How to handle the unknown

[Stigweard]

I initially posted this over in Critical Thinking and Creativity:

 

---------------------------

 

This is an interesting discussion. I would like to share my thoughts mainly to flesh out my own understanding (to which I welcome comments).

 

To me this discussion revolves around the opening concepts in Ch1 of Laozi:

 

Critical thinking = You ming 有名 = to have name = the known

Creative thinking = Wu ming 無名 = no name = the unknown

 

I would like to use two aspects of my own training to highlight my current understanding, namely shamanic practices and taijiquan.

 

Firstly, let us imagine You ming / the known is an island in the midst of infinite ocean of Wu ming / the unknown. The clear and defined landscape on the island of the known is everything that we can conceptual quantify and describe (hence “to have name”). Conversely the featureless expanse of the ocean of the unknown is all that which is beyond current capacity to quantify or describe (hence “no name” or “mystery”).

 

 

Keeping in mind of course that this is just a model and, though it may point the mind in the direction of the truth, I acknowledge that the “truth” is infinitely more subtle than this.

 

Now the simple reality is that our fixations to our descriptions both of our self and our world means that we are, for the most part, very much bound and confined to Critical thinking = You ming 有名 = to have name = the known ... or in the analogy above, to our island of the known.

 

If we were completely bound to do only what is within the realm of the known then there would be no progress, no innovation, and no change in the human experience. We could only do what we have always done before.

 

The reality shows however that humanity does make change and progress and this happens by people venturing beyond contemporary convention and into the unknown … into the mystery of potentiality. This ability to perceive new possibilities beyond what is currently known is often called creative thinking or imagination.

 

Speaking from the point of view of Shamanic pathworking, it is the predilection of the shaman to deliberately breach the confines of the known and journey into the mysterious unknown. Here they will gain new knowledge through the direct experience of perception interacting with universal emanations that lie outside the “known” range of perception, often called “seeing” … in Daoism I have heard this referred to as the “Eye of Dao”.

 

However, for this new knowledge to have practical worth in the world of the known it must be “translated” back into conceptual descriptives consistent with the framework of the known. At its subtle level this knowledge exists as “knowingness” and then, as it becomes more conceptualized, it becomes apparent first as a feeling, then as symbolic imagery and then as descriptive words.

 

In other words we voyage into the unknown to gain new knowledge but we use the known as a reference point to give that knowledge practical worth in “the real world”.

 

Referencing shamanism once again, most commonly the shaman would translate this new-found knowledge into an artistic expression like dance, song, art, chant, or even a poem. If required the shaman may further consolidate the knowledge into specific instruction. Great care must be taken here because the more this knowingness is conceptualized the further its original context may be distorted (aka “the Dao that can be named is not the eternal Dao”).

 

Now in terms of my Taiji practice, I believe one of the deepest levels you can achieve is when you can practice free-form Taiji … but I will follow this quickly in saying that you must have a very good foundation of understanding the fundamentals. These fundamentals become the “known” that you can return to and that gives practical worth to the “unknown,” non-conceptualized free-form movement.

 

It is my belief and understanding that Taiji movement actually arose out of the journeys into the unknown made by the ancient forefathers of Taijiquan. Their knowingness of Dao was expressed as this natural way of movement.

 

And so the forms and principles of Taiji become our “launching pad” into the unknown, it becomes our portal to experience our own “knowingness” of Dao. And here the Taiji practitioner is given the opportunity to create their own dance and articulate their creativity into new conceptual frameworks (it is my somewhat controversial belief that the best of Taijiquan is yet to be discovered).

 

And so “you ming 有名/the known/critical thinking” and “wu ming 無名/the unknown/creative thinking,” though they seem to be polarity aspects to each other, are in fact synergistic and codependent elements of human perception, awareness and consciousness.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Stigweard

[Stigweard]

Marblehead responded:

 

Very nicely presented Stig.

