The Importance of Intentionality and the Decline of the Beneficiality of Religious Morality

On January 5, 2018June 4, 2020 By Chris Shuttleworth1 Comment

Although our modern societies have arisen from Judeo-Christian, eastern religion, and ancient philosophical influences, it is still entirely possible for an individual to abstain from dogmatic belief structures and moral systems, in order to discover the truths of such systems in his own experience, with evidence driven from experience. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he will discover values that are separate from those instantiated on society by our religious foundation, but it means that one can have evidence and good reason to hold such values with a lack of a faith-based moral system. Rather than looking to scripture, to religious organizations, or to traditional family values, one can, in an entirely secular way, seek to develop one’s morals and beliefs in a way that aligns with reality, and be just as useful or more useful than the system expounded by our forefathers. In many cases this means stepping on the heads of those who came before us, in order to reach new heights, but simultaneously I think we should look for the causal connectivity of value systems into how and why they are beneficial to us, based on our own self-introspection and experiences.

For the majority of people who do not endeavor to spend their lives contemplating a moral code, and discovering truth for themselves and how best to live, religion is useful in informing them of a moral system, which, in most cases, is more beneficial than a lack of a structured one. This means there is some functionality of religion and it has a use that is beneficial to most people, but it is not necessary, nor the most beneficial, and by no means infallible, in producing a good person who has a good grasp on reality. The use of reason is sufficient enough to discover the benefits that many religions claim to be exclusive to their supernatural beliefs. For example, most religions claim their followers to be on a level higher than all other religions, and certainly nonbelievers, in their understanding of reality and morality, and for those who do not follow their supernatural claims, to be destined for hell or not able to understand basic truths of life, and they make this distinction solely based upon stating that you are not a member of their ranks. This is simply not true, anyone, no matter their race, religion, political view, or gender, any functionally conscious human is able to discover any real existing truth about the world through sufficient reason, and dependent on causes that are not exclusive to those who believe in any supernatural occurrence. I would claim the opposite. While one person may perform an act of charity because it is dogmatically passed down as being pleasing to God, and another may perform the same act because they have systematically explored how it would increase the wellbeing of another, the two acts are surely not on the same footing, from my point of view. Intentionality truly matters in these cases.

If you perform an action with the intent of eternal life in heaven, your action pales in comparison to the person who does it based on an understanding of alleviating suffering in the experience of another person. The sameness in the action distorts the causal web that leads from such actions. It initially appears that if the same action proceeds from different intentions, it truly doesn’t matter how we get the goal as long as the goal is equal. This is a fallacy and short sighted. There are implications that range into the future beyond solely the same action. The individual who does it for God, does not grow in virtue and habitual good-will that the secular individual does, thus producing a less capable person to perform beneficial deeds in the future. Not only does the rationale which connects us to our actions influence ourselves in a way that can be more or less beneficial to our own wellbeing and thus further development, it also has an effect upon our expanded circle of influence, i.e. in those we have a connection to in some way or another. To him who discovers the evidence of psychological wellbeing based upon doing the right thing in a philosophically sound method which aims to be moral through the alleviation of suffering and increase of wellbeing, he gains confidence in the methodology and further evidence towards the claim that such actions are indeed beneficial and useful. His conviction and his ability to share such knowledge, for other people to improve themselves and carry out meaningful actions using a similar methodology, also improves, with a causal implication of being more beneficial to the lives of other people through their implementation of similar intentionality. The God fearing individual who performs the action, does not gain in his conviction, nor in his ability to influence others in a positive way through the same action, the proof that his action is or is not pleasing to God, and the framework from which it stems from, that of dogmatically imposed “this is the moral law”, is not confirmed or denied in his experience, it is merely carried out. The reason why the action was performed, is not strengthened by the data of the result of the action, and this further limits the range of beneficial effect the individual may have in affecting his expanded circle of influence. The individual who does something merely because it is right, and is honest in his ego driven benefit, as we all truly act from desire, proves to reinforce itself through the proven result of the action, in aiding the other person, in providing wellbeing for the agent, and in following the philosophically sound moral system of moral realism, proving that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, not based upon the dictation of a higher power, but based upon experience and evidence. To continue acting in a way which stems from convictions that aren’t based upon a rationale that is valid, might be the method for those who have less time to contemplate, or are less intellectually gifted to continue doing beneficial actions, but isn’t optimal towards the growth of the individual, nor is it optimal in influencing further generations to do the same. While religious language, stories, and laws, surely have been beneficial and useful to people for thousands of years, the influence of a better scientific and philosophical methodology is becoming prevalent, and religion is waning in its position of being the most optimal framework from which to act on. How can I make such a claim, it seems opinionated right? Well if we all accept that wellbeing is good, and suffering is bad, and that there are better and worse ways to achieve wellbeing and reduce suffering, than we must accept that the methodology which produces actions in accordance with these goals, more so than other methods, surely is the right methodology in which to follow.

That being said, we all lie upon a spectrum of intellectual ability, and environmental circumstances, which limit or support our ability and time available to develop a moral system. While we are in differing places as to the practicality of developing and working towards a philosophical system that is in accordance with our self-uncovered value system, I believe those that are capable of such inquiry, ought to pursue it, with the admission that many people are not in the right place in life in order to shed off their supernatural beliefs. This is okay! It is not a moral imperative that everyone ought to shed their religious beliefs for a philosophical / scientific worldview. We must admit that given the certain circumstances many people find themselves in, whether it by physically, mentally, or circumstantially, that for many people it is actually more optimal for their wellbeing for them to not shed religious systems. Moral Philosophers must not be arrogant in their claims that it would be better for everyone to pursue this kind of inquiry and development, and must remain truthful to the practical nature of human existence, that for many people the optimal course of development does not lie upon changing their worldview, but merely optimizing other situational factors in contributing to their wellbeing.

Regardless of the millions of factors that make up who we are, most people are able to logically come to the reasons behind good morality on their own, without religion, whether they choose to do so or not. Someone is morally superior due to their actions, their speech, and their intentions, in the effect they have upon the lives of sentient being’s experience. To say that any religion, philosopher, or individual has a monopoly on the truth, on wisdom, and outside of their confines it is not achievable, is surely a fallacy. No matter which perspective we look at the world from, no matter which system we have underlying our actions, every individual lies upon a spectrum of moral value, and the quantification of morality and the peaks it is capable to achieve are not owned or restricted to any one group. No matter the course we lie on, differing degrees of understanding in our truth claims is available, different heights and improvement to our moral decisions are possible, and we all can grow to become the potential person that we ought to strive to be. We can all become better, and in relation to everyone else, we all ought to encourage the growth in both truth-seeking and moral action. A rising tide surely lifts all boats, and to demoralize and sink other boats, is not the method we ought to impose. We ought to attempt to raise ourselves, encourage others to do the same, and seek optimal solutions to novel problems as they so arise, and in doing so improve the quality of life for everyone within our influence, which turns out to be a lot larger number than originally intuitable! Schisms between sects, religious feuds, philosophical battles, all shouldn’t be eradicated, but should be predicated on good-will for others involved, and carried out with an open mind and the intention of learning something from those we disagree with. As we move from thesis, to antithesis, we necessarily transcend our current knowledge in the integration of both in to a larger worldview. As we strive to heights of knowledge, as we seek correct answers to moral situations, we become better prepared for the slangs and arrows of misfortune, and we are better able to aide other people in their journey to improve their own wellbeing and reduce suffering. Evidence for truth is conversant, explainable, and evident in the lives of those who have grasped it, and cannot be shrugged off to a nonbeliever as being something they simply couldn’t understand due to their religious position. Religion is useful in providing people a key to becoming a good person that would have taken a large effort to gain independently, but it is less valuable than discovering that morality for yourself, without faith, based on your experience and rationality. Yes, our current values and way of thinking has ancient roots in religious doctrine and its thinkers and expounders, but it is not the only cause of our current state, and to give it any more credit than solely being an influence among others would be categorically untrue. Even biology and evolution has played a part in the development of compassion and cooperation, key tenets of good morality. It’s evident that those who did not cooperate with groups, or aide others, eventual died without their genes being spread, and those that did lived in larger numbers and populated more, so even the deep evolutionary drive to good morality has been proven by evolutionary biologists as being a factor long before any human made religion was invented and gained ground in affecting society. As the meme of God has been the most popular unit of cultural heredity, I believe it is time for the meme of moral realism to make its head-space, as I believe it to be more valuable unit towards the beneficiality of all the members of our species. The God meme has done its role in getting us to this point, more or less, and for those with “little dust on their eyes” it is well past the time when we should look for alternative, more useful, more beneficial systems towards that aide us in the uncovering of the true nature of reality, and aide us in our moral decisions.

Fire, the Self, and the Spiritual Journey

On December 29, 2017June 4, 2020 By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment

Fire is a good metaphorical representation for reality, as well as for all the phenomena occurring in human consciousness. Fire gives a clear visual in the present moment of being in an impermanent and constantly changing state, that is conditioned by external factors, and contains a fixed end to its manifestation that is as simple to see as the running out of wood. A close introspective look at our own subjective consciousness and its contents describes the same findings, and tells us a lot about our neurophysiology which makes up the ground level of our experience, yet is more difficult to clearly see. With fire we can see clearly from each present moment to the next that of changing nature, constantly present energy, moving, and never remaining the same, but with our own subjective identity, or “self”, we may be tricked into seeing something stable, and carried along from one moment to the next, as being the core defining aspect of who we are, or the CEO in charge that is carried over from one day to be next.

