vessel? and so what he writes should not be taken as divinely authoritative.
He asked me how I would like to proceed; I replied that I am at this point more comfortable in an analytic role. That?s fine, Jacob explained. The universal spirituality he aims to practice is allegedly based on principles true analogously to physics. Patterns that anybody can observe, test, reasdon through. This is not a naively faith-based practice.
It so happened that at the time I had this conversation with Jacob I was also reading a paper by Andy diSessa, from whom I am taking a class at Berkeley. He writes this interesting passage about the disparity between the clean formalism that we are familiar with in physics and the process of discovering them.
Even in physics it is tempting to regard the deductive and analytic development of mechanics from the cornerstone F = ma as archetypal physics. Yet this is hardly the case. Certainly Newton in his Principia does not follow a coherent linear deduction from secure basic principles. Historically in almost all physical theories which had more than private and personal (hence not very accessible) developments, it is clear that a major part of the effort required to build them was spent in struggling on a heuristic, imprecise level. Let me cite the case of perhaps the greatest achievement of 20th century physics. Though quantum mechanics is formally a theory of vector spaces and linear transformations, Heisenberg did not even know what a linear operator or matrix was when he began the theory! But he knew that he needed to know and searched out mathematicians to find out more.
This was a fascinating talk. Goldrick proposed a model wherein symbols (like words) represent
If we were to extend this analysis of physics by analogy to, let?s call it for the sake of argument, ?spiritual knowledge?, then that would explain why there is so much intuitive, imprecise grasping after answers by spiritual people. Past disagreement over spiritual ideas wouldn?t necessarily mean that people aren?t making scientific spiritual progress.
Just food for thought. I?m not intending anything very literal here.
Meanwhile, it?s one of my goals in life to one day be able to say ?I am a scientist? with a straight face. I would like to think that I am in grad school to become one. But I don?t know precisely where the threshold for that is, and for the time being I keep getting drawn back into more and more fundamental questions.
For example, a major methodological concern within my field, such as it is, is the relationship between quantitative and qualitative methods. Are numbers or words better at describing the world?
In pursuit of an answer, I attended a lecture by Matt Goldrick, a cognitive linguist from Northwestern University. My undergraduate work was in Cognitive Science, and I try to stay on top of the field because I anticipate it being related to my work. Here is the description of his talk:
Title: Gradient symbol processing: Integrating continuous and symbolic computation in cognition
Abstract:
Symbolic theories explain the highly structured, systematic, and productive nature of cognition by appealing to discrete, combinatorial mental representations. A large body of work has argued that such theories have difficulty capturing gradient aspects of cognition. I?ll discuss recent work in my lab that has used acoustic variation in speech production to reveal the gradient structure of mental representations. I?ll then discuss a theoretical framework, Gradient Symbol Processing, that integrates combinatorial symbolic computation with the gradient, continuous aspects of neural computation. A case study will examine how this framework captures gradient patterns in the phonetics of speech errors.
This was a fascinating talk. Goldrick presented a model of language production wherein symbols (like words) stand in for vectors in a continuous mathematical space. That?s like saying that every particle of meaning stands for a combination of underlying waves. When we speak or act, we add constraints to the space of possible symbols, which can force the whole system to adapt. When the system has many of its variables in an unadapted state, it is said to have a lot of Energy. A system that has adapted into a stable state is in Harmony.
When I spoke with Jacob the following day, I was in a good mood. This is largely because I?ve been spending a lot of time with a girl who has given me something I desperately needed: a sense of perspective.
After patiently listening to me complain about stresses and dilemmas and toxic people in my life several times over the course of the week, she informed me decisively that none of my problems are real problems and that I was getting worked up about nothing.
She is so right. Not meaning to gloat, I am extraordinarily lucky and it makes no sense to be anxious all the time. I just needed somebody to tell me that.
This is somewhat of a disappointment, because I keep intending to put Jacob?s methods to the test by asking him to help me solve my problems. But ever since Jacob asked me to rank the areas of my life with my level of satisfaction, I?ve realized where I?ve needed to put extra effort in and, not wanting to wait around for him to help me, I?ve just gone ahead with it. So, for example, I realized that I missed my sister and I wanted her to know I care about her. So I called her. Easy.
This left me in a philosophical mood when it came time for my call with Jacob. Which made it unclear what we were supposed to be talking about.
He asked me what my goals are. I said that?s a good question. I guess my goals are to figure out what my goals are.
How could I go about that? Well, I thought, I guess my ultimate goals would have to be composed of other goals I already had; more determinate or primitive goals.