 

I actually agree with the entire presentation.

 

The only thing I will say is that we should be cautious when venturing into the unknown to make sure that what we are observing is real and not just a figment of our imagination (a desire to have more than what truely exists).

[Stigweard]

aridus responded:

 

Handling unknown? We don't.

 

We guess, and estimate. We can handle known possibilities by using past experiences, but other wise, if unknown, what are you handling?

 

We make our best guess, and when something comes to be known, we find out how good the guess was. I don't think it can work the other way around.

[Stigweard]

I'd like to continue the discussion...

 

@ Marblehead...

 

The process of human progression via forays into the unknown are very much the same as evolution via genetic mutation. Random offshoots will occur, but if these mutations lack in substance and fortitude then they will quickly die off.

 

But the only way for these mutations to explore the full length of their potential is for "caution" to be abandoned and full commitment made. In this sense I say, "Imagine boldly and freely!"

 

However, as in the analogy I have given above, for any mutation to have practical worth it must find context within the contemporary paradigm of "normality".

 

Another slant on this is that the known is like a pathway to a cliffs edge over the abyss of the unknown. Sure we must take inventory of every detail of every step leading to the edge. But once we get there there is naught to do but JUMP!

 

 

@ aridus You are right, we can't control the unknown. When I say "handling the unknown" I am more saying "how do we handle ourselves in the face of the unknown?"

 

For example, when encountering the unknown most people will react in a number of ways.

 

Some will believe they know the truth of what happened immediately.

 

Some will deny it ever happened.

 

Some will get obsessed with questions.

 

However, my view is that the "right" way to handle the unknown is to neither believe nor disbelieve. This is founded on the view that the universe is infinitely more mysterious than I could possibly imagine. So what I "believe" to be the truth is only a sliver of the multi-spectrumed reality of what is.

 

Now let's say, for example, I have an incredible vision whilst meditating. If I straight away say, "This is what it means" then I could limit myself to further understanding. If I write it off as "just a figment of my imagination" I could likewise miss the knowledge it carries. If I get obsessed with questioning every part of it I would just break it apart into so many conceptualized components that the holistic meaning is also lost.

 

So my attitude is to accept the face value of a mysterious occurrence by saying, "That's interesting", but then to ignore the face value, acting as if one is in complete control, to allow the flow of knowledge and perception to run it's full course so that the whole experience is absorbed.

 

[宁]

Stig, seems you mixed-up the two Chinese characters, 'you' and 'wu' repeatedly.

[aridus]

However, my view is that the "right" way to handle the unknown is to neither believe nor disbelieve. This is founded on the view that the universe is infinitely more mysterious than I could possibly imagine. So what I "believe" to be the truth is only a sliver of the multi-spectrumed reality of what is.

 

Now let's say, for example, I have an incredible vision whilst meditating. If I straight away say, "This is what it means" then I could limit myself to further understanding. If I write it off as "just a figment of my imagination" I could likewise miss the knowledge it carries. If I get obsessed with questioning every part of it I would just break it apart into so many conceptualized components that the holistic meaning is also lost.

 

So my attitude is to accept the face value of a mysterious occurrence by saying, "That's interesting", but then to ignore the face value, acting as if one is in complete control, to allow the flow of knowledge and perception to run it's full course so that the whole experience is absorbed.

 

Yeah. The map is not the territory.

 

I think this applies to everything. This is what I mean by when I say "there is no 'I'" or "there is no 'reality'" I'm not saying that there literally is none, I'm saying that my map of I is not I, and my map of reality is not reality. They may come close, but I don't contest this.

 

I simply acknowledge that I have no 100% complete understanding of either. My map is not the territory, and believing it is, for me, causes problems.

[Stigweard]

Stig, seems you mixed-up the two Chinese characters, 'you' and 'wu' repeatedly.

Bahahahaha !!! You are RIGHT!!!

 

 

Corrected

[hagar]

[sean]

hmmm...

