UNBURDENED SEARCH

June 13th, 2020

What is the obstacle when trying to figure something out?  Is it different each time?  Does it depend on the context?  Or is there something subtle and pervasive that unifies all of these situations?

Much of what it means to be human has to do with figuring out how to get out of our own way.  So much progress is working through frustration with the self, but what exactly is the obstacle here?

Neuroscience would suggest that it has to do with the default mode network.  This is a set of regions in the brain that are always on except for unusual circumstances.  This network is the neurological basis for the self in terms of autobiographical information, self reference and one’s emotions.  In addition it handles the operation when we think of others and the past and any future plans.

Indeed, it seems to handle quite a lot, but all of this can be roughly grouped.  It all has to do with memory to some degree.  Everything it handles is based on what we’ve learned or experienced in the past.  Plans about the future even fit into this category, since such plans are primarily remembered plans.  Surely these statements about the DMN are pretty general, but it’s clear that the Default Mode Network is missing a huge component of our experience, and that is, the experience itself: the present moment.

What’s even more interesting is that when people are in a ‘flow’ state, the default mode network isn’t as activated as it usually is.  It’s influence is markedly less.  In addition to this, there are factions, primarily the military that have been developing techniques for deep brain stimulation that help a person enter a flow state on command.  Such cranial stimulation also decreases the activation of the default mode network.  Psychedelic drugs, meditation, and even exercise also toggle the activation of the default mode network, pulling back its influence on our experience.

While our understanding of the neurology here is still in its infancy, it seems that we experience the present moment with a bit more clarity, fluidity and effectiveness when the default mode network plays less of a role – when it’s out of our way.

Returning to those moments when there is an obstacle in our way while trying to figure something out, we can wonder if it isn’t something like this default mode network. 

We can phrase the conundrum a bit differently to get at it.

Let’s say that you’ve been trying to solve one particular problem for a few hours.  You’ve tried dozens of ideas that you’ve come up with along the way, but none of them have worked.  How does a person generally feel after this sort of slog?  Many people would be ready to call it quits, exhausted by the ordeal.  But why?  Where does the exhaustion come from?

What if we were able to remove the memory of those attempts?  Dozens of failures suddenly erased from the mind.  How would we look at the problem still at hand?  How would we feel about it?  Would we still feel the same mental exhaustion if we couldn’t actually remember the frustrating slog that’s gone nowhere?

It might be that the default mode network, or which ever part of the brain it may be, is bogging us down with such memory.

How much of our life is clogged up from moving forward, not because of some ever present inability, but merely because of memories that weigh us down and keep us tethered like anchors lodged in the past?

Wonder now for a moment about children, and how quickly they can learn.  Certainly their brains are functioning quite differently compared to an adult because of it’s development, but could another aspect of their learning be aided by the fact that they simply don’t have much memory of failure?

Could it be that the present moment, in terms of stimulation and sheer information still outweighs the influence of memory?

What if you could forget all sense of frustration, hardship and failure?  Would your ability to move forward increase?  Our ability to figure something out, to learn, this is the skill of discovery.  It rides on our ability to wander through the landscape of a problem, reimagining it over and over, and by doing so forgetting how we were thinking of it yesterday or the day before.  To look at something with fresh eyes requires an ability to forget how we used to see it.

Play is discovery unburdened by memory.

THRESHOLD OF CONVERSATION

June 12th, 2020

This episode is dedicated to an anonymous writer who operates the Twitter handle @D_InActivist, who was kind to send in some writing on the topic at hand.  Several questions that appear here were posed by this person.

Violence begins when conversation ends.  They are both tools we use with those with whom we disagree, and for those with the available strength, violence is far easier to use than conversation.  When conversation is cut off by the induction of violence, a critical threshold is passed, one which radically changes the context.  Violence and conversation are not tools that exist in the same toolkit, they are methods that exist in wholly different universes.

We think conquering an enemy is an act of brute force, of domination.  And this can seem to work in the short term.  But all it does is create more of an enemy, with more of a cause, more fuel, more reason, and more drive.  If you want to conquer an enemy once and for all, the only two choices are represented by conversation and violence taken to an extreme: either we make a friend of an enemy or we entertain the twisted logic of total annihilation.

