Those who know they don't know...

[Aaron]

I think gravity is a great example. If I am to say "gravity exists", what does that even mean?

 

Before Newton, people were utterly convinced of "down". That is, "down" is where things fell, when you dropped them. This is the utterly self-evident part of gravity, but everyone had it wrong.

 

The problem with "down" is that it denied the quite reasonable proposition that the world was round. If the world was round, then all the water would pour away, and off the planet, towards "down".

 

But Newton showed that "down" is a local illusion, of the phenomenon of gravity (which he saw as the attraction between masses).

 

And this view of gravity was fine, for awhile, but it missed some very important explanations. Einstein reworked gravity into the warping of spacetime, which is an almost inconceivable notion. We've all seen Carl Sagan put a pool ball on a trampoline, but other than that visual reference, how many people really get what "spacetime" means, not to mention the warping of it? And then when you get to black holes (which neither "down" nor Newton could ever arrive at), whew boy!

 

And Einstein's view of gravity has been shifted and augmented by quantum gravity, which posits gravitons, which is also very hard to understand, in terms of mundane experience of gravity. And superstring theory has its own way of explaining gravity, which is even more mind-blowing.

 

So, how can anyone be "certain of gravity", especially those of us who are not theoretical physicists? As far as I can tell, "I am certain of gravity" just means "when I drop things, they go down", which puts me squarely back into the early 17th century.

 

So, thank you for that example, of how certainty is just an illusion, a self-evidentiary belief loop.

 

Hello Otis,

 

When I say I am certain that gravity exists, it's because I have been taught that it does exist, must I know everything about it to believe it exists, or does the fact I don't understand it completely mean I should be uncertain about it's actual existence? I am not stating that I understand all the mechanics of gravity, only that I'm reasonably certain it doesn't involve simply "down" unless you use "down" as a reference for the greatest center of gravity.

 

I know your comment has nothing to do with gravity, but more with your experience with other people who are certain to a fault, and that's fine, but I would never tell people not to be certain about things or to be certain about things, but rather that there's nothing inherently wrong with being certain. In fact people should strive for a degree of certainty in their lives, because certainly brings about a faith and stability in their experience. At the same time they should be open to new ideas as well, so if someone comes along and begins to explain gravity in a different way they can say, "well now I know a little bit more about gravity!"

 

The question of course is, can you be certain that people shouldn't be certain? And if so, does that make them wrong and you right? The point of this post has nothing to do with certainty or uncertainty, for me at least, and rather it has to do with a person's frame of mind, how they choose to approach learning and experiencing the world. I would make suggestions in this regard, but in the end it is completely up to them how they choose to behave and in the end they will have to deal with the consequences of their behavior. If that means they're subjecting themselves to a "belief loop", well if that belief loop reduces the suffering in their lives, I'm all for it.

 

You're a good man and I wasn't attacking you, rather making a point about my own view. I hope that you can see that.

 

Aaron

[Birch]

Yeah, I think pitting certainty against new ideas isn't very helpful.

We ought to be capable of both and I believe most people are if you approach them the right way.

Telling them they're wrong probably won't help the 'new ideas' cause. So we also have scientific method which many people have agreed to accept as a vector of accepting new ideas but not everything gets allowed to have the scientific method used on it.

[Otis]

The question of course is, can you be certain that people shouldn't be certain? And if so, does that make them wrong and you right? The point of this post has nothing to do with certainty or uncertainty, for me at least, and rather it has to do with a person's frame of mind, how they choose to approach learning and experiencing the world. I would make suggestions in this regard, but in the end it is completely up to them how they choose to behave and in the end they will have to deal with the consequences of their behavior. If that means they're subjecting themselves to a "belief loop", well if that belief loop reduces the suffering in their lives, I'm all for it.

 

You're a good man and I wasn't attacking you, rather making a point about my own view. I hope that you can see that.

 

Aaron

I didn't hear your post as an attack, Aaron, no worries.

 

Nor am I saying that people shouldn't be certain. I'm not the one to tell others how they should or shouldn't think.

 

However, I am asking, quite seriously, whether there is anything to be gained by being certain, and whether there isn't a lot to lose. I don't see any particular reason why someone cannot have an elegant and compelling worldview, but not hold on to any of it as necessarily true.