 

i know this is just a model, but when i actually look for this "island of known", i can only find more swirling sea.

 

i often operate habitually as if i know, as if there is an island.

 

but what do i absolutely incontrovertibly know to be true in this actual moment that is simply beyond even the subtlest shred of doubt or argument? where is this island?

 

for me, when i sincerely ask, nothing arises but silence decorated with what is. nothing known, nothing graspable, nothing i can articulate. this moment itself is utterly unknown.

 

sean

[Marblehead]

 

@ Marblehead...

 

The process of human progression via forays into the unknown are very much the same as evolution via genetic mutation. Random offshoots will occur, but if these mutations lack in substance and fortitude then they will quickly die off.

 

But the only way for these mutations to explore the full length of their potential is for "caution" to be abandoned and full commitment made. In this sense I say, "Imagine boldly and freely!"

 

However, as in the analogy I have given above, for any mutation to have practical worth it must find context within the contemporary paradigm of "normality".

 

Another slant on this is that the known is like a pathway to a cliffs edge over the abyss of the unknown. Sure we must take inventory of every detail of every step leading to the edge. But once we get there there is naught to do but JUMP!

 

 

Hehehe. I was pretty much with you there until that last sentence.

 

No, we have other options other than jumping. We can turn around because even though we might think that the falling would be a great thrill the knowledge that our fall will be broken via contact with earth. And I promise you - that hurts. 'Tis better, I think, to keep ones feet firmly planted on earth. What is that saying? "If God wanted us to fly he would have given us wings."

 

The Sage remained safe and secure while travelling through the forest because he was aware that there be tigers and rhinos in the forest so he avoided contact with them.

 

Yes, unsuccessful mutations die off. That's life. Successful mutations create new, more adaptable species. That too is life.

 

However, I still suggest that in the process of trying to improve ourself we should not venture into the danger zone too often because Murphy's Law will get us sooner or later.

 

While in the 'wu' state we can fly. I acknowledge this. But in the 'yo' state we cannot. We must never confuse the two states of being.

[Marblehead]

Stig, seems you mixed-up the two Chinese characters, 'you' and 'wu' repeatedly.

 

Hehehe. Sometimes he is here and sometimes he is there.

[Marblehead]

Great post,

My immediate response to your demarcation between knowledge and the unknowable is that there is no creativity or insight without taking or encompassing what is known or what we know. In the completely expanded view of pure knowing, the knowing is not conceptual, and thus unthinkable. Creativity or insight is actually more like a form of knowing that immediately on conception permeates the allready known, and thus transforming it. What we know was once created too.

 

Much like when the sunlight shines through a leaf. These two realms are not separate, but constitutes eachother on conception.

 

h

 

Great post from you too. I wish you could have expanded on this more.

 

(As Rene likes to mention, she keep one foot firmly planted in 'yo' (the Manifest) and one foot tipping around in 'wu' (the Mystery).)

 

[Yes, I did modify that a little bit in order to make my point.]

[Marblehead]

hmmm...

 

i know this is just a model, but when i actually look for this "island of known", i can only find more swirling sea.

 

i often operate habitually as if i know, as if there is an island.

 

but what do i absolutely incontrovertibly know to be true in this actual moment that is simply beyond even the subtlest shred of doubt or argument? where is this island?

 

for me, when i sincerely ask, nothing arises but silence decorated with what is. nothing known, nothing graspable, nothing i can articulate. this moment itself is utterly unknown.

 

sean

 

Hi Sean,

 

Valid observation but I think you have ignored the importance of 'yo', the physical manifest.

 

It is my understanding that we can know much of 'yo'. I know I am at this moment sitting in a chair in front of a computer making a post to this thread. No, I cannot state 'why' I am here at this very moment in time because there are too many variables that 'caused' me to be where I am at this very moment in time.

