Those who know they don't know...

[Marblehead]

Marblehead,

 

You've seen me defending materialism here. It's not because I'm certain it's true, but because it makes a lot of sense to me, and seems to be well supported by science. Since I don't know how to live without any beliefs, I'm all for finding the sensible explanation that's well supported by science. I will not, however, say: "end of the story. I'm done with doubting. That's all and no further!"

 

Yep. And you have seen me on numerous occasions state that there are no absolutes. Now really, isn't that one of the most beautiful things about life? We never know for sure what is going to happen in our next moment in time.

 

I agree, we should never say "End of story". And we should never stop questioning (not necessarily doubting). And I have said numerous times that we should test the limits of our capacities and capabilities.

 

And one of the most important reasons I am not a religious person is that religions fill us with absolutes and dogma. We need to question, to be uncertain, if you will. But to carry this to extremes is just another trick at trying to dumb down the human race.

 

Those people who have traveled to the moon were pretty certain that they would be able to return to Earth. Most things in the physical realm are relatively certain as long as we have a valid understanding of their reality. We can tack those things to the wall. But even these we cannot encase in concrete because we may have has a misunderstanding of their reality.

 

And keep in mind when I say "their reality" I am speaking to how we experience these things, not by how, after taking it all apart we try to describe what it is.

 

Our emotional and spiritual realms are a different story. Way too many variables to be able to state a standard between any two individuals.

[Marblehead]

OK, fine. But is the certainty of the chair actually useful? What is gained, by being certain about the chair? Isn't it enough to have a good relationship with the chair?

 

Of course it is useful. It eliminates the need to check it out for serviceability each time I want to sit on it. What is gained? Lots of time and non-worry. Relationship? I don't have a relationship with my chair, sorry.

 

My practice with dancing on things in the environment is precisely about letting go of the right way to use the object, the right posture and attitude toward it. Everyone knows what a fire hydrant is for, what a bulldozer does. And knowing these things, they miss the opportunity that I find, when I just approach it in a curious way.

 

But your experiences are different from most. I don't talk to my chair nor do I dance with it.

 

Nor am I doing it the right way, but at least I'm asking questions, and in so doing, I'm discovering that my biases about these items (namely, that I will get hurt by them) turns out to be a mis-apprehension. I find instead that most of the danger, comes from my fear or over-eagerness. The objects themselves are neutral, as long as I stay aware.

 

Yep. I have no fear of snakes. But I have enough respect for what one might be so that I leave the critters alone. And if one comes after me I am going to run as fast as I can. I don't have to fear my chair and there is no reason to run away from it.

 

There are snakeologists (Sorry, couldn't think of the proper title) who spend more time with snake than I do sitting on my chair. They know their snakes, which one are poisonous and which ones are not. They apply the proper care when dealing with these various snakes.

 

The first time I sit on someone else's chair I assure you I will be using caution the first time I sit on it. After I am certain it will support my weight I throw caution to the winds. When I was younger I used less caution in my life - certainty didn't even enter the picture most times. Now that I am older I prefer a bit more security.

[Birch]

I totally agree. I don't see any possible way to really see actual truth, but having multiple models, even contradictory ones, can help give a more three dimensional view of what can't be seen directly. Another good reason not to be too certain, because then other models cannot be recognized, as having validity.

 

 

OK, I'll give you this. What boats have is uprightness. They stay above water, rather than sink below it. They rarely flip upside down.

 

And that does imply, that above water is better than below it. One may lead to life, the other to death. There are things that, generally speaking, are good for us, and other things that, generally speaking, are not. It's good to have the information which points to those things. You'll get no argument from me there.

 

And I do think that uprightness is very much worth cultivating, finding our own buoyancy, our own balance, ease, and joy. And I think it's important to practice in the world, to become seaworthy. This is the yang half of the truth.

 

But I don't think that certainty is what's needed. A ship stays afloat by not insisting on a specific direction "up". In the ocean, if you try to remain rigidly vertical, you get broken. To ride the ocean, the ship needs to be able to surrender to it, skillfully. The ship can't insist that it survives the storm; it has to make its way through the storm, moment by moment, by listening to its demands. (This is the yin half).