 

IME, certainty has gained me nothing, except some false confidence or other ego boosts. It does not make my world or my arguments better. And it can be very toxic to relationships.

 

What is the definition of a stuck worldview, like a bigot? It is someone who is rigid in their opinions. Isn't that rigidity a form of certainty?

 

Isn't a fundamentalist, a nationalist, etc., someone who is stuck in their certainty?

 

What is the definition of delusion? It is mistaking my view of the world, for the world itself. Isn't certainty the thing which keeps me mired in the delusion?

 

We are all warned not to cling and attach. Isn't that exactly what certainty is, a clinging to the "rightness" of something?

 

Isn't the ego, the self, a collection of habits, of consciousness, pre-consciousness, etc.? And isn't a habit really an expression of "do it this way", which is certainty?

 

Isn't conditioning an inculcation of certainty?

 

Aren't all the things that we are warned against, in both Taoism and Buddhism, really forms of certainty?

 

Do we really need certainty? Or is it enough to pay attention, listen joyfully, and keep moving forward?

 

No one wants to surrender their certainty, precisely, I think, because that is what the self is made of. But I think that it is the only way to live in mystery. Mystery is the opposite of certainty, don't you think?

 

In the "no self" thread, there are competing models, but that's all they are: models. How could we ever decide which model is the right one? Even if I get great results from a model, it still doesn't make it the right one. Life is not something that can be fully put into words, and so treating the words as gospel truth is just asking to live in delusion. Only living is true, only the action, the process. As soon as we turn it into concepts, we falsify it. The only way not to get mired in that falsity, is not to cling to the rightness of the ideas. That clinging, is the very essence of certainty.

 

Does this make sense?

[Aaron]

Hello Otis,

 

I think for me, I don't think certainty is the same as attachment, in the sense that one can still reach enlightenment and be a scientist, so he can be detached from science, but still practice science and in practicing science, be certain of specific theories and ideas. Of course he would probably find it easier to apply the scientific method to his practice at the same time.

 

Detaching, in the Buddhist sense, isn't saying, "nothing can be certain" or "I must not hold to any idea", rather it's about being able to see through ideas, understand what an idea actually is, the root cause and origination of that idea, in order to achieve a greater awareness, and by doing so you understand that beyond this formulated and constructed thought, there is something more. So a Buddhist would not tell a scientist, in order to reach enlightenment, you must stop working with physics, that would just be silly.

 

I think that many of the models professed in the No-self forum aren't necessarily accurate. They lack depth and experience and instead seem to stem from an intellectual idea of the premise of no-self. I have tried to explain my own experience with no-self and it is extremely difficult because the experience is not a physical experience, so trying to put it in words is impossible (imo). I could explain how to achieve the experience, but not necessarily what the experience actually feels like, because even the word "feels" isn't necessarily accurate.

 

I don't want that topic to come over here, so I'll leave it at that and just suggest that maybe you would be better off reading some literature on the topic, rather than listen to professed enlightened people who don't seem to be able to behave in a civil manner amongst each other. edit- I would suggest if you really want a good perspective on no-self and enlightenment, that before you read any books on Buddhism you read "The Empty Mirror: Experiences in a Japanese Zen Monastery", "A Glimpse of Nothingness: Experiences in an American Zen Community", and "Afterzen: Experiences of a Zen Student out on His Ear". They are all by Janwillem van de Wetering and I'm sure they will give you an intimate understanding of enlightenment (they did me).

 

Aaron

[Informer]

They simply stop intellectualizing and speaking in absolutes, and realize that whatever they experience is subjective to the path they fallowed.

 

Objective nature is but one side of the coin, there are no absolutes in subjectivity.

 

Two people could say the exact same things yet mean things completely different.

 

Or view the same colors and both will call them red, but how do you really know what you see as red is what they see as red. After all you have been taught that that color you see is red, even if it is pink or green to someone else, how would you know?

 

Example:

 

I don't know what's going on in your mind, nor have I experienced the path you have.

 

When you are beside the self these things are taking into account as well.

[Otis]

Hello Otis,

 

I think for me, I don't think certainty is the same as attachment, in the sense that one can still reach enlightenment and be a scientist, so he can be detached from science, but still practice science and in practicing science, be certain of specific theories and ideas. Of course he would probably find it easier to apply the scientific method to his practice at the same time.