Who we are cannot follow different physical laws than fire does, and in fact it doesn’t, we both are part of the same reality, and we can observe that this self that we once thought to be permanent, unchanging, and moving through time without change or without being conditioned, is an illusion in which we were wrong about. Anything in this world that is conditioned, and is dependent on properties for it’s arising, like fire, is subject to change, impermanent, and is liable to end the moment its dependent substances are removed. Consciousness and its contents, in fact everything in reality that we can know, must be understood as it actual is, not as we wish it to be. Wishful thinking is a delusion that hinders an honest search for the truth, while for many it can be beneficial, for him who vows to adhere to the truth, regardless of the cost, it must be eradicated. Like the fire, our subjective experience of consciousness and its contents are in a constantly fluctuating state from moment to moment, also explicitly dependent on conditions. This isn’t only true for the totality of our experience, but for each aspect within it, such as feelings, sensory awareness, or thoughts. Every aspect is explicitly dependent on prior causes, and are able to be changed. The internal state that is best desirable for us would be also dependent on external causes, but I see the highest spiritual goal as something not only to strive to define and understand, but to work towards in a methodical way.

The highest spiritual goal is twofold yet intertwined; that of achieving an understanding of the truth of reality, and that of manifesting perfect wisdom and virtue in any circumstance. Both are impossible, but defining enlightenment in this way is useful, and not deceiving, as any progress on the path to these two things is undoubtedly a good thing. It must be clearly acknowledged that the completion of the task is impossible due to a number as factors such as the very nature of the goals in question are those that can continually be pushed to higher limits. It’s worth noting possible dangers in such spiritual goals that must be avoided in a mindful way, such as the suffering inherit in all craving, even for improvement, or becoming attached to any beneficial ideal, as well as the danger in arrogance and pride once achieving spiritual progress, the wise would do well to keep a mindful awareness that these factors do not manifest themselves as they will hinder any spiritual journey. This ultimate spiritual journey of self improvement both in terms of understanding reality, as well as transcending the historically appropriate Darwinian evolutionary ties, calls for the actualization of potential for an updated version of ourselves which we all have the ability to pursue. This is characterized by becoming compassionate, content, wise and virtuous within every present moment, and should be the ultimate goal of every human not only for their own self interest but for the interest of benefiting all sentient beings. Intention is important. A metaphor for the journey is like crossing a river, a journey to the summit, from the bottom of the sea to the surface, from sleep to becoming awake, as the change that is possible can completely redefine what you see around you, all present within your consciousness and displayed in its contents.

It’s wise to learn from people that have dedicated their whole lives to similar attainments, and to learn the knowledge produced from collective groups of humans in the areas of which are of use in the subject which you are interested in. Knowledge can be acquired through empirical observation and critical thinking, and through the help of others. Once you have knowledge of something in one way or another you have the basest level of wisdom. The next level in the hierarchy of wisdom would be to take this knowledge, such as in the domains of philosophy, psychology, meditation or morality, contemplation or even everyday thought, and to experience the truth or falsehood of the matter in practice. This practice, and training, is the second level of wisdom. It is taking conceptualized ideas and applying them to your life, and through experience, learning of their efficacy. The findings revealed through active testing will give you what I am defining as the next level of wisdom, that of practical wisdom. The third level of wisdom is attained after receiving knowledge, from whatever source, whether subjectively found, or from outside sources, experiencing life and finding the truth-hood or falsehood of claims, and then finding the insight of the nature that underlies the phenomena, penetrating into the source and reason as to why such things are the way they are. This ultimate realization is more useful, more applicable, and easier to call upon in all circumstances, as well as universal in its description. The wisdom of realization is what we are aiming at here, so that we find the truth we’re searching for, prove it to be true, implement it in our lives, and become more virtuous. All in all, the first step in the spiritual journey is acquiring knowledge, whether internally found, or externally, the second step would be that of experientially using the knowledge in your life to find out what’s beneficial or useful, and what’s not, and then realizing the truth of the truth itself, and how and why it works. We can train our minds to better understand reality, to be more virtuous, and to reduce suffering. This training can take place in every moment of our life, through mindfulness, meditation, knowledge passed down through others, and practicing virtuousness in order to train ourselves to be a better person unconsciously. The present moment is available to us at all times, and this is where mindfulness is useful in bringing our awareness to the present moment in order to observe and learn what it can teach us about reality, as well as our own psychology. This present moment is where everything in human experience takes place, and is where training and practice must be carried out.

Magic and Alchemical Wisdom, The Philosopher’s Stone

On December 21, 2017June 4, 2020 By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment

Magic. Turn evil to good. Turn an impure life into a pure one. Turn animal into god. Create change in accordance with desire. Strong wisdom and knowledge enables this, through causality, but this causality hopefully will produce a good desire, and not a bad one, because the manifestation of a bad desire can turn a good person into an evil one. Be careful what you wish for, magic is real, and you might have it.

Ancient mystic alchemists were searching for the philosopher’s stone to turn lead into gold. The philosophers stone is metaphorically truly much greater than this, it’s the knowledge of the power to turn nothing into diamonds, to turn a bad life into a good one, to become virtuous from lack of virtue, to become wise from a state of ignorance. The ancient teachings of the world’s greatest minds and noble spiritual teachers each have had a piece of it, the accumulation of all their acquired wisdom, mixed with an individual input, experience, understanding and insight is the final piece to put the whole stone together. To be good, simple, content, ego less, self less, content with the present, understanding reality, accepting that no one knows everything and everything isn’t worth being known, certain things are more important than others, and what’s unknown in those fields is what should be strived for. Being a good person when no one is watching, causality, turning the other cheek, loving your neighbor, the noble Eightfold path, learning, living, loving, and ultimately destroying suffering and living in peace.

This is white magic, this ability to achieve this state of mind is potentiality, to which in relation to the potential, the actualizing is the philosophers stone. While complete possession of it is surely impossible, the noble pursuit towards its actualizing was worth pursuing in ancient times, just as, if viewed correctly, it is worth seeking out in our own lives. Philosophy, psychology, knowledge itself, is all pieces of the stone, but the realization after practice with understanding of the teachings, the practical wisdom in the accumulation of experiential knowledge as it refers to the mode of being from which the most optimal solutions arise in response to any situation, is the stone itself. Immortality, lead to gold, these are archetypal, metaphorical comparisons for the wonder that internal discovery and mastery of what we have to work with, our minds, to the highest level, can achieve. Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, Mohammad, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Descartes, Einstein, they all have had pieces, all have had glimpses and intuitions regarding this concept, some more than others, but none of them had all of each other’s pieces. They just had their own, and they contributed their findings to the world for our benefit. In today’s age we can compile all their knowledge into one language, and if our brains are hardware, we can download this knowledge like software onto it, with our own unique operating system of prior experiences to differentiate each person from another, and add our own input. As they did, we should do, seek to provide at least part of the stone, a part that wasn’t there, a bit of truth, a bit of virtue, to leave the those who come after us in better relation to the totality of the stone.

The philosophers stone isn’t something simple to put together and contain, or a place we can easily get into, or in other words the perfect life, enlightenment, Nirvana, paradise, or heaven isn’t easily achieved, if anything good in life takes hard work, the best of life takes the hardest work. We can’t merely hear the knowledge, read the scriptures, or see the holy life at work within another. We must experientially work towards our development of our character, we must turn our gaze towards the improvement of the mode of being from which our actions manifest from. It takes work, intellectually, physically, philosophically, scientifically, it cannot be handed down and it cannot be given out. The desire and manifestation of results of the striving, is the magic which was spoken of. It is the uncover of what is hidden, and the revelation of what was found. It is desire turned into achievement of desire, and potentiality transmuted into actuality. We must put forth the effort ourselves, we must work, and through diligently striving along the path to greatness, attain that greatness which we seek. It is never an end point that we will reach, it is in the striving that we accumulate pieces of the stone. The stepping off the shoulders of those who come before us can afford us the grace of knowledge not deserved, and in our debt, we must work to create something useful for others to step off of.

Call it magic, the philosophers stone, wisdom, holiness, we all are capable of achieving inner peace, we all are capable of learning what’s going on, and saving the world, our own world, we just have to learn, practice, and realize it. We are all capable of moving closer to it. It isn’t a matter of achieving the philosophers stone, it is merely a metaphorical representation of the goal we should be aspiring towards. We can move towards it, and become incrementally better at “being”. Seek the truth, paradise lies within. There’s always hope for a lost soul, give peace a chance, get better everyday, virtue, and happiness. Knowledge is power, and power is responsibility. All conditioned phenomena are impermanent. All that arises is subject to change. As above, so below.

“Truth Claims” and their Corollaries

On December 18, 2017June 4, 2020 By Chris Shuttleworth4 Comments

The truth of an object in itself is not possible, being the limited perceptive beings that we are, we can never fully experience the truth of an object, or even of ourselves, due to the lack of capabilities we have of embodying anything but the perceptive part of our own survival machine. While we cannot know for sure the qualities and content of the experience of what it is like to be another object, we can use the rational and logical framework from which our mind contains to uncover truth claims as applying to our region of the universe, and use these laws of logic to form a cohesive representative description of reality, the alignment between this representative model, formed most commonly in perceptions, and language (words / grammar), and reality, as it is in itself, is what we can postulate as being closer or farther from the “Truth”. The “Truth” here is what reality is actually like in itself. While we cannot directly experience or know this, (knowledge we will describe later), the degree to which our language and perceptive capabilities are able to correctly model this is the degree to which we have an understanding of the Truth. As far as quantifying this range, we ought to validate it, if objective truth, with scientific data, of philosophical truth, with reason and logic in comparison to encompassing more phenomena than competing theories, the more of which justifies it, as far as metaphorical or practical truth, to the degree of usefulness in its application in our lives (subjective yet applicable).