This later option of annihilation, which has been foolishly attempted many times throughout human history boils down to a self-immolation.  The differences that have been stated and used to separate ourselves have been superficial to the point of being boring.  We are, at the end of the day, a living permutation of matter that is capable of talking, of forming conversation that captures facets of existence.  Even the most laughably wrong perspective is still more valuable than no perspectives, and perspectives are made most valuable in concert with other perspectives.  To labor for the annihilation of perspectives is to make war against conversation itself – the one superpower humans have achieved, and so far as we know, this is the only instance in existence where such a thing has occurred.  The annihilation of anyone is a mark against the entire endeavor that it seems we’ve been lucky enough to embark upon.

On the other hand, we are presented with the option of continuing the conversation, expanding it, and quite literally getting into the mind of our enemy.  Persuasion is not something that happens in our own mind, it is something that occurs in the mind of our companion in dialogue, and the only way to make such a thing happen is to first get familiar with the territory.

Lately, however, the tools of conversation have veered into strange and fragile territory.  The qualifications for what designates enmity have expanded, and the trend seems to be yearning towards violence itself, manifesting as the ease with which people get offended.

A person’s ability to be offended is not the basis for a sound argument.  It never should be, and in fact, we are best served by regarding our own sense of offense with deep suspicion and pause.  Who doesn’t have countless memories from their past that detail just how poorly emotions can steer our actions when those emotions are running hot?  Is this not the greatest and deepest source of regret?  We rarely if ever regret an action that we considered deeply and thoughtfully before taking.  It’s almost always the rash action, undertaken while intoxicated with some emotion that we think back on with embarrassment.

And what else is taking offense if not an emotional reaction?  The word offense has a troubling set of roots.  It comes from the Latin offensus meaning merely ‘annoyance’, but it also based on another Latin word, offendere, which means ‘strike against’.  These two roots contain a critical difference.  They might as well exist in different dimensions.  Being annoyed is worlds away from physical violence.  And yet, for whatever fragile reason, our culture has sought to close the gap between these two concepts.  For many, taking offense to something is expressed with such vehemence, you’d think the person had been physically harmed.  Doubtless there are those who would take offense even to that statement.  But a question emerges for such offended people:

 Do not such easily bruised sensibilities usurp importance from instances of true harm?

And further, what does it say about a person if they are rendered frenetic and hyperemotional at the slightest conceptual discomfort?  That’s all it is - before things leap into the dimension of violence - it’s just conceptual discomfort.  We are being asked to engage with a concept that doesn’t fit too well into how we prefer to make sense of the world.  It’s an abstract discomfort.  In some sense, we can argue that it’s not even real, because both our way of making sense of the world, and the uncomfortable concept we’ve encountered – both of these might be totally inaccurate when placed against the true nature of reality.

If the stoics have one comment to add to society, it would be that almost all of our pain and discomfort is imagined, and ultimately something we make a choice to entertain.  Regardless of how conscious or unconscious we are during that choice.

It takes very little reading of history to realize that one of our truly greatest accomplishments is to hand over a monopoly on violence to the state.  This by no means implies that monopoly on violence is maintained with any kind of perfection – that’s simply impossible, but it’s a spectacular improvement when the alternative is to entertain the possibility of living without conversation, in a place and time when words cease to have meaning, and order is determined not by good ideas and the pursuit of better outcomes, but by a brutal set of physical facts regarding strength that is no longer tempered by thoughtful consideration.

Here is a truly fascinating question:

Could friction be reduced in society by directing people to collectively and consciously raise their bar for what signifies ‘enmity’?

The answer is absolutely.  Our bar for what signifies enmity has drifted ever downward, conflating imagined conceptual discomfort with that other dimension of harm initiated by violence.

The fact is everything right up to the first instance of violence is a conversation.  But many of us treat and receive words as though they are grenades.  The leap to violence occurs when a person no longer sees language as an effective resource.  Now does this say more about the resource or the person who doesn’t know how to use it effectively?

As Isaac Asimov once wrote:

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

The main incompetency to which this refers is language.  What little violence accomplishes, language accomplishes quit literally, everything else.