 

Detaching, in the Buddhist sense, isn't saying, "nothing can be certain" or "I must not hold to any idea", rather it's about being able to see through ideas, understand what an idea actually is, the root cause and origination of that idea, in order to achieve a greater awareness, and by doing so you understand that beyond this formulated and constructed thought, there is something more. So a Buddhist would not tell a scientist, in order to reach enlightenment, you must stop working with physics, that would just be silly.

Hey Aaron,

 

I don't think that science and Buddhism are in the least incompatible.

 

Science's main philosophy is emptiness, never deciding that you are right, just closer to a useful working model. Certainty is the death of innovation, of creativity, in science.

 

The goal of science (as I understand it) is not to become certain, but to explore. Einstein did his work, in what he called a day dream, trying to imagine what the universe would seem like, from the perspective of a photon. The concept of Relativity, BTW, is about surrendering certainty, saying: there is no correct or absolute viewpoint.

 

Testing, of course, seeks to reduce vagueness, and increase accuracy but the emotional aspect of I insist that this is right, is anathema to science.

 

I agree that emptiness is not necessarily getting rid of ideas or beliefs (I certainly don't know how to live without them), although I they think many do fade with time, because they mean less and less. But I do think that detachment is very much about surrender of certainty.

 

What is letting go of attachment to an outcome? It's letting go of the certainty that one outcome is the right one. Certainty invents good and bad, right and wrong.

 

If you really think about it, certainty is an emotional quality, more than an intellectual one. Certainty is the clenching that says: it must/must not be! I insist!

Edited August 4, 2011 by Otis

[Marblehead]

Hi guys,

 

Really nice discussion y'all have going on.

 

At the moment I am leaning toward Aaron's POV but that is only because of my biases of certainties. Hehehe.

 

I think that some certainties are necessary in our life so that we have a place to fall back to when we become totally confused. (For me that is Yin, the place of rest.)

 

Yes Otis, your point about Mystery vs. Manifest is a valid one. Are there certainties in the Manifest? I thin so. Are there certainties in the Mystery? I don't think so.

[Otis]

BTW, I am also not saying that we shouldn't learn.

 

I am a huge fan of science, nature and history documentaries, because they help fill in so many missing gaps in my worldview. But they do not serve to make me more certain; in fact, they challenge my notions of what is right in the world. That's a huge part of what makes them so exciting for me.

[Otis]

I think that some certainties are necessary in our life so that we have a place to fall back to when we become totally confused. (For me that is Yin, the place of rest.)

Sure, certainty can help us feel better, when there is confusion. But isn't that using certainty as an analgesic, as a crutch?

 

I'm certainly not claiming to be beyond my own certainty, but I no longer can justify it to myself, either. I feel some times as if I deserve certainty, but that thought doesn't make much sense, when I look closer at it.

 

If I have an argument with a girlfriend, and I'm certain as hell that I'm right, it gains me nothing. There's no advantage to winning against my girlfriend. And it works against my real goal with her, which is to enjoy unity and sharing.

 

My posts here about certainty have almost never been well-received (I haven't gotten a single +1 on any of those posts), even though every powerful growth book I read talks about surrendering it. So obviously, talking against certainty is swimming against the popular opinion current. Maybe that means that I'm full of it, but it also might mean that certainty is one of those things which is so important to people, that it is sacrosanct. All the more reason, IMO, to really consider whether certainty is anything more than just attachment.

[tragblack]

Sure, certainty can help us feel better, when there is confusion. But isn't that using certainty as an analgesic, as a crutch?

 

...I feel some times as if I deserve certainty, but that thought doesn't make much sense, when I look closer at it.

 

If I have an argument with a girlfriend, and I'm certain as hell that I'm right, it gains me nothing... And it works against my real goal with her, which is to enjoy unity and sharing...

 

Good points.

[Aaron]

Hello Otis,

 

So how do we live without certainty? You can't be not-certain without being uncertain. I think that may be the point you're missing. You're mixing up attachment with certainty and, as I stated before, they're not the same thing (at least not as I understand it).

 

Certainty is an analgesic, but what's wrong with that. If you cut your finger off, I guarantee you'll be begging for one. This brave new march towards enlightenment, this fearless and ruthless pursuit of enlightenment seems to me to be born from uncertainty.