The “Truth” is that which is actual in reality, the truth or falsehood of our claims is the correlation between our representational models and that truth. We can increase the probability of our truth claims through using logic, in their non-contradictory and not fallible cohesion, as well as their reoccurring emergence in the natural world (scientific method). Through the descriptive ability we have, and the method used to verify or disprove our truth claims, we can either gain in certainty in the probability that such depictions match up to the reality given the laws of logic which we have at our disposal (this given is an assumption that they are all pervasive, yet itself, not a full certainty). For example, gravity, or the tendency for objects to be attracted to each other in proportion to their relative mass, appears in scientific verification to be indubitably the case. While we have tested it numerous times, and it is verified in all of them, we can pose the truth claim of the existence of gravity as a very high probability of being an accurate part of the representation of the “Truth”. The degree of certainty as to this truth claim is thus high, and it would be rational to believe it to be true. All phenomena face this test in their certainty relatability, as the more evidence and verification, and lack of disproving occurrences, points to a higher certainty of the possibility of the phenomena being an accurate model of the “Truth”.

Here we are moving to a new domain of distinction, from the previous position, which is necessary for philosophical consistency. This Hegelian dialectical movement to a higher resolution image of what we are referencing to as truth, requires the existence and separation between Ultimate Truth, and truth as we are able to find it within a framework which we find ourselves in. Our new conceptualization must necessarily contain within it both terms, and we must differentiate what is True as the actuality of reality, from what is “true” from the framework in which we are able to conceptualize as an accurate representation of reality. In conventional terminology we call the truth that content which we believe to represent the “Truth”, while in philosophical stringency we must recognize our inability to “know” anything with absolute certainty given the biological filter through which all content of experience flows through, and the potential thought experiments which logically deduce the general idealist hypothesis that everything is, in fact, different, fundamentally, then the image and model we generate to represent it. While this resembles a type of epistemological nihilism, it ought not be employed practically outside of a philosophical coherent system, in conventional daily-life, from the “normal” mode of being, it still is valuable and useful, and altogether beneficial, to make truth claims, as long as we recognize that through a higher resolution image of the coherence between those statements and the actual reality, that we are, in all cases, fallible. That statement itself is a truth statement, that itself could be fallible, but, given that our corner of the universe presents us with certain laws of logic which cannot practically be proven false, given that we only have those to work with (currently), the truth-claim can be made if it is stated implicitly within the framework. Outside of the framework it holds no validity. While it appears that Logic, and Mathematics necessary fall within an Objective framework of Knowledge which it is possible to state are “True”, they fall under this necessary caveat that they appear to be true, from where we stand, and there still remains the possibility that in other areas or times, or dimensions, of the universe, they may be different, and we truly do not know what we do not know.

As far as Moral Objectivist claims, they also fall under such scrutiny and explanation. In relation to the moral nihilist claims or the subjective relational morality claims which states that there are not right or wrong answers to moral questions, the explanation is a bit longer to lay out simplistically, but follows from what has been said in regards to our epistemological state of things. Within the framework with which we live, and our propensity to experience pain and pleasure, and that the existence of such content is experienced as an Objective fact of reality, that it appears to us that the sensation of pleasure and pain exists in our experience, and that appearance is actual, we can deduce from this a framework of Objective morality that, if admitted that morality necessarily is in relation to the better or worse experiences of life, which it ought to be in reference to (otherwise we’re not talking about the concept morality as it is typically used), than from the framework within which we find ourselves, and the desire which directs the actions of life, we can objectively state that there are better and worse methods and actions in which the individual can make to the accomplishment of these desired goals (increased wellbeing and reduction of suffering). Our actions and thus our experience stems from the desires of the organism, and the desires of the organism are towards survival, a greater experience of wellbeing, and a reduction of suffering, in relation to accomplishing these goals there are actions which we take, predicated on the desire to do so. These answers to ways in which we are able to act in the “present moment” is either leading towards such goals, or not, and the degrees to which we do so, entails that there are better or worse ways in which to “navigate the moral landscape” as Sam Harris depicts the situation.

While we remain ignorant in the philosophical speculation of Knowledge itself, we work from a framework in which relative knowledge is available to us, and from that framework there is, implicit, experience, at least perceived experience, and the nature of this experience is such that it provides better or worse states of experience, and given our desire to pursue the better state, there is an Objective answer to better or worse ways to achieving it, within the frame in which we necessarily are embedded within. From the Universe’s perspective, there is no meaning, from our perspective, being life, we cannot with absolute certainty have “Absolute Knowledge”, but we can, within the framework, and we do, seek meaning and pleasure, towards which are Ultimately whimsical goals, we can be right or wrong, or have better or worse actions, which manifest those goals, or which lead us further along the path in our pursual of them.

While we have a good sense now of what the “Truth” entails, and how we use “truth” in the conventional term, we have in relation to these two concepts “Knowledge” and “knowledge”. In relation to the content of the description which is in alignment with the “Truth”, we have “Knowledge”, oftentimes referred to as Absolute Knowledge in philosophical literature. We refer to Knowledge as those truth claims for which we have perfect certainty of. This is, in all cases, a fallacy to do, from a strictly philosophical standpoint. There is no way we can be absolutely certain in regards to the relation between our models and the object in itself, or in the totality of the Truth. We can only have more or less probable claims from which we should embody a relative certainty as to their relationship to the truth. In unphilosophically consistent usage, we use the concept knowledge in a way which states that the conventional truth actually has a high certainty in regards to the Truth. Thus, we conventionally say the knowledge of gravity allows us to make predictions about the mathematical truth of how long it will take an object to fall from a certain height on Earth. While this is true, and considered as knowledge, it is consumed by the framework from which we work in. In a conventional and practical sense it is useful and beneficial, and cannot be disregarded, but it operates under a different framework from the philosophical consistency required in contemplating the actual Truth and its relevant Knowledge, and cannot be claimed with certainty in regards to these concepts, but rather, its certainty ought to be regarded as proportionally certainly true, and regarded as knowledge, in relation to the ability of it to accurately represent reality from the “framework” with which we have to work with (our logical, rational, temporal/special location within the universe (which is all we have to work with, yet can’t claim its infallibility because we are embedded within it)).

We must make another Hegelian step towards an ever increasing knowledge of reality in a framework which includes the conceptualization of belief, making another differentiation in our conscious progression towards a higher conceptualization of factors of reality. As we uncover more and more information, more dissonance arises, and we must rectify them by a higher transcending view which includes all the knowledge previously discovered in a logically coherent system. This higher perch from which we stand upon must necessarily include more content, and all must be able to coexist without contradiction to remove the dissonance. This progress towards a different, yet more accurate view of reality, through increase of knowledge, is generally the unconscious system which we use to assimilate new data into a world view, but here I thought I would make it explicit as it is evident in the process which I’m undertaking that it is taking place. We must move in this way in order to reach the next step, and thus the previous steps and their growth process is necessary to the understanding of the end result.

While the Truth is what actually is, and Knowledge of that can never be false, nor attainable, we can, in our relationship to both, be right or wrong in our claims of representing them moreso than other claims. My claim here, on a philosophical level, is that we always are wrong in relation to these. Yet the degree of wrongness varies in a sense that is meaningful. We must use as a standard of the rightness or wrongness of our predictable models of reality the most verified, logically coherent, rational explanations which fall under the purview of the verification using the scientific method, verification through logical consistency, both within the truth claim, and between truth claims, and our ability to argue such knowledge using inductive, deductive, and adductive reasoning. Thus in determining what is true in a conventional sense we have tools at our disposal, yet still have differing view in relation to what the truth is. This is a necessary problem and we will always be in conflict as to what we think is true, or our beliefs about what is True, due to our necessary Epistemological ignorance on the Ultimate level. The belief is the true name for our conceptualizations and perceptions as they regard reality. That which we conceptually regard as true and knowledge, is merely conceptualizations for what we believe to have absolute certainty in regard to. The belief that you are certain about something produces the belief that what you have is knowledge in regard to the truth, which many times, being ignorant of our relationship to Knowledge and Truth, we conflate as Truth-Claims. The actuality of the concept of belief is more descriptive of the actual state of affairs that we find ourselves in. All we truly have are beliefs, and the accuracy and alignment between what we believe to be true, and what is actually True, to which we only have our beliefs to compare between in determining their relationship to Truth. All hope is not lost, given our framing of the Ultimate, and our acceptance of our place within the limited domain of truth and knowledge, our degree of accuracy in conceptualizing truth claims necessarily can be classified in its alignment from the standard of logic, reasoning, and scientific evidence with what we have uncovered within our framework. The standard of which our conceptualization of reality, our beliefs about what is true or not, must necessarily be judged in relation to, has to be logic, reasoning, and science. The relative nature in regards to our beliefs and the Truth slips away in considering what must be true in relation to our framed universe, framed by Idealism and the fallible nature, but internally, the consistency and laws of logic apply, the argumentation using deductive, inductive and adductive reasoning apply, scientific verification exists. These exist as the necessary standards for claiming, within our human framework, what is more or less an accurate representation of Objective reality. While there is a subjective aspect, the consistency of the laws from which we judge truth-claims within the framework stands in relation to all experience and, other humans verifications, as being objectively true within this framework. Given this is all we have to work with, it is what we must use in the judgment of truth claims. It is entirely possible that better methods of verification and more accurate methods of reasoning may be uncovered, but for now, within our limited epistemological framework, we must use these tools to depict the best representation of reality, and from our own perspective, and from that informed belief, judge the accuracy and coherency of other truth claims. The more truth claims that remain coherent within the system, and exist conceptually in non-contradiction to each other, the higher the tide rises our ability to be certain of the truth of any single aspect. Our world view, or the totality of the beliefs which we most infer to be accurate depictions of reality, is what we have to use in order to logically verify contradictions in relationship to.