For example, one of my goals has been to find a cool girlfriend. I?ve been making a little progress on that front so can?t complain. Another one of my goals has been to try to figure out the truth (or as close as I can get to the truth) about things and communicate that to others.
The truth about what? Well, the truth about anything.
This wasn?t helping. What were my goals, Jacob wanted to know, for my time spent working with him?
I guess it would be to find out the kind of things he knows about and communicate them to others.
Jacob took this as an invitation to talk about his background, which was very welcome. It provides context that for me adds to his credibility. Jacob is originally from a secular background. In high school, he started getting into self-improvement (to get girls, he admits without hesitation). He was reading books about Neuro-Linguistic Programming, a self-hypnosis technique, and also practicing a stream-of-consciousness writing technique known as Spontaneous Writing. He began taking lessons in aikido, a martial art, which has a philosophical component he didn?t give much credence to because at the time he was a rabid atheist. But aikido teaches one to understand the force flowing through things. At some point, Jacob tried turning his spontaneous writing towards communing with that force itself. This has evolved into Jacob?s ?Guidance?. As this opened up a lot of insight for him, Jacob decided to pursue a spiritual path. He went to Naropa, a Buddhist university in Colorado, and lived at a yeshiva in Israel for three years. He read many books on spirituality and self-improvement. Later, he reencountered the work of Dr. David Hawkins, who Jacob describes as having described in rigorous, clinical detail all the insights that he had won through years of study and practice. Jacob also began studying the Twelve Step programs, which highlighted for him the effectiveness of spiritual practice in a group.
Despite my skepticism, I?m sure there is a lot I can learn from Jacob.
Jacob was surprised that I didn?t know all this already; he had assumed I had read it on his website before we began. That was amusing to me, because the question of how one manages ones on-line identities is an open question in my field and one I struggle with personally. I don?t know who is reading or will read these blog posts, for example, except for those who have told me directly. Now I write with those people in mind, but I wonder how others will change their opinion of me based on what I write here, if they read it at all.
This confusion over identity has been a source of emotional disturbance for me lately. That brought our conversation to the discussion of emotional disturbance in general.
Would I like my emotional disturbances to be settled? Is that a goal of mine?
As it had been pointed out to me that I don?t have many real problems, I speculated that I may cause trouble for myself and others out of boredom. I have energy and don?t know where to direct it. I told Jacob that I would like to know what to be disturbed by, so I can apply my energy to those problems.
Jacob asked (I?m mangling his words): do I want to resolve emotional disturbances for myself in the short term, or do I want to resolve emotional disturbances entirely as a long term goal? Or, to put it another way: should my response to being disturbed be to change things to resolve that particular disturbance, or should I be trying to inoculate myself against disturbance in general?
This is a deep question. It is one of the questions for me.
I responded: would it be better for the universe to rest undisturbed, or for it to constantly move in its own disturbances? Wouldn?t a universe at rest be a dead universe?
Jacob sounded impatient: Is there some sort of rule saying that you can?t be at rest if the universe isn?t? Or the other way around?
I thought that was a good question, and told him so.
He rearticulated: What I am trying to figure out is the relationship between the universe and you.
Yes, so am I, I said.
Then I laughed, because Jacob had somehow answered all my questions for me just then. I was looking down a vista on Berkeley?s campus with a blue sky just before sunset, a bell tower?s bells chiming behind
me, wondering what my relationship to the universe was. That was my goal, and somehow I felt complete knowing and having that goal. Understanding myself in that position was its own kind of answer.
I started to write down what had happened, laughing. Jacob was confused why I was silent. I told him I was writing so I could remember what had just happened. He said he didn?t think that was the best use
of our time, that my blog posts could be more about reflection than reporting.
I would prefer to report. One of the principles of qualitative research I?ve learned this semester is that in writing ones field notes it is best to report from experience and leave interpretation to a
different step. By reporting these things directly, I hope to be more scientific in my approach.
But I was being rude to Jacob, so I stopped and got back with the program.
Moving back, it was clear that I was conflicted in my attitude towards peace and disturbance. Jacob then guided me through a technique which he told me later is today called Voice Dialogue, though it has its origins in very ancient shamanic practices.
Jacob asked me to identify and resolve my inner conflict by giving each side of the conflict a name and having a conversation with each one.
I picked names from one of my favorite TV shows, Babylon 5, which conveniently addresses the tension between order and chaos as one of its major themes.
I called one side of the conflict Ambassador Kosh, and the other Mr. Morden.