 

We can look to the stars and we can see many of them with our naked eye. But we are not seeing all the stars in the universe even though we know more exist than only those we can see.

 

When I am in meditation I might fly away to a special place in Italy and I can 'see' that special place and experience the feeling of being there but I know that I have been sitting in my recliner in my living room the whole time.

 

That is why we are told to observe and understand the knowable so that we can 'see' the unknowable.

[sean]

I know I am at this moment sitting in a chair in front of a computer making a post to this thread.

can you also see that there is only awareness cycling from, e.g., sensation of skin and chair, sight of computer screen, sense of a something called me deliberately making a post (also merely an impression), etc.

 

the statement "i am sitting in a chair", while a relatively simple, direct, and useful story for playing in this world, is actually quite a bold and questionable assertion.

 

consider, how is the distinction between known vs. what is unknown experienced?

 

iow, how do you know the difference between "what you know you know" vs. "what you know you do not know" vs. "what you are not quite sure you know or do not know"?

 

not a word game, a real inquiry.

 

is a sense of unshakable confidence = proof of known? a strong sense of logical consistency = known?

 

neither are "wrong", either can be useful, but taking a backward step, i propose these are also merely impressions and can be rather easily challenged.

 

unshakable confidence can be misguided. logical consistency can be missing a single piece of data. etc.

 

ime this path of experiential inquiry is frightening to everything attached to imaginary islands of known.

 

yet as the stories of islands erode, something unspeakable mysteriously still remains.

 

sean

[Apech]

Without wishing to interrupt this interesting discussion - just quickly - you have to understand the relationship between the island and the ocean.

[Marblehead]

Hi Sean,

 

Great response and wonderful concepts to be considered.

 

I would speak to only this at the moment:

 

is a sense of unshakable confidence = proof of known? a strong sense of logical consistency = known?

 

neither are "wrong", either can be useful, but taking a backward step, i propose these are also merely impressions and can be rather easily challenged.

 

Yes, every time I have sensed my chair being where it is and I have sat into it it has always been there. Not one time has this perception failed me. Therefore I can assume, and rightly I think, that the next time I set into it it will also remain in a physical manifestation. Therefore I can say with 100% reliability that the chair will still be in its manifest form and will support my body until something happens to destroy it. Do I know "I" am sitting in the chair? Of course I do.

 

And I know that I am typing characters on the keyboard of my computer and these characters are representing words pointing to the concept I am trying to transfer to others. This too I know.

 

Do I know what impression my words will make on someone reading this post? Of course not. That is an unknown.

 

Proof: Start with a hypothesis, test it and create a theory, test it and if it has resulted in the same result "every" time it is tested then the theory can be stated as a fact until it is proven to be not so as a result of a test that resulted in a different answer (result).

 

So I sit on the beach and I observe what I perceive what I think is an island. I get into the water and swim in the direction of what I believe to be an island. If what I perceive remains in a fixed position and I eventually beach myself on that island I can be comforable in 'knowing' that what I perceived was in fact an island and not a mirage.

 

But still, no, unshakable confidence is not proof of a known. The proof I offered above for the existance of my chair applies to me and me alone. There is no way I can 'prove to you that I know that the existance of my chair is a Known unless you physically come to my house and you attempt to sit in the very same chair I am speaking of. The best you can do is assume that I am speaking a truth. You even have the option to believe that I am actually sitting on the floor and the chair is only a figment of my imagination.

 

However, I do still hold to the concept that the less we think we know the fewer conflicts we will have in our life. But on the other hand, we need to believe that we know some things like when the burner is turned on on our range in our kitchen we should not touch the heated area because it will most likely be very hot. I just simply say that I 'know' I should not touch it. Afterall, the electricity might be off and the stovetop is still at room temperature.

 

And all this leads back to my understanding that we should observe 'yo', manifest reality, understand the processes as well as possible so that we can live a life full of many experiences and even have the opportunity to experience 'wu', the unknown, on occasion. In this way I think we will be closer to the 'truth', whatever that is, when we have these experiences instead of just filling our mind with illusions and delusions.