It is extremely important, in the search for the truth, that the things which we believe to be Certain in regards to Truth be nonexistent, and the beliefs which we form to be our best conceptualization of reality within the framed universe must stand on solid ground, yet remain fallible. The adherence and mode of being of certainty in regards to truth claims wholly limits the ability for us to expand our knowledge, or uncover falsehoods or dissonant content within the worldview. The things which we remain in doubt about yet hold to be the best depictions of reality, our beliefs, we should place a high value on in terms of consistency and logical non-contradiction between them, in order for our conceptualization of truth in the conventional sense to grow in relation to the totality of truth, and away from ignorance. The degree to which these beliefs are based upon evidence, logic, and reason, much like in the Objective Morality clause above, determines the relation they have to the goal of uncovering the truth. Thus there are right and wrong answers to the existence or truth hood of truth claims, as the relationship between our beliefs and the truth as discoverable within our framework are concerned.

As morality requires life, pain, and pleasure, as necessary attributes to say anything meaningful about morality as we conventionally use the word, and that the rightness or wrongness of actions is in relation to better or worse ways to achieve wellbeing and reduce suffering, objectively, within the framework which we find ourselves, so we can similarly make an argument for objective truth within our epistemological framework. The actual representative truth claims about reality requires evidence, verification, logic, and reasoning, as necessary attributes to say anything meaningful about reality as we conventionally use the word, and our rightness or wrongness in statements is in relation to better or worse coherency between logical, evidential, and rational depictions of reality, within the framework which we find ourselves.

Thus we have developed a system of truth, knowledge, and belief, in which we distinguish Truth and Knowledge as unattainable, yet useful as to their conceptual place markers as distinct from the framework within which we find ourselves. As Morality from the universal standpoint is meaningless, so are Truth Claims in regards to Ultimate Truth. Yet we don’t find ourselves in that perspective, experientially. We find ourselves as finite life, with a biologically produced limited perspective, and with certain tools and experiences. Within this framework within which we find ourselves, we can, if we had perfect knowledge of the implications and factors as they apply to our decisions and actions, make Objective claims as to better or worse actions in regards to the goals of wellbeing, depicting an existent Objective morality, and if we had perfect knowledge of the most accurate conceptualizations of reality make Objective claims at to better or worse truth-claims in regards to the truth available in our domain of the universe, depicting an Objective knowledge. While we don’t have this perfect knowledge of truth claims, or of what actions are actually best contributing to the most optimal state of wellbeing, the existence of them within our framework is truly possible to be known as they are existent entities. Acting and conceptualizing within these two domains, which fall under the one domain of which we find ourselves, enables us to actually make moral claims which are better or worse in regards to their implications on wellbeing and suffering, using the system of truth-seeking which we just produced. Within the truth seeking system which is founded upon the above described necessary attributes, we can, with that system as arbitrator, make truth claims that are better or worse depictions of the truth using its necessary attributes to provide better or worse answers to what is knowledge.

Phenomenology of Thinking About Thinking

On December 4, 2017June 4, 2020 By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment

The noema, or content of conscious experience as being aware of the thought “thinking about thinking” can be captivating and entrapping to a mind who doesn’t hold the proper conceptualization of the experience. The mode of being that is active in such an enterprise, that enables such a thought, is the noesis of “conceptualizing the present moment’s own noema”. In other words, not only is our conscious intentionality directed at the current moment’s thought, it is simultaneously directed at the noesis, the process from which the thought is arising from. In this situation, the process is that of directed thinking, the “object” or “item” from which directed thinking is gazing upon, is itself, thus the content of experience is the thought “thinking about thinking” which manifests itself in present moment experience.

The circular notion of such a thought arising can cause the consciousness for which it has arisen to remain stagnant as the urge to escape the circular thought nonetheless reinforces its emergence. With a desire to escape thinking about thinking, we can find ourselves continually, unfortunately, thinking about thinking. This often happens in youth before we are consciously able to direct our attention away from such content, or find a rational explanation for its existence.

The trick to escaping circular reasoning is to continue the experience in a novel direction that is, itself, linear. The awareness of the thought “thinking about thinking” in the case where we are entrapped in the awareness of its existence in the present moment, takes place under a mode of being mindful. If we are not aware that we are thinking about thinking, in the present moment, then we would not be thinking about thinking. Thus the noesis, or mode of being, which manifest such continent, necessarily must include the noematic content of being mindful. This produces a noema characterized by the conceptualization of a thought process arising in consciousness. We can view this merely as “a thought is arising that says “thinking about thinking””, by seeing the content in this way, we can chalk up the causal determinacy to an underlying mode of being which is aware of itself, and continue analyzing, at this point, phenomenologically, the experience as a reflective looking back towards content which already has faded. By so moving into the future by analyzing the content as a past experience, we escape the circular reasoning, and look to describe the noematic contents which applied to the experience. The problem why entering into this noema of circularity can be troubling, is that there is an underling “unknown”, that of understanding what is happening, or the inability to properly conceptualize the experience in a way that makes sense. By distinguishing the experience using a rational conceptualization, in this way, in putting order and making known that which is unknown, the problem of negative experience which pervades an entrapment of circular thinking, is relinquished, as proper compartmentalizing and structuring to the content of experience becomes known. Ignorance, as to the current moments manifestation, is troublesome for us, and knowledge which explains it sufficiently, at least in a way that we can believe to be explanatory, will diminish the cognitive impairment.

While the phenomenological examination of any present moment experience can necessarily move the experience to new content, the ability to consciously direct our attention to novel content that is arising in consciousness enables us to escape much more easily the circular reasoning, or redundantly appearing thoughts as they produce a negative state of mind that is altogether not pleasant to be stuck in. This is, obviously, easier said than done, and if such circular or reoccurring thoughts disturb us as we become increasingly mindful of them, we always have the opportunity to phenomenologically analyze the content as a reflexive object that has already arisen, and see new content in relation to that as currently arising. This ability of conscious awareness to describe content that is currently occurring, and has previously occurred, enables the escape from such reoccurring thought patterns that trouble our minds.

Dependent Origination (Buddhist Conditionality)

On November 30, 2017June 10, 2020 By Chris Shuttleworth2 Comments

You are born in ignorance, you don’t know or understand reality (objective understanding), how to react to experience (reciprocity), or how to conduct yourself in a way that minimizes suffering and maximizes happiness (morality). You don’t have knowledge of form, of language, nor of how to conduct yourself in the world. You don’t know right and wrong, and you cannot differentiate or hierarchically organize values. The biological system has values, but these values are merely of genetic inheritance, and as conscious awareness of oneself hasn’t yet developed, and external influence has yet to form cultural and traditional values, we have only primitive values which drive us.

You are taught things, in infant-hood, that form as habits in response to the chaotic environment you have yet to form into order. These volitional formations arise only out of the initial state of ignorance. These become conditional responses in the form of action both physically and mentally. Pavlovian and traditional conditioning take place, and you begin to form neural pathways linking phenomena, still, subconsciously. You become responsive to the phenomena of action and response, of reward and punishment, in the form of pleasure and pain, yet are unable to distinguish the causal chain, acting only on conditioned instinct.

Next arises, dependent on these formations, consciousness, or as is better understood – awareness. Based on the habit forming structure inherent in the human neural makeup, you are provided the six senses, thus you have six forms of consciousness; eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, mouth/tongue consciousness, body consciousness, and mind consciousness, through which you are able to be aware of all experience available to you. All experience is experienced through these six consciousnesses. So when you see your mother you become conditioned through the habit formation of association of her with a certain role, whether it be protection, or nourishment, stemming from the basic drives provided by the genetic makeup at birth.

Next arises namarupa (name and form, immaterial and material) dependent on this consciousness. So you have awareness/consciousness, you’re aware of seeing your mother, due to habituated response to experience, due to ignorance, now you not only are “conscious” of the experience, but are able to recognize her form (material property), and attach her name (immaterial property), onto the phenomenon of “mother”. This identifying and linking between material and immaterial, and conceptualization of both a physical form and a mental phenomenon, arises only after consciousness arisen. The key element in how your experience becomes experienced and conceptualized, is in the arising of contact, dependent on namarupa. If there was no material or immaterial side of reality, you would never be able to make contact with anything, and your experience would never be, you wouldn’t be able to identify a material form, nor produce an immaterial (mental) connotation in relation to the phenomenon. So your eye sees the photons of light reflected off your mother, the enter the retina, the two are combined through “physical” contact, and eye consciousness arises in awareness of the fact, and the meeting of the three, including consciousness, is the contact that is necessary for an experience of vision. Without the previously established identification process you wouldn’t know what it is your aware of, conceptually. From this mental formation attached to the individual of mother, you are able to identify her form, and “name her”, perhaps not using language, yet, but in conception of the association between the form and the result of interaction. The experience of eye consciousness is used in recognizing the form of the person which you have unconsciously been informed of as important to your survival for many reasons (the preservation and reproduction of the genome by getting the individual’s survival machine further into life). This contact is recognizable upon inspection of any experience you have ever experience. Even in thought, your mind consciousness must make contact with the object of thought, the conceptualization in the words or picture of the thought, in order to presently be aware of what it is passing through your mind.