 

Too many people "know" how we're supposed to be, but in the end it's all just presumption.

 

Aaron

 

edited to appear less certain. Just kidding.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Twinner

[Otis]

Hello Otis,

 

So how do we live without certainty? You can't be not-certain without being uncertain. I think that may be the point you're missing. You're mixing up attachment with certainty and, as I stated before, they're not the same thing (at least not as I understand it).

 

Certainty is an analgesic, but what's wrong with that. If you cut your finger off, I guarantee you'll be begging for one. This brave new march towards enlightenment, this fearless and ruthless pursuit of enlightenment seems to me to be born from uncertainty.

 

Too many people "know" how we're supposed to be, but in the end it's all just presumption.

 

Aaron

 

edited to appear less certain. Just kidding.

The short answer is: I don't know. I don't know how to live without certainty.

 

But I do feel strongly called toward living that way (even as my old habits want to call me back). I don't think I need to give up all my beliefs, which often serve me well. But I do want to cling less and less tightly to those beliefs.

 

Yes, if I cut off my finger, I will want a pain-killer, nor would I ever say someone was wrong for wanting that. But we all know how easy it is to abuse oxycontin, or the other pain medicines. Likewise, the pain of everyday life is kept at bay with ego addictions, like being "important" or "special" or "right".

 

These are all self-descriptors, ways that cloak myself in adjectives, to feel good about myself. What other use do they serve me?

 

But self-image is illusory, and corrupted by my wishes and fears. When I consider myself "right", then I refuse to really listen to others with opposing viewpoints. I alienate my bosses, my girlfriend, society at large, because I have already arrived, have already reached the pinnacle, and therefore cannot allow others to be right, as well. If I am right, and you disagree with me, then of course, you must be wrong.

 

If I say I know what reality is, or see the true nature of things, then I am declaring that my viewpoint is the correct one, which means that all other viewpoints are wrong. Then I am immune to others' wisdom, and I place myself above them. 6 billion+ people in this world, none of whom share my exact views, and I'm going to insist that I'm the one who's right?

 

Being certain is actually the opposite of accepting myself as I am. Because certainty is exalting my model of myself and the world, rather than just being who I am.

 

Besides that, letting go of certainty friggin' rocks! When I stop telling myself "I can't do this", then opportunity opens up. When I stop trying to dance the right way, the way that I think looks cool, or whatever, then my body really opens up and dances for joy. When I listen to reality, rather than insisting that I already know better, then it shows me all kinds of secret pathways, that my model could never anticipate.

 

Listening and certainty are opposite vectors. Awareness is inhibited, love is stunted, and possibility is curtailed, by certainty.

 

Isn't it possible to be utterly clear, confident, present, and aware, without ever insisting that I am right? And if it is, then what need do I have of certainty?

[Marblehead]

Damn Otis! You are fighting with the concept of dualities, not specifically 'certainty'.

 

Read that last post of yours again.

[Birch]

Can you be right AND have the other person be right as well?

I do think there are cases in which this is obviously wrong to do but in others, it might be possible.

I don't know where we get the zero-sum thinking from but i think it's possible for two people to be right without that being a source of hurt or alienation. I think it's a bit like this ego thing, once you accept it it sort of gives way, once you accept some certainties (or your need for them) the fight against them gives way. Given reality is what it is, what would be the more useful way to relate to it. I mean even a boat floating on a sea has it's certainty, otherwise no-one would ever have attempted to cross oceans. I also think that if the way you see the world tends to alienate people it's just as easy to "not go there" with everyone. I mean why do you need any of these people to agree with you? Or anyone on the TTB'z for that matter? I haven't been plus one-ing for a while because it doesn't show up on my mobile, which is from where I do most TTB reading:-)

[Todd]

 

My posts here about certainty have almost never been well-received (I haven't gotten a single +1 on any of those posts),

 

Have you considered that maybe those on this forum who appreciate posts on uncertainty aren't disposed to use the ranking system for forum posts?

[Marblehead]

Can you be right AND have the other person be right as well?

I do think there are cases in which this is obviously wrong to do but in others, it might be possible.

I don't know where we get the zero-sum thinking from but i think it's possible for two people to be right without that being a source of hurt or alienation. I think it's a bit like this ego thing, once you accept it it sort of gives way, once you accept some certainties (or your need for them) the fight against them