 

When the storms of life come, what good does my certainty do? What matters is whether I've learned to ride the waves.

 

--may mess up quoting---

 

That was great Otis! I was thinking up all kinds of arguments about what "type" of certainty would allow the ship to venture out in the first place then I thought well maybe that's a dishonest argument or maybe it's not certainty at all that I'm pointing to but something else and the word "faith" popped up. But in your boat example the boat accepts the possibility of destruction but still ventures out. So what makes its venturing possible? Uncertainty? I think it might be:-) If so, it would reconcile me to it a lot more.

 

[Otis]

Yep. And you have seen me on numerous occasions state that there are no absolutes. Now really, isn't that one of the most beautiful things about life? We never know for sure what is going to happen in our next moment in time.

 

I agree, we should never say "End of story". And we should never stop questioning (not necessarily doubting). And I have said numerous times that we should test the limits of our capacities and capabilities.

 

And one of the most important reasons I am not a religious person is that religions fill us with absolutes and dogma. We need to question, to be uncertain, if you will. But to carry this to extremes is just another trick at trying to dumb down the human race.

 

Those people who have traveled to the moon were pretty certain that they would be able to return to Earth. Most things in the physical realm are relatively certain as long as we have a valid understanding of their reality. We can tack those things to the wall. But even these we cannot encase in concrete because we may have has a misunderstanding of their reality.

 

And keep in mind when I say "their reality" I am speaking to how we experience these things, not by how, after taking it all apart we try to describe what it is.

 

Our emotional and spiritual realms are a different story. Way too many variables to be able to state a standard between any two individuals.

Yes, Marblehead, I very much appreciate that you are no fan of absolutes, and that you don't get sucked-in by tempting but baseless spiritual metaphors. I know full well that you and I are not on opposite sides of this question, which, I suspect, is the reason that we are able to have this conversation. When I bring up certainty with the dogmatists on these boards, they immediately go into duck, dodge and dissemble mode. So I appreciate that I can even have this discussion with someone who will actually consider my points, rather than just reflexively dismiss them.

 

So, if you don't mind, I'll continue my explication of certainty a bit, because I think it is worthwhile. In my life, the lesson to let go of certainty has blazed a bright hot trail through the center of my journey and my beliefs. Am I certain that one shouldn't be certain? Of course not. But to me, the assertion that certainty = attachment is uncontroversial. If, as I am defining it, certainty = the insistence that something is right/not right, then that insistence is exactly attachment.

 

Regarding the moon missions, I don't think we are talking about certainty, at all, but rather, acceptable risk. Of course, in preparation for the launches, NASA scientists worked tirelessly to narrow the gap of uncertainty. But I doubt that anyone who worked on the missions would say that the outcomes were certain.

 

(This is of course, analogous to K's point, above, about ships in the ocean (or your chair). Everything is acceptable risk).

 

Isn't it entirely possible to have science without certainty (in fact, isn't it preferable)? Can't science continue to be bold exploration and theorizing, (coupled, of course, with careful experimentation, peer-review and the requirements for repeatability)? In fact, isn't the history of science about defying the orthodoxy of the day (usually enforced by the church), and pushing into the unknown?

 

Of course I don't think that a scientist should just surrender the conclusions that have been reached, whenever someone shows up with an "Intelligent Design"-type theory of their own. Of course there are valid reasons to be more convinced of one thing, than another, to have a hierarchy of plausibility. In fact, that is built into the human species, as far as I can tell.

 

The human brain is constantly looking to figure things out, especially when it is brand new. Which is great, because it means some low-level science is going on in every baby's head, exploring and testing experiential possibilities.

 

The great leap forward in human knowledge-gathering happened upon the invention of language, when things could be taught conceptually, rather than all data having to be inferred from experiences. But that leap forward also carried with it a trap.

 

From that moment forward, part of reality was no longer "what is real", but "what is said". Now concepts started to define reality, and would substitute for experience. This was great for warning others: "I saw a snake down there"! But it also started to create illusions and false constructs in the brains of people. Our society has grown further and further away from experiential education, and closer to a "reality" made up of borrowed concepts.