From contact comes a feeling, the type of feeling is dependent on the stimuli you make contact with and its relation to you in your experience. There’s three types of feelings that arise out of this contact, pleasant, non pleasant, or neither pleasant or non pleasant, but no matter what you make contact with, one of the three arises as a result. From pleasant feeling comes craving to have, running towards, or wanting or willing or desiring to be in possession of this object of pleasant feeling. From unpleasant feeling also comes craving, but in rejection or separation from the object, in aversion as a positive form of willing, or desire or willing to not have this object in your experience, in rejection, or pushing away. So from both pleasant and unpleasant comes this craving, or desiring, which is where suffering enters your life. In neither pleasant nor unpleasant experiences of contact the object simply doesn’t have a meaningful effect upon consciousness and its actions, and does not continue to produce the craving and attachment inherent in the other two forms of feeling. Whether the object of desire is wholesome or not, the not achieving the acquisition of object of desire always produces suffering, or unsatisfactoriness, or discontent, the amount of which is characterized as located on a spectrum dependent on the individual and upon his training in mental management. Thus, in our link of dependent origination, suffering first shows itself as the result of feeling, through craving. Your mother walks into the room, she is in the visible field that becomes known through eye consciousness in the link between light bouncing off her, and your eye receiving the transmission, the recognition of her identity becomes known to you through the conceptualization of “mother”, and the form presented. From this contact, this association, and conditioned response, comes a feeling dependent on your current relationship and state of being, this feeling being either pleasant, non-pleasant, or neither. In the case of a pleasant feeling arising in response to the identification, you crave her to stay in the room, if she is walking out, you desire her to return and not to go. If the feeling produced in response to her identification is negative in nature, then you wish for her to leave, and not to stay. If there is no feeling produced, you are indifferent to her existence within that present moment, whether she stays or goes has no meaning and is of no significance to you (perhaps your attention is more readily engaged in another phenomenon). Thus is the nature of desire in response to feeling and the object of contact in conscious experience which gives off a feeling.

Continual desire based on continually feeling pleasant or unpleasant works until the craving becomes attached to the object, and thus arises attachment, which is dependent on this craving, and includes an even greater amount of suffering and delusion. At this stage you hold the physical/mental phenomenon so tightly that any change to it causes you suffering. When it is close, experientially, you want it to stay close, when it is far, you want it to become close, in regards to an object of consciousness that produces a non-pleasant emotional response, when it is close you wish it to be far away, when it is far away, you wish it to remain far away. This goes for all phenomena, not just objects, but feelings, ideas, thoughts, experiences, states of mind, and abstract pursuits such as fame, admiration, or wealth. In the case of something you like, any change, alteration, or distancing causes you immense suffering as you see it as permanent, unchanging, and something you wish to be close to you all the time. The opposite happens when you’re attached to the absence of something, if you dislike something so much that any appearance or closeness of it becomes a problem, due to the continual desire for rejection or aversion to this object of attention, you become attached to the experience of that thing not being in your experience. This can be emotion, poverty, state of social class, any phenomena, because everything meaningful whether positive or negative within our experience conceptually or physically you can make contact with, a feeling arises, you either experience it positively or negatively, producing the effect of liking or disliking it, and therefore anything can become this object of attachment if the desire is fostered long and strongly enough.

The desire which presides over all content of experience, and the attachment thus developed in relation to objects of desire, is the basic conditions from which the state of “becoming” rests upon. This is the becoming or changing into something different than before, as regards to your mental state and mode of being, or character and personality and lifestyle of the individual. While we are always changing, and always in a process of becoming, this stage is differentiated as informing how we come to be based on the conditionality of prior causes. You can become attached to any phenomena through continual craving which is the condition for the becoming of someone new, whose own identity changes and starts to include the identity of the object of attachment as being part of its own. Remember that this example of a person is just a practical example, but the idea here ranges to any form of experience possible, whether it be that of a simple object, a stimulation, an ideology, or state of mind. The person starts becoming inseparable from the concept of the attachment, becoming someone that believes their very Being includes the association with the object of attachment, and in a sense, for all intents and purposes, it does. This is why the drug addict, and his family, sees him become a new person after addiction has set in, and he begins becoming altered as a totality of his character begins identifying with the substance, as it is simultaneously modified by the substance. Yet, unconsciously, a similar pattern emerges in response to any attachment which develops, in that the attachment becomes internalized and part of the character which manifests itself in the content of our experience. This attachment comes from desire, which arises based on the feeling produced by conscious contact with an “object of experience” which we can distinguish as a concept and having a material form, the distinguishing arises from a mental formation which, ultimately, arises from ignorance, since we have no choice in the matter. The arising of each state is necessarily conditioned by the prior, and develops in this way. If the prior conditions are not present, the arising of the next link in dependent origination does not manifest.

After becoming comes birth, this is the birth of a new, mind made entity based entirely on the object which gives a pleasant feeling, initially was craven, then clung to, then, dependent on the becoming, a new “Being” is born. The individual’s very psychological idea of “self” not only is strong and pervading, but it includes as a key component the object of attachment as being part of who he/she is, as it defines his very existence. As always, the last chain in human dependent origination arises, the final step for all who give birth to a new creation, its eventual diminution, fading away, destruction; sickness, aging, death. Death is the end to all who are born, and nonexistence is the fate for all that exists, whether it be an idea, a pursuit, a formation, if it arises, it is inevitable it will pass away, at least in its current conception, it will not last, it will be altered, modified, change, what once was, will no longer be. It does not happen to that which never existed, to that never created, or born, thus it is dependent on this birth, this creation, this manifestation of existence. The conditioned Being that is born out of ignorance, became an entity that is defined by his attachments, is necessarily located in a transient existence, in which he will inevitably change, the ultimate impermanence of any state of Being, even one born in this way, necessarily declines into destruction, as all conditioned phenomena do. The “death”, in this case, merely refers to the ultimate destruction of the mind made association and identity with whatever the individual has become attached to, eventually, the mindset will change, the identity will fall away, and a new being will be born, a new state of mind instantiated, a new version of the “self” conceptualized, based on further desire, attachment, becoming, and birth. In this way the twelve chains of dependent origination produce the suffering of our existence, as we build up narratives, egotistical structures that become powerful enough to define us. Eventually, as everything impermanent does, they die out, only to be replaced by the new desires, and thus suffering, both in the acquisition, and the destruction. So suffering begins with initial ignorance, yet only becomes manifest and more of a problem at the craving level, and gets worse from there. Delusion, negative emotions, and unvirtuous behavior due to the object of desire also grow in manifestation at the same level from craving to death.

These are the 12 steps of dependent origination, and were originally formulated in Buddhist canonical literature, the oldest of which available to us currently, the Pali Cannon. The causality and conditionality for all arising phenomena can be put into this framework, but originally it is formulated in the dependent arising of suffering, which was the Buddha’s true aim in delivering us from. In its primitive form, this twelve-fold linkage of causal conditionality, was in reference to the past life, in ignorance and habit forming, in current life, from consciousness to becoming, and the result, in future life, in birth and death. Here I used the structure not in the traditional sense, but as the entire process can be applied to psychological phenomena within this very life, and not only in reference to suffering itself, but into the various forms of experience which come into being, as seen from this structure. Other content and metaphysical speculations were disregarded as not important, and it is the knowledge of the process and the method of its escapement in regards to suffering that truly drove him to uncover the dharma and thus his teachings which he shared with the world. These 12 steps outline the conditionality of suffering to arise, and how it can manifest itself in our lives. The removal of desire and thus craving and attachment, through a process of developing ourselves along the Noble Eightfold Path, was his solution, and part of Right View, is being aware of the conditionality of suffering and how it develops, as detailed above. For a more philosophical and scientific approach as to the existence of hard determinism, and its universality, see the essay “The Causal Tethers Which Bind Us“. While I make the association between the development of a psychological makeup, these twelve links can be used as a metaphorical tool to apply the totality of our lives.

Safeguarding Against Nihilism in the Absence of Religion

On November 20, 2017June 4, 2020 By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment

When something is no longer useful, it ceases being used. When something becomes known as being more useful, it necessarily will replace the outdated version for those who contain that knowledge. The trickle-down effect of stolen intellectual property extends into the realm of ideas, and the beneficiality and believability of belief structures becomes itself reinvigorated by more novel conceptualizations which pose a higher probability of being truthful, beneficial, or useful. Unfortunately, people still continue to adhere to ancient dogma, in spite of modern evidence to the contrary, as the value of believing in supernatural, and outdated claims – as far as psychological wellbeing is concerned – is perceived as more beneficial than the alternative by its adherents. In these cases, the belief is supported by the utility, and the internal logic within the religious system, as in between its beliefs, outweighs the potential shift which would require multiple belief changes to create a worldview free of dissonance, based not on the perceived usefulness but on the practical truthfulness.

This applies to social constructions as well as technology. Language, a human social constructions, constantly changes as old words become dated and no longer useful, and new ones becomes more useful. Ancient religions die out because they no longer are believable and lose the utility they once had (Greek mythology). A large number of former adherents to the world’s supernatural based belief structures, from the modern religions, aren’t merely becoming pagans, or converting to other religious systems, but are actively losing the belief in the things they once had, due to the overwhelming evidence which overturns the central tenants of such religious, and the ability for people to believe in a religious worldview, despite its usefulness, is becoming more and more difficult to do as scientific rationale is becoming more widespread. The integration of rational, logical, and experimentally verified knowledge naturally creates a problem for religions, as their truth-claims do not align with the modern understanding of verifiable phenomena, nor do they contain the required proof and logical cohesion between truth claims to which we have evidence to the contrary for.

It is the socially constructed beliefs, opinions, philosophies, religions, and ideas that are not grounded in evidence based claims that are more susceptible to being changed, disregarded, or replaced by more accurate ideologies once the social constructions lose its value in usefulness, through it no longer being believable by the advent of scientific knowledge, which, with the loss of belief, (often against our will) also necessarily makes it not useful. Scientific materialism in the modern age is one of the driving causes to all metaphysical beliefs founded on supernatural claims to come under scrutiny as more rational explanations are swaying the minds of the people and thus losing their beneficial use in society, for which they were originally created.

Nietzsche is often associated with being a nihilist, but his position is much sincerer, he warns us against the potentiality of slipping into nihilism as supernatural belief structures begin to crumble under modern knowledge. Many Nietzscheans misinterpret his writings by their unwarranted pride in “killing God”, in their lack of nuanced version of will to power, in the over stimulation of the ego at the exception of the higher parts of the psyche. They disregard others, undermine the beliefs of others, and unwisely handle the opinions and beliefs of others. This gives Nietzsche, and his genius, a bad reputation, through his unvirtuous adherents who are merely misinterpreting the notions which he sought to warn us against. The death of God isn’t championed by Nietzsche, he doesn’t think it is a good thing, he thinks the implications will be a lot more complicated than we initially intuited, and we need to fortify ourselves against the potential evil that would fill the void where ancient belief once stood. This evil, in the absence of traditional religious values, reared its head most prominently in Soviet Russia, in Communist China, and Communist Cambodia. As the people disregarded the traditional values that developed over thousands of years and provided a moral basis and cohesive structure for which to turn, they turned their heads to Nationalism, and were swayed by propaganda in the form of ideological possession by men who capitalized on the weakness which ensued the Death of God. This ideological takeover of the masses is a problem which we still are dealing with, as people still promote the Marxist ideal utopia, which, founded on seemingly good intentions, we have already seen the results of it imposed in experimental capacity and concluded in the mass genocide of millions of people.

The fortification of a value and moral system grounded upon secular beliefs, in Objective morality based upon wellbeing and Suffering, rather than commandment and ancient texts interpreting the will of God, will be our saving grace. Rational moral improvement, based on a foundation that is experientially verifiable, and philosophically coherent, enables people to have rational grounds from which to practice good-will, to avoid ideological possession, and to safeguard our societies against those who wish to capitalize on the psychological weakness which follows from a progressively nihilistic worldview.

With the absence of an objective purpose, from which we have derived meaning from for thousands of years, our societies simply do not know how to psychologically cope. Existentialists have undertaken this task, in their attempts to rectify human psychological wellbeing with the instantiation of a new purpose, but their influence has fallen mostly on deaf ears. The value of philosophy in the modern age is itself underappreciated and mostly unutilized, as pharmacological solutions to psychological suffering places a band aid on our open wounds. “God is dead, and we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us?” To me the question isn’t of who, as I believe it is our own responsibility to wipe the blood of ourselves, the question is how? How do we clean up our lives, trash the clothes now covered in blood, and forge new ones out of the scraps that remain? We ought to pursue evermore diligently this question now that what is most at stake is the quality of our experience devoid of a “higher power”, which is quite overwhelming to most, and I argue, we do this through secular meaning and purpose.

We must accept the truth of absurdism, that we find ourselves seeking meaning in an altogether meaningless world, and are overwhelmed by the absurd contradiction that arises in that recognition. We accept the truth of the matter, yet choose to rebel against the meaninglessness of existence through the creative pursuit of individual values. The development of a resilient, brave, altogether virtuous character, the seeking of truth despite the costs, the uncovering of a value system not based on dogma, but based on individual interests and importance. There are sources of meaning from which we can uncover that drive us regardless of our beliefs, and we truly have better reason than “God” in which to pursue morality, such as wellbeing and reduction of suffering, and we truly have available to us a more meaningful system, not based on dogmatic truth claims that are spoken as infallible supernatural wish-fulfillments, such as heaven, but rather meaning grounded on the value and importance of content within this life. While this is easier said than done, as noted by Nietzsche, and as fleshed out by the horrors of the twentieth century, it still remains a potentiality. While many people slip into nihilistic despair, and lack a purpose and thus additional psychological suffering arises in the minds of the once devout minds, the people lose hope and virtue sees a decline.

Where I see the actuality of weakness, of virtue being disregarded, of psychological suffering increasing while physical and technological growth ensues, I also see the hope for us to look inwardly, find meaning and continue living and improving ethically. While the blood has surely stained us and the shame and confusion of performing such a heinous act surely takes its toll, the responsibility we have to ourselves to rectify the situation, the responsibility we have towards the improvement of our own experience, is placed on our shoulders. We must become Atlas, and Atlas must never shrug! As Nietzsche said, “Better no god, better to produce destiny on one’s own account, better to be a fool, better to be God oneself!” While many believe that the continuance of their evidence lacking and science disproving beliefs give them comfort and security in which their absence would fail to supply, they may be right, but for him who is courageous and brave he can find the strength to carry through valiantly a life based on rationality, on meaning which comes from his own wellbeing, and the wellbeing of others he cares about. Albert Camus gives us the ultimate rationale which we must adopt to face this Brave New World in which Huxley warned us and is coming to fruition, “The struggle towards the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.” It is that pursual of meaning in a meaningless situation which we must rectify through acceptance of the conditionality and determinacy of the truth of our predicament, and through the struggle towards the heights, find the psychological wellbeing that we naturally thirst for.

Four Jhanas of Buddhism

On November 19, 2017June 4, 2020 By Chris Shuttleworth1 Comment

There are certain states of mind that are exclusively experienced through the use of meditation, each one building upon the last, manifesting themselves out of the previous state of consciousness. These unique states of mind, of course, are relevant to any experience, but the four with which I am granting differentiation and specific classification, are those that are found through Samatha concentrating meditation, and are known by Buddhists as the four jhanas. They are meditative states, and have certain attributes in their experiencing, and certain requirements or preconditions to their arising. It is important to strictly pursue the Samatha meditation with the right intentions, of improving concentration, in focusing upon the present moment, and expanding the mind through practice. Any intention whilst practicing to achieve these states of jhana will hinder your development in their arising, we must practice without the intention to change our current mode of being, if we are suffering, we shouldn’t enter meditation to alleviate it, we should practice with diligence towards the intention of becoming closer to the truth, in becoming more moral, in developing wisdom and compassion, rather than for the egotistical benefit of desiring to achieve some sensual or internal pleasure. These things should naturally follow from the good intentioned practice.

These meditative states are able to be entered through Samatha Meditation, in which the practitioner is focused upon a single object, such as the breath. By one pointed concentration directed towards the experiencing of the object of concentration, we enter into Samatha meditation. As Our mind wanders to different content, naturally, we bring the gaze of awareness back to the object, and if we have gained enough concentration, and effectively cultivated a state of mind which is free of attachment, has been liberated from the ego, and finds pleasure in seclusion from sensual pleasures, then we are moving along the path towards the manifestation of the first jhana, or state of mind cultivated by Samatha meditation. If there has been sufficient cultivation of a wholesome mind, marked in ways listed before, that desires and puts forth effort in abandoning Ill will, delusion, craving and clinging, then with single pointed concentration into the present moment upon the object of meditation, you enter the first jhana. This is marked by a great pleasure of being secluded and in not desiring sensual pleasures. It is a contentment with the present moment experience of consciousness, devoid of external influence as a source of happiness, and a foundation of inner peace based on the inner disposition. This mode of Being is cultivated by prior experience in traveling the Eightfold path and the resultant of concentration within the framework of abandonment of previously mentioned defilements and unwholesome qualities. This pleasure within comes from knowing that you are cultivating wholesomeness, becoming a better person while practicing, so it is working toward enlightenment, or in other words we experience joy, through the practice of cultivating the highest possible form of ourselves. This combines the joy of personal spiritual growth and understanding, with the happiness from virtuous activity, which comes from knowing that the practice will increase wholesome interactions stemming from your own Being with to those you come in contact with (family, friends, coworkers, society, and sentient beings in general). The first jhanas is characterized by removal of five hindrances (Ill will, doubt, laziness, restlessness and greed or sensual pleasure) and experience of five jhanas factors (happiness, one pointedness of mind (concentration), applied thought, sustained thought, rapture). While this is the beginning of jhana development, there still is maintained discursive thought, and while meditating upon the object of attention, we shouldn’t seek to “empty our minds” or remove this thought, we should only be concerned with concentrating upon the present moment and the object which we are focusing upon. We shouldn’t be averse to any thoughts that arise within this state that bring us away from the object, we should only recognize them, and bring attention back to the object of concentration.

The second jhana is characterized by the removal of two factors cultivated in the first, that of sustained thought and applied thought, and is marked by further unification of concentration and gain a pleasurable sensation through the increase in sustained concentration, which is a modified version of positive emotion from the first jhana. You no longer are applying conceptualizations to the content of experience, but are rather experiencing the object of concentration, to a greater degree of sustainability than previously experienced. You can experience the first jhana as pleasure in the thoughts of wholesomeness, and the second in pleasure born of the sustained concentration of the experience without thought, the moment without thinking. This doesn’t mean we should actively pursue the removal of thought, it only means, with enough emersion into the present moment, and enough cultivation of concentration, the thoughts that describe phenomena and the thoughts which move to different phenomena, merely fade away, and the feeling of pleasure is conditioned by the concentration itself, not in the pleasure of being secluded.

The third jhana is characterized by equanimity, also without thought or conceptualization, with an ever increasing concentration and emergence into the phenomenon which is the object of awareness, but with an understanding and acceptance of the body as it is, acceptance and appreciation of the life happening within, which doesn’t include a thought stream but maintains a strict awareness within the present moment. The joy comes from this equanimity and contentedness within the present moment, no matter on the situation or experiences surrounding your life. It is the effective detachment from the content of experience, and the peace that arises from this detachment, is born of acceptance of the present moment regardless of its content. This equanimity is the crucial part of the third jhana, and constitutes the middle path, neither excessive self torture, nor in sensual pleasures, but restraint in not going to either extreme, and the contentment and happiness found in that mode of Being located between the two. Neither desiring or running towards fame, wealth, or immortality, nor being repulsive or running from the states of unpopularity, poverty, or death, is equanimity. Neither pleasure in being a wholesome state of consciousness, or non-pleasure in being in an unwholesome state of consciousness, whether experiencing a positive emotion such as love, or a negative emotion such as anger, the equanimity marked by emergence in the third jhana fosters a state of mind that is not perturbed by any content arising in the mind.

In the fourth jhana the ability to be equanimous in the state of pleasure or pain, is replaced by pure mindfulness and equanimity, in which there is no longer an experience at all arising of either pleasure nor pain. While equanimity and contentedness began to develop in the third, in the fourth the pleasure is replaced by a calm, clean, purified consciousness that is ultimately equanimous, without thought, without the emotion of positive joy or negative dissatisfaction. So the pleasurable sensation which was concurrent throughout the first three leaves us, the thought which was present in the first is no longer there, the full emergence into the present with undivided attention, not being broken by any distracting phenomena is attained in the fourth. The first jhana destroys the five hindrances, and begins concentration, and happiness from thinking of the mind in this state. The second removes the thought attached to the concentration, and focuses on the concentration itself. The third is an increase in happiness and concentration, and the beginning of developing equanimous feeling. In the fourth the happiness is replaced by a pure emergence in the awareness in the present moment while concentration and equanimity becomes a constant.

It is said that from the fourth jhana stems psychic powers, to this, I can offer no experiential evidence, nor logical reasoning to its existence. What is known, is that there are different states of Being that are able to be cultivated through sufficient concentration, and their delineation is possible to be characterized by these four classifications. In practice, the transition from each state of mind, in each person, I would assume, is most likely a very hard thing to pin down, especially in the present moment. But in a retrospective analysis as to what was experiencing in Samatha meditation, if sufficiently analyzed and meditation effectively practiced, we can conceptualize the experience as containing the above states, that is, if they were attained. It must be remarked that our experience is changing in degrees, and a strong “line that is crossed” in reference to the successive jhana states is never experienced, we merely move from state to state in degrees, along a spectrum of experience, each state doesn’t appear in its entirety in a concrete step. Experience flows, and we can mark of the jhana by the retrospective analysis of experience as it flowed, and make the distinctions listed above. All in all, the jhanas are not to be experienced for the pleasure and states that they can provide us while experiencing them, but our intention should always be to merely practice concentration, with an aim to character development, and inner expansion. Any unwholesome intentions will not only bar us from experiencing the jhanas, but will also contaminate any attempt of mental training or cultivating of character traits.

Three Marks of Existence and Character Development Using Buddhism

On November 15, 2017June 4, 2020 By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment

In the traditional Theravadan Buddhist tradition, it is commonly told that every moment can potentially be a moment for practice, for training. This practice is fostered by a mindfulness into the content of conscious experience, and, as every moment we hold the potential for being conscious of the content that arises, we can continually push our attention towards that content, and in doing so gain insights and cultivate a character of a certain nature, that follows from the practice. The essential characteristics that are developed in pursuing a mindful awareness of the conscious content within the present moment, are those of equanimity, and of understanding the nature of consciousness. If we better understand the mind, and the experience with which we are emerged in every moment, and its essential characteristics, we are better able to deal with that experience, for we recognize from which it arises, how it fades away, and understand the method of dealing with it which produces the most wholesome response to novel situations. This necessarily is included under wisdom, as we gain in experience in recognizing and differentiating phenomena that arises in consciousness, we gain the experiential knowledge of how best to respond to situations, and the set of all situations, and the path towards a mind that is calm, content, and free of desire (mostly), marked by equanimity, virtuosity in conduct, and thus providing a better experience of life for ourselves, and for those in our expanding circle of influence.

The Buddha pointed out key contributors to this nature of our conscious awareness, for which we are urged to discover ourselves. These key points are namely of threefold nature, and are categorized as the three marks of existence, from which we can extrapolate coinciding foundational truths which describe the nature of all sentient systems. The three marks which permeate the substratum for our psychological experience, are those of suffering or unsatisfactory nature, impermanence, and non-self.

This unsatisfactory nature is necessarily underlying all experience, as we constantly desire for things to be different, we desire something more than what we are, whether it be material or external gain such as career success, relationship optimization, health, youth, fame, or the desire for immaterial, or internal change, whether it be a better mode of being, a better experience of the present moment, if we are sad we desire to be happy, if we experience an unpleasant sensation we crave a pleasant one, if we are happy, and things apparently are going good, we desire for them to continue doing so. This desire, and lack of the object of desire, necessarily is conditioned by the unsatisfactoriness we contain in the present moment. If we were content, we wouldn’t desire, if we wouldn’t desire we wouldn’t suffer. Now on a practical note, the urge we contain to desire is necessary for survival, and is altogether inescapable. But the content of what is desired, and the ranging degree of wholesome or unwholesome desires which drive us, can be altered through training and practice, and more importantly, our response to the arising of all desires is what we can work to optimize. We must learn to distinguish which things are worthy of pursuing, which things aren’t, what is beneficial and useful to us and others, and what is merely the product societal or cultural influence that could be detrimental to our wellbeing. While our desires are spontaneously produced by the neural network that drives our nervous system in ways in which it believes are optimal for the organism, many times these urges are contradictory to our consciously conceived values, and in such cases, we must direct our gaze towards the things that are consciously considered as meaningful to us, and react to unwholesome desires, states of mind, and in general, those things which do not promote the wellbeing of us and of the sentient beings in our expanding circle of influence. While we cannot escape desire, we can recognize its place in creating the suffering which marks our existence. In its recognition, we can work to optimize the desire system, to make our desires range of interest less, and point in directions which we wisely intuit as being more meaningful to us. It is in the practice of present moment awareness that we can recognize our desires arising, the content and object they wish to pursue, and in being aware of the desire, discriminate whether or not it would be in our best interest to pursue such content. In remaining equanimous, and not spontaneously reacting to the content that arises, we can better direct our lives and our mental state to a place which we potentially contain, that marked by wellbeing, virtue, or whatever value you have uncovered as being important to you.

The insight of impermanence is recognized through the Buddhist practice as pervading all conditioned phenomena. It doesn’t take much looking to realize that all phenomena are conditioned, or determined on prior causes, that due to certain conditions, every phenomena arises, and if those conditions were not present, then that phenomena wouldn’t ever manifest itself. That being said, all phenomena in the present moment, necessarily is the cause or condition for further phenomena. Nothing stays the same, no matter how much the illusion of permanence appears to us to be real. The flux of existence, and of our mental content, is easily recognized if we pay sufficient attention to the content of our experience. The next moment holds new content, and the previous moment’s content slips way. Anything that appears to be, is merely arising now, and fading away now. Nothing ever lasts. As time moves, our consciousness moves, and the content within it, changes. The recognition of this fundamental mark of existence has implications that are vast, a few of which I’ll name here. For one, once we recognize that all phenomena are impermanent, we simultaneously realize that not only is no mode of being, or state of consciousness, is worth attempting to hold on to, but that it is impossible to hold on to. As in mental formations, so too in material. Modern physics clearly demonstrates this to us, that matter is always undergoing constant transformation, and as we necessarily are that matter, which appears to us as being that experience of Being which is consciousness, “we” too are constantly undergoing change. If we see that experience is transient by its inherent nature, in the same way that the natural world is, we not only can recognize there is no inherent difference between the two, that they are one in the same, but we can extrapolate this insight into practical matters in how our lives are conducted. When we enter into a negative, unwholesome, or undesired state of mind that we are naturally averse to, we must not complain, be averse to it, or falsely believe it will last forever. It is not permanent, it will change, and the conditions for its change are available to us dependent on the amount of experience we have in dealing with the causal nature that conditions experience. If we are in a positive state of mind, we too need to accept with pure equanimity that it too will not last, so when it fades, and it will, we will not be disheartened by the change in the mode of being, and the experience that it produces. If we are able to see all states of mind, all emotions, all thoughts, experiences in this manner, through the lens of impermanence, we better are able to remain equanimous, and undisturbed in peace of mind regardless of the content of our experience. This doesn’t mean we don’t care, or don’t experience emotions, or don’t have a full experience of life, to the contrary, not only are we better able to experience life (through greater ability to be mindful) but we are better able to deal with both the ups and down of temporal life, we are better able to navigate the psychological landscape, as we can recognize its transient nature, and respond in better ways which produce more wholesome, beneficial, and useful experiences, through greater penetration into the insight of what is causing change, and the effect of such content.

The third mark of existence is that of non-self, which can be tied causally and into the same world view, as the previous two. The three naturally exist within the same world, and like the other two, the truth of non-self supports their existence, as well as is available to us to experientially realize ourselves. The non-self doctrine is a bit tricky to intuit without sufficient practice in mindfulness, as we all act under the presupposition that we are “this being” which we use language to distinguish as ourselves, and which we point out others, all as being individuals. Our language and intuitions in this regard are useful in a conventional and practical sense, but they do ultimately hinder us in understanding the nature of our own mind. When Buddha taught non-self, it directly contradicted the Hindu notion of Self, and what he meant by it isn’t that there aren’t people, it isn’t a doctrine of non-personhood. There are beings, with which we mentally categorize as individuals, and that doesn’t change. What he points to is the feeling that there is a concrete, unchanging, controller of our own conscious experience. The intuition that “we” or “I’m” the driving force of my own experience, that “I” as an entity, command the next content of consciousness into existence, is the illusion which the Buddha rightly points out is an illusion, to which we all can realize. I hope this language is intuitable for the content it represents! As pointed out before, the content of experience is merely arising in consciousness, “we”, or, who we think we are – a self – is not directing the next content of experience to arise, nor are we directing the next thought to arise, or the next words which come out of our mouth, or the next actions we undertake. These things merely are happening. This doesn’t mean that as an organism we don’t have choices, and it doesn’t mean that the experience of consciousness doesn’t exist, it just means that there is no center to this Being commanding it. The Buddha points out that what we really are is the aggregation of five principle classificatory groups, which can be used to further distinguish who we actually are. When I say we, or you, or I, it isn’t meant in this ultimate, fundamental sense, but in a practical sense in which language as we know it differentiates people. The five aggregates are those of perception, name and form, feeling, mental formations, and consciousness. All experience is differentiated into these categories by the Buddha, and none of them, by themselves, constitues who we are. In other words, “we” are not our thoughts, nor our perceptions, nor the concepts and identifications we give to objects, nor are we the habits our survival organism acquires, nor are we the awareness that is able to witness the content of experience, and it seems to make sense that people don’t necessarily identify with any of these phenomena. Any search into a single factor of defining “who we are” will result in us deciding that, “no I am not that”, on all accounts, and a generalization of the Self residing within all experience, or the source form which all experience originates, also points to a lack of control and permanence, as we don’t choose the content “supposedly” stemming from this “Self”, leading us to believe that we too, “are not that”. As we don’t choose the content to arise, and there is a multitude of content and type of content arising into consciousness, we cannot pin the self down to any one of them, nor to the totality of them. There is nothing concrete, that is permanent, carrying over from moment to moment, as we initially intuited before introspection. What we are, is our experience, made up of the aggregations of very different content, and it is constantly changing, meaning we are constantly changing, and therefore, there is no permanent self carried over from moment to moment. There is no controller, there is no Being – which we think we are – directing the show, there merely is the show, and it is marked by these three fundamental truths, that experience is driven by desire and the unsatisfactory nature which underlies all content, that the content is impermanent and constantly subject to change, and that it arises from subsystems, it arises in the present moment, and is not directed to arise.

That being said, our thoughts can and frequently do proceed actions, and the conscious recognition of wholesome values does influence our actions, this makes us able to make choices and decisions, and to form better or worse responses to novel situations in which we find ourselves in. The non-self doctrine doesn’t bar us from making choices, it just helps us notice that on an ultimate level, these choices are not made by ourselves, that they are conditioned and thus determined by prior causes. This recognition and insight allows us to better pursue the things we value, as we better come to understand the preconditions for the arising of phenomena that we desire to arise, and with more experience, and greater knowledge, we become better able to navigate life.

Ego Management

On November 13, 2017June 4, 2020 By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment

The ego is a conceptualization of ourselves that takes place in the form of a story, and is manifest in many aspects of our existence. We continually are articulating this story of who we are, to ourselves, and this development can possibly create not only dissonance between what we perceive to be who we are, who we actually are, and what others perceive us as being. The danger lies in clinging to this self narrative to strongly, or in a characterization of ourselves. In either case, we are bound to be disappointed, and this is the source of much of our anger and frustration. In the case where another makes a statement that contradicts our ego, we feel attacked, as the narrative of which we attribute to ourselves is not being recognized by others. This being-with-others, or mode of being which we inhabit in the presence of others, becomes modified by adverse reactions to this kind of criticism, as who we are goes under scrutiny. Could it be that we are not who we think we are? Could it be that the other person is ignorant of our true nature? How dare they give a contrary explanation to the being which I am? These are the necessary effects of an ego attack, and often times the individual will go on the defensive, attempting to instantiate in the mind of others the same narrative of which they created for themselves. How do we navigate these waters? What is the correct relationship we should have towards that part of our psyche which is the ego? Is it removable? Or just manageable?

It necessarily goes to say that a well-integrated psyche will contain a healthy ego. What constitutes a healthy ego is a narrative which goes hand in hand with the truth, to a greater degree than otherwise. There is no way we can possibly symbolize using words the exact experience of our lives, as that, literally, would take more than a lifetime. But it is possible, to a greater or lesser extent, that the narrative can be representative in a way which doesn’t contain any falsehood. This is a necessary step to a healthy ego. Secondly, we ought to understand how our narrative of self-hood is modified by the reaction we have to others inputs that seemingly attempt to undermine our own understanding of ourselves. These criticisms, in a healthy psyche, should be looked at as something we can learn from, not that we accept them as infallible, but accept the truth that the persona which we give off is interpreted in a certain way. Whether that is positive or negative, we must distinguish, and how we navigate that, and the importance we place on other’s opinions, is something we must individually decide based on the value the source has to us. I think the optimal way of dealing with such ego attacks, marked by a manifestation of emotional anger or irritability in response to someone else’s depiction of us, is to not be initially reacted upon. The spontaneous reaction and defense of our narrative, should not be our initial response to such claims, as that would impose a rectifying narrative, or unwarranted emotional repercussions, that could be avoided by a disciplined and patient temperament. Rather, an introspective look as to why and how such an interpretation could be made of us, as well as a look into how our actions could have portrayed such an image, as well as a comparison between who we actually are in relation to the claims made, all should be considered in order to make a measured honest response. We should always go into conversations with the intent of being able to learn something from the other person, in the case of ego claims, if what the person intuits isn’t actually representative of our nature, then we can learn at least that someone else interprets our character in a certain light, and discover why that is so. If it is contrary to our true intentions, in the interpretation of our actions, then we must seek to better clarify ourselves so the person isn’t guided by misinterpretation into who we are. This isn’t merely an egotistical defense, but rather an attempt to enlighten the other on something they understood as contrary to our motives, or simply to enlighten them on the context or rationale which they didn’t previous have present-at-hand. In other cases, the contrary opinion may actually tell something about ourselves we weren’t able to see, as we only have our own perspective to work from, it may serve as uncovering something which is altogether hidden up to this point from our own perspective.

Additionally, it is entirely possible that we may have misinterpreted the others conceptualization of ourselves wrong. While it seems obvious that either our narrative, or theirs, is either in alignment, or is wrong, it is additionally possible that the other person might not be misunderstanding our motives, but we may be misinterpreting the perceived ego attack as being contrary to our own narrative, when, if we ask for further clarification, it could be in alignment, we just misinterpreted their judgment upon us. The key, in general, in managing the ego, is to accept the narrative which we apply to ourselves as it truly is, as being fallible. It merely is our own conception of ourselves, from our own point of view, based on memories that often are faulty, based on self propagated stories which become farther away from us as time passes, and the stories become modified by each iteration of self editing which we necessarily compose.

The ability to grow, and to respond wisely to attacks upon our ego, is a mark of a well-integrated psyche. To remain equanimous, and not respond out of the manifested anger that arises out of a malevolent, or otherwise informative comment about the nature of our being, should be paramount. Responding out of anger, or defensiveness, in seeing our ego as permanent, as fixed by ourselves an infallible, we bar the doors to greater understanding of ourselves, and inhibit the truth from arising to the surface. Thus we should look at these moments of emotional turmoil in response to attacks upon our ego as opportunities to grow, to overcome, and if the claims are unsubstantiated, as a chance to respond with virtue and tranquility and to better the understanding of the other person. To allow the ego to be fed, in claims witch bolster it to heights undeserved, is another factor on the opposite side of the spectrum which we should guard against. As in the cases in which others undermine our character, we should guard ourselves against both our own fallibility as well as our own unwarranted acceptance of such statements, we should likewise not seek pleasure in the overstatement of our character, or the puffing up of content which is not in correct relation to the actuality of our being. While it feels good to be over appreciated, and we feel tempted to agree to content received in such a manner, this too can create a false narrative of ourselves, and this is something we should guard against, that is, if we value the truth more than pleasure. If pleasure is the motive, and vice is rampant in our lives, then we would seek to deceive and impose a greater image of ourselves onto the minds of others for their admiration, yet, if the goal is to be virtuous and truthful, as it ought to be, an accurate representation ought to be desired both in our own self-view, and in the view of others.

There are many relationships we have in which a correct view of ourselves is desired in the other person, and to them, we owe it to give them the truth, for what is love if what is loved is not truly who we are? Why would an honest man want recognition as being someone he’s not? We should strive to be given our fair due, and to allow others to view ourselves as we truly are. Effort put forth in understanding ourselves, by input from the outside world, and through introspection, is thus invaluable in correctly and healthily integrating the ego into the totality of our psyche. If we wish to grow in knowledge, and avoid deception, it starts in an honest depiction of ourselves, at least one not founded on lies, and expands from there. The ego can be troubling, it can cause us to experience unpleasant emotion, and in reaction to such emotion, we can act in ways which we may later regret. The correct integration of it, and response to its manifested emotion, better serves us to navigate our lives. If we can better handle the emotion as well as the spontaneous reaction, we can have a better relationship with those who are important to us, to the outside world in general, and more importantly, to ourselves.

Seek Truth

Author: Chris Shuttleworth