[Marblehead]

Without wishing to interrupt this interesting discussion - just quickly - you have to understand the relationship between the island and the ocean.

 

Very true. And we must consider the point from which we are making our observation. If you have just finished smoking a joint I suggest that you be very, very careful.

[hagar]

hmmm...

 

i know this is just a model, but when i actually look for this "island of known", i can only find more swirling sea.

 

i often operate habitually as if i know, as if there is an island.

 

but what do i absolutely incontrovertibly know to be true in this actual moment that is simply beyond even the subtlest shred of doubt or argument? where is this island?

 

for me, when i sincerely ask, nothing arises but silence decorated with what is. nothing known, nothing graspable, nothing i can articulate. this moment itself is utterly unknown.

 

sean

Agree completely. Yet it's actually comical to "agree" or "disagree", since this is beyond argumentation. We are not debating different aspects of a state of affairs.

 

There are no actual truths that are completely true. There are only things that appear to have a greater or lesser degree of certainty. Even theoretical matemathics may be defined as conventinally agreed upon.

[sean]

Yes, every time I have sensed my chair being where it is and I have sat into it it has always been there. Not one time has this perception failed me. Therefore I can assume, and rightly I think

yes, very practical and common sense view and likely crucial to operating in the world.

 

and at a more fundamental level (which i assume we are trying to investigate on a taoist forum) these are simply relatively safe assumptions based on accumulated stories.

 

is that what is meant by "known" in this topic?

 

if so, than yes there is a huge ass island of relatively safe-seeming assumptions arising at any given moment, agreed.

 

to experience beyond that kind of knowledge i can only again suggest further inquiry along the lines suggested in my previous post.

 

what is absolutely known to be true, directly, without any assumption or reference to concepts that can be argued?

 

i humbly submit the "answer" is not what you (or i) think.

 

and yet sitting in chairs will (probably) continue to function as expected, heh. there is a relative quality of continuity amidst our experience. but ime, directly realizing the groundlessness of 99.9% of what is generally assumed to be known (in the absolute sense) creates space for a stunning sense of wonder, even with "simple" things like "just sitting", otherwise sanitized of mystery via socially encouraged habits of taking concepts seriously.

 

sean

[hagar]

Great post from you too. I wish you could have expanded on this more.

 

(As Rene likes to mention, she keep one foot firmly planted in 'yo' (the Manifest) and one foot tipping around in 'wu' (the Mystery).)

 

[Yes, I did modify that a little bit in order to make my point.]

 

Its a tricky subject to tip toe into.

I just deleted a long post, and figured I don't really have anything to contribute.

We don't really know anything, but think we know to a greater or lesser degree of certainty.

Creativity is utilizing what is there in new ways. No skill no creation. The unknown is the unknown.

 

h

[Marblehead]

and at a more fundamental level (which i assume we are trying to investigate on a taoist forum) these are simply relatively safe assumptions based on accumulated stories. is that what is meant by "known" in this topic?

 

Yes, for me. (Can't speak for others.) When speaking of Taoist philosophy I will almost always be speaking from 'yo', the Manifest, the physical world that I can reach out and touch.

 

if so, than yes there is a huge ass island of relatively safe-seeming assumptions arising at any given moment, agreed.

 

to experience beyond that kind of knowledge i can only again suggest further inquiry along the lines suggested in my previous post.

 

Oh, absolutely. There is so much of the physical world that I don't even have a clue about. So many unknowns. But yet, when we look at the processes in nature and understand these processes accurately we can begin to make some fairly accurate educated guesses about other things that we really don't 'know'. And this applies pretty well to all aspects of the physical universe.