 

Much of conceptual "reality" is formed in the first 5 years of one's life, often by parents who most desire 1. a cocoon for their kids, and 2. obedience. Note that it is during this time in the kids' life, that many parents return to religion, after rejecting it in their youth. IMO, this is because when they were young, they sensed the need to be free of their parents' certainty, but once they have their own kids, their fear leads them back into the addiction to certainty, that religion feeds. Parents start repeating what their parents said and yes, they start voting Republican. Raising children is an exercise in mystery, and mystery drives most people back into the shallows, scrambling for safety.

 

And so, generation after generation, we pass down ridiculous ideas, like fundamentalism, consumerism, nationalism, sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. Not that certainty doesn't reflect some degree of truth, but the certainty that is applied to each -ism goes far beyond its applicability in life, into dysfunction, war, scape-goating and hatred.

 

We seekers are the ones, who, somewhere along the line, become restless, start to doubt the certainty around us, and explore in the mystery. And when we do so, we witness that the world is much bigger than we thought it was. And my question is: what happens then? After shrugging off the certainty of our parents, or our society, do we then revert back to worshiping our own certainty, that we are right? Or do we keep going? Do we then take on mystery as a way of life, discovery and exploration as the natural paths of growth?

 

Do we live in a "contracting V", with our cone of certainty keeping other possibilities out, so that we seek to have our beliefs confirmed, rather than challenged; seek to be comfortable, rather than engaged? Or do we live in an "expanding V", in which we continually surrender the "known", and joyfully dive into the mystery? To me, the rest of my life hinges on that question. Will I accept complacency, say "good enough", and live according to whatever certainty gives me solace? Or will I become even more interested in challenging myself, facing my fears, trying out new things, listening to new people, and generally going beyond my self?

 

Certainty is a trait that, as far as I can tell, only keeps me connected to my past, but which closes me to my future. But the past is done; the future is what I want to build for. So, therefore, I seek to lessen the grip that my certainty has on me, and live in mystery.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Otis

[Marblehead]

Ah!, yes, Otis. I remember those days. Hehehe.

 

But I am older now and am certain that I don't want anyone else's certainties.

 

I am certain I am still alive because I saw my doctor yesterday and he said I am.

 

Yes, I see better what you are pointing at. (I had to put on my glasses.)

 

And I really do agree with you. Remember, the Earth was once flat. If you travelled too far you would fall off the edge. Now we know we are just going round in circles when we travel.

 

Yes, you are reaching into different realms with this concept other than the physical universe. Nothing wrong with that. (As long as you remain skeptical.) Challenge the chair the first time you go to sit on it. After that accept your assessment - it is safe to sit on.

 

In the other realms though there are fewer facts on which we can base our assessments on. This can take us to asking that question "What if?" As soon as we start doing that we are open to illusions and delusions. Buyer beware!

 

And I agree that generalizing and stereotyping normally leads to negative values.

 

So yes, I will still say that it is okay to have certainties regarding the physical universe but when we start considering individual things, people, concepts, etc we should judge them according to their own individual merits and demerits. (Yes, in Taoism we are allowed to judge. That is what I do when determining if a thing is useful/useless to me.)

Edited August 6, 2011 by Marblehead

[rene]

My way is to be certain without clinging to the certainty. In this moment, I know what I know and am certain about it. In the next moment however, everything I was certain about in this moment may be different. So.. I can sit on Marblehead's chair with certainty and if I instead land on my ass on the floor that will be a new certainty, for that moment. We each have our own ways in moving from one moment to the next, yes? I like that each moment is a springtime. (-: (nod to ZZ)

 

Nice topic, Aaron; great posts, all.

 

warm regards

[Marblehead]

My way is to be certain without clinging to the certainty. In this moment, I know what I know and am certain about it. In the next moment however, everything I was certain about in this moment may be different. So.. I can sit on Marblehead's chair with certainty and if I instead land on my ass on the floor that will be a new certainty, for that moment. We each have our own ways in moving from one moment to the next, yes? I like that each moment is a springtime. (-: (nod to ZZ)

 

Nice topic, Aaron; great posts, all.