This is when things started getting weird again.
Jacob asked me to describe Kosh?s point of view. Kosh thinks there is a harmonious order that we should all strive to approach, and that conflict is more or less a bad thing. It?s better to be at peace than to be growing.
Conversely, Mr. Morden thinks that Kosh?s perspective results in stasis, which in the worst case could be self-destructive. If everything is at peace, nothing gets better. The meaning of life lies in the will to power, the desire to overcome that which limits or disturbs you.
What does Kosh need from Mr. Morden? asked Jacob. Kosh doesn?t need anything from Morden, except maybe a kick in the butt, because Kosh can be superior, complacent, and uncaring. If everything is as it should be, then there is no caring for those who are suffering or driven to extinction by harmonious logic.
What does Mr. Morden need from Kosh? Morden is a bit devilish and doesn?t want to acknowledge a need for Kosh either, or especially to take his criticism. But Morden can make a mess of things, disturbing the correct order when he should have stayed out of it.
Jacob then asked: what does Kosh want to give to Morden?
Strangely, ascribing generosity to these personalities changed their dynamic, which was (though it?s difficult to write about this) really a dynamic playing out within myself.
What Kosh wanted to give Morden was a break. Kosh wanted to say: you?ve done enough, you can rest now.
Morden wanted to give Kosh a challenge. Something to test him and keep him honest.
My imagination was cranking away at full gear at this point. It was fun to engage these characters from fiction in dialogue with each other.
Then Jacob asked me to give each one a symbol. The first one that came to mind. I didn?t see where this was going.
Kosh?s symbol was a harp. Morden?s symbol was a bat. I hesitated before telling Jacob about these, because I felt that they were somehow too emblematic. Carried richer cultural connotations than I was fully comfortable confronting. I was going from science fiction to the roots of mythological context. But there was no turning back at that point.
Jacob told me to sit down and put my hands out, imagining one symbol in each hand. And then to slowly move my hands together, merging the symbols into one.
And as I moved the harp and the bat together, they transformed into a white bird, which flew from my hands. I was startled, then filled with wonder at what had happened.
Jacob explained that what has happening was an integration of these two parts of myself on the level of my subconscious. I didn?t need to understand what was going on for it to take effect. The symbols were just the conscious expression of what was happening on a deeper level.
I?ve got to say that since I?ve done this, I have felt much more at ease as I?ve found myself in tension with others. And I?ve tried to repeat this Voice Dialogue technique with other dimensions of inner conflict and every time I?ve felt I?ve gained some insight from the process. I can?t see any reason to doubt that it is a valuable practice.
Here was the Guidance Jacob wrote to me later:
You are one.
With All That Is.
But you still must discover your own answer.
Your own way of understanding this.
Do not be afraid of anything Jacob writes.
It is true: take what you like and leave the rest.
I am creative enough to work within your comfort zone.
Baby birds are pushed from the nest when they are ready to fly.
They don?t have abandonment issues with their primary caregivers.
You don?t need to have an abandonment issue with Me.
I am All.
I surround you.
I enfold you in My wings.
I am the great mother bird of the cosmos.
The overarching Law, in which all is contained.
I embrace all, pertain to all.
All find their life within Me.
Find your life within Me.
Surrender to this Law.
That drives the universe.
Determines and leaves open to evolution and exploration.
Perfect Freedom and Perfect Knowledge, despite Heisenberg.
I am all, and yet beyond all and uncontained.
This is but one of the many paths to Me.
Your research is another.
All roads lead to My Gates.
But only the humble may enter.
There can?t be two rulers of the cosmos.
A man can?t serve two masters.
Can?t make himself King.
If he wants to be happy for very long.
Rejoice in your journey.
I am so much closer than you think.
Than you ever thought.
Than you were ever taught to believe.
So much closer.
Feel My Love for you.
Open yourself to it.
It?s okay to weep.
When so overwhelmed.
This feeling will transform you.
In lovely, positive ways.
Few are so blessed to be exposed.
So clearly, to My Embrace.
For most, I wait lifetimes.
For their love of the temporary to subside.
Even to hear of it is rare.
Rarer still to seek it.
Rarest of all to attain.
Give thanks that you are on the path.
However small your steps.
No one walks entirely unafraid.
Even though there is no reason to fear.
I love you. Always have, always will.
No matter what.
As I love all My Children.
Do Me a favor.
And let them know this.
I promise no harm will come of it.
Out of compassion, brighten someone else?s day.
NFL.com matt ryan matt ryan att wireless nfl nfl Mother Jones
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.