 

However, when we start taking about everything that is beyond (above?) the physical universe it gets a little more tricky. Do we actually 'know' that the processes of the physical world also apply to the non-manifest aspects of the universe? I would think we don't really know. We can hold to our inspired intuition but we can't really say that we 'know' these things even though we have experienced them. I suggest that we cannot trace these intuitively inspired thoughts back to the primal cause. Some create a god and then say that it was god who inspired us. That's cheating, IMO.

 

what is absolutely known to be true, directly, without any assumption or reference to concepts that can be argued?

 

i humbly submit the "answer" is not what you or i think.

 

and yet sitting in chairs will (probably) continue to function as expected, heh. there is a relative quality of continuity amidst our experience. but ime, directly realizing the groundlessness of 99.9% of what is generally assumed to be known (in the absolute sense) creates space for a stunning sense of wonder, even with "simple" things like "just sitting", previously sanitized of mystery via socially encouraged habits of taking concepts seriously.

 

sean

 

Absolutely true? Hehehe. I'm not going to fall for that old trick. Absolutely I know absolutely nothing. But for all practical purposes I do know quite a few things.

 

I agree, the absolute truth, if there is such an animal, is what it is regardless of what you and I think. A tree is a tree regardless of who views it (unless, of course, it is a bush, but then that's a different story).

 

And I also agree that our "knowns" as in the "Truth" with a big "T" are mostly for practical application. Most likely someone else's "knows" will vary and if so this variance would immediately reduce the "Truth" to our individual "truth", little "t".

 

Ah, "taking concepts seriously". What a subject! Likewise taking a figurative exposition as the literal "Truth".

 

In my old age I have found it much easier to say "I don't know" than I was able to do when I was younger. I knew so much more back then.

 

Eventually I suppose that in this thread we are going to have to talk about the other 96% of the universe that is not the physical universe. Science had decided to call this 96% Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Of course, they have no idea what they are talking about. We probably won't do any better.

[三江源]

Just thinking about certainty as a potential dead zone. Areas in the bodymind closed down due to being decided.

 

cul - de - sac status, or perhaps a gated community : blockage to flow.

[Otis]

Great conversation, everyone.

 

I very much like Stigweard's initial model, but I also think it needs to be tempered by Sean's caution.

 

I think Marblehead's "100%" certainty (which I think Sean appropriately down-graded to 99.9%) works pretty well for typical "reality", but it is merely saying that "some delusion is okay. Some delusion is close enough to work". IOW, the "island of the known" may be better called: "the island of acceptable delusion".

 

In particular, while exploring off the island (i.e. in the mystery), I may indeed have a sense of "knowingness" like Stig said. The real difficulty comes in translating that "knowingness" into a concept; that's when I have transgressed into delusion. That delusion may also be "close enough to work". But IME, the more concrete I try to make a squishy realization, the further off I am from the reality.

 

For example: learning to ride a bike. I get on the bike, wobble around, and have to put my foot down. It is an experience in the unknown, and I derive some "knowingness" from it. But if I try to take that experience and derive "knowledge" from that "knowingness", then it's unlikely to help me ride that bike any better. Riding a bike comes from a "knowingness" that is not reducible to concepts or "knowledge". Instead of coming up with concepts, I do better to just keep practicing, and trusting that my body is learning something that my ego (my conceptual mind) cannot.

 

And, IME, most of life is the same way. Our egos are addicted to conceptualizing experience (instead of accepting it as "mystery"), and that is why they are so subject to delusion.

 

Caveat to above: of course there are concepts that are useful to learning to ride a bike, like "take up the kick-stand first", or "face forward". However, "a little knowledge is dangerous" because beginners tend to learn the concepts first and, enamored with their knowledge, mistake them for the reality. Any kind of real mastery happens in the unknown.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

There is no part of conceptual "knowledge" that is not just a subset of "opinion".

Edited April 7, 2011 by Otis

[RiverSnake]

Good stuff. Quite cogently written.

 

-I have no major qualms with stigs perspective.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Tao Apprentice