Another valid question which arises is the issue of violence presented by something that is simply not capable of conversation, be it an animal or a rare pathology among people.

Now arises the issue of how to use force?  Is violence a blanket concept with no gradations of nuance?  Perhaps, but strength, and the use of force certainly is susceptible to the knife of nuance.  The state monopoly on violence and force is an example of this.  The average experience of physical violence is drastically different when it is centralized in this way.  Violent crime has been trending downwards for decades, and certainly centuries and millenia, despite what recent events might inspire us to think.  Surely there are those who wish to live in a world that is totally devoid of physical force and even the possibility of it, but this is a fantasy irreconcilable with reality.  The question emerges, as it has always waited: exactly how are we going to choose to live with the ever present possibility of physical force?  The monopoly of violence as centralized with the state presents one possibility which certainly seems superior to much of our history.

Another comes from the Bible.  In the Gospel of Mathew it is stated:

Blessed are the meek,

for they shall inherit the earth.

At first reading this quote seems somewhat, well, pathetic.  The word ‘meek’ evokes an image of frail cowardliness.  But the English word ‘meek’ is a very poor translation.  A theologian by the name James Strong analyzed this word.  It is translated from the Greek word praus (πραεῖς) which has no easy equivalent in English.  James Strong explained the meaning for the word as “strength under control”.  We might imagine the powerful jaws of a lion lightly clasping it’s cub to move it.  The lion’s act of moving it’s cub here would be an instance of being ‘meek’ as it was originally intended.

The beatitude from the Gospel of Mark implies what Asimov later identifies: true strength is exhibited not upon others, but over one’s self, especially when it comes to those capable of great harm, but equally versed in this self control.  This dual strength is asymmetric.  It is like the warrior who prefers to garden as opposed to the gardener who suddenly finds themselves in a war and totally unprepared. 

Being strong enough not to use one’s strength is the key to our future.

EMBRYO

June 11th, 2020

What is the character of passion?  What are its mechanics?  How does it start?  Does it grow?  Does it ebb and flow? Does passion ever die?

We tend to think of passion like talent, or beginner’s luck.  It’s something that somehow seems fully formed from the start, as though it’s something your born with.  Much the same way talent is regarded.  This is a lazy farce.  It’s a story we tell ourselves to let ourselves off the hook.  The story allows us to believe that if we aren’t gripped by incredible feelings to pursue some specific goal, then we simply don’t have a passion, or that talent.  We have trained ourselves to expect things prepackaged, but nothing emerges fully formed, and what seems to just has the illusion of such.

A butterfly might seem fully formed when it breaks out of its chrysalis, but this is only after a huge transformation, and entire different life as a caterpillar in preparation for the change.  Even more noteworthy is how radically different a butterfly looks when compared to it’s former caterpillar form, the two could not be more different.  One has giant beautiful wings, and the other is fat and furry.

Perhaps, this analogy of the butterfly can inform our question about passion: what if the birth of passion, and it’s early stages look nothing like the final form?

Take for instance something more common, like running, or riding a bike.  Many people find these activities very enjoyable and even rely on such activities for feelings of wellbeing.  Such activities need not be passions, but we can still likewise ask: did such activities start out so enjoyable?

No, definitely not.  We all struggled to stand, and probably every last one of us cried after falling when trying to take our first steps.  Likewise with riding a bike.  Most of us, when the training wheels were taken off, had a spill here and there that left us crying and confused.

All skills and talents we might pursue start like this.  The little kid looking sideways at their own bad drawing is just as easily driven by a sense of frustration that it’s not better as by the enjoyment of actually putting pencil or paintbrush to paper.  Learning, by default, is a confusing and anxious experience that puts us in intimate proximity with our own insecure limits.  Before we’ve gained any competency, we are at the mercy of feeling inadequate.

It’s only long after competency is established does a skill sharpen to a point where other people begin to notice something special, extra-ordinary, and worthy of being referred to as a talent, or a passion.