 

warm regards

 

Good to 'see' you.

 

Yeah, I think you can put trust in the stability of my chair. Hehehe.

 

What you said may be an aspect Otis is pointing at but I will let him speak for himself. (He does quite well. Hehehe.)

[Otis]

Ah!, yes, Otis. I remember those days. Hehehe.

 

But I am older now and am certain that I don't want anyone else's certainties.

 

I am certain I am still alive because I saw my doctor yesterday and he said I am.

 

Yes, I see better what you are pointing at. (I had to put on my glasses.)

 

And I really do agree with you. Remember, the Earth was once flat. If you travelled too far you would fall off the edge. Now we know we are just going round in circles when we travel.

 

Yes, you are reaching into different realms with this concept other than the physical universe. Nothing wrong with that. (As long as you remain skeptical.) Challenge the chair the first time you go to sit on it. After that accept your assessment - it is safe to sit on.

 

In the other realms though there are fewer facts on which we can base our assessments on. This can take us to asking that question "What if?" As soon as we start doing that we are open to illusions and delusions. Buyer beware!

 

And I agree that generalizing and stereotyping normally leads to negative values.

 

So yes, I will still say that it is okay to have certainties regarding the physical universe but when we start considering individual things, people, concepts, etc we should judge them according to their own individual merits and demerits. (Yes, in Taoism we are allowed to judge. That is what I do when determining if a thing is useful/useless to me.)

I agree with the buyer beware! If I don't tie my beliefs to some sort of reliable authority, like science, than I may run the risk of being duped, or fooled, by my own wishes and fears.

 

But I think that I do not need certainty, in order to stay skeptical (in fact, they seem fully opposed to each other). I don't want to blindly accept anyone else's certainties, but I also don't want to blindly accept my own.

 

For me, I am in the process of continually waking up to how much my life was being run by habit, and how much of that habit was unconscious (including the habits of consciousness and perception themselves, the mechanics of which happen out of my sight). When I first realized that my beliefs were accidents of my life, thus far, and not something that I needed to reinforce, I immediately set out to find better beliefs. But at some point, I decided to let that go. It no longer felt useful to shift my beliefs to new ones, in order to have the right ones. What was really useful was exploring in mystery, and allowing myself to grow, without my conscious control or direction. Give "my" life over to the greater organism. Accept where I am right now, including the beliefs I have, and then systematically practice not taking any of it too seriously. Let go of being a believer, and learn to be a student of immediate experience.

 

Of course, some times I want to interpret my curious new experiences, and find explanations for them. But that's an impulse I'm also learning to surrender. Stop trying so hard to figure it out, and let the experience, the practice, be enough, without a pithy lesson to go along with it.

 

-----

 

Regarding this rhetorical chair of yours, you don't need certainty for that, either. You just need to see it as an acceptable risk, like NASA does (and on a much smaller scale). But if you think about it, it is awareness of conditions that makes risk assessment accurate, not certainty. Certainty actually makes risk assessment less accurate, because it substitutes beliefs for observation.

 

And yes, it is a relationship you have with your chair. You rely on it; it is continually there for you. In a sense, life is all relating, to phenomena and objects, as well as to people. And a relationship with anything requires the willingness to listen, to not be in the know. Certainty just makes me more important than what I relate with, whereas listening gets me closer to it.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Otis

[Marblehead]

Of course, some times I want to interpret my curious new experiences, and find explanations for them. But that's an impulse I'm also learning to surrender. Stop trying so hard to figure it out, and let the experience, the practice, be enough, without a pithy lesson to go along with it.

 

I think that this is an important concept you have brought up. Shall we call it living spontaneously? Don't ask the reason why, just be. I think that maybe this is where your dance is.

[Aaron]

I think that this is an important concept you have brought up. Shall we call it living spontaneously? Don't ask the reason why, just be. I think that maybe this is where your dance is.

 

 

I agree. Very important. I think this is the first step to seeing things as they are, rather than how you think they are. When you can cease to see something as good or bad, or right or wrong and simply examine it for it's inherent qualities, then you can see through it and in seeing through it understand where it comes from.

 

Aaron