The embryo of passion is like anything else we’ve learned to do: it’s an experience of difficulty and confusion.  The beginning stages of passion lack all the flare and color that we associate with the accomplishments of people who we deem talented. What we see is only the compounded value of so many hours and days and years of practice and work.

All of us have latent passions: skills and goals, hobbies and  projects that we just don’t work on enough.  Such things only move forward when we actually put our attention to them on a consistent daily basis.  Otherwise, they can remain embryos while life passes us by.

ONE THING

June 10th, 2020

Some days just get written off.  All our plans somehow fall apart, motivation is nowhere to be found, and an entire slew of nothing seems to crop up for us to deal with.  The day passes without much to show for.  Sometimes, this can be nice, enjoyable.  A day off from life. 

But otherwise, the end of the day can arrive with the feeling that it was all a waste, as though the responsibility of actually getting a day to start with has been squandered, and we’ve failed to live up to the chance we’ve been given.

It’s for this reason, for those days, that it’s good to have just one thing that must happen everyday.  Something productive and creative.  Something probably low stakes, something that no one else might ever see, but something that must be done before we close our eyes for that short death between days.

This might be meditating, or a workout, or writing, or coding, or painting, or any number of things.

Imagine the day is like a good friend.  While it’s nice to go all out to show your appreciation for a friend, with the dinner at the fancy restaurant, or the meticulously planned party, we can honor a loved one by the smallest of gestures. 

The day we are granted each time we open our eyes is much the same.  After hours of defeat, the day can still be won by one tiny victory.

EXHAUSTIVE ITERATION

June 9th, 2020

Learning in the absence of fun, passion and proficiency always boils down to an endurance test against frustration and emotional exhaustion.

When we are proficient at a skill, it’s much easier to have fun, and with enough time, the fun of practice turns proficiency into mastery and mastery turns a skill into a passion.

But in the beginning, before proficiency and fun, we are left with a brute force approach.  Trying whatever combinations and iterations we can imagine and plugging those ideas into reality and waiting for something to light up.  As each attempt fails to provoke even the sputter of a spark, the silent feedback from reality grinds on our emotions.  Each impotent attempt adds to a building frustration, and exhaustion.  All the while, we are inching closer to an answer, to a spark when we find a spot where reality is ticklish.

Our success depends on which threshold is breached first. 

Does out exhaustion spill over into a complete abandonment of the task?

Or does the number of iterative attempts needed to find some hint of success run out first?

True failure is determined only by the moment when we stop trying.  It’s a bit like patience in that regard.

Staving off exhaustion and increasing endurance is a skill that can be built.  Similar to exercise.  The first job after years without exercise is going to be painful, but 6 months of daily running is going to make the event far easier to endure – indeed by that point, we’re far beyond frustrationg and exhaustion, proficiency is giving way to enjoyment.  But that first run will most likely leave an individual huffing and puffing with their hands on their knees after just a few minutes.

We hear this all the time: just keep going, you’ll figure it out.  And while it may be good advice, it focuses on the wrong thing: it’s still referencing something imaginary that we haven’t yet encountered, and it says nothing about that which we are dealing with: namely the emotional experience, the frustration, the exhaustion, the hopelessness that fruitless actions imbue us with. 

Perhaps, instead of trying to keep the eye on the prize, that is, an invisible prize, perhaps the experience is an opportunity to renegotiate our own personal response to such situations.  Instead of powering through the exhaustion and frustration and trying to ignore it all the while, perhaps we can examine the exhaustion and frustration itself.  What if we pause and simply recognize: there are emotions here that are ballooning and gaining strength over me.  Merely recognizing an emotion consciously, with thoughtfulness, is often enough to deflate our intoxication with it.

Realize how much more powerful this strategy could be.  It would be like going for that first run and managing lactic acid and shortness of breath with the power of mere thought alone.  If we can regulate the emotions of frustration and exhaustion, then our minds are free to tinker with a topic for as long as we can stay awake.

The solution is always out there, it’s rarely a question smarts or talent, such things are often just excuses people use when really the issue is people’s own emotions, and how these emotions get in their way.  It’s how we get in our own way.  We need not fight ourselves in order to move forward.  Better to let that frustrated, exhausted part have it’s say, with full attention, and then move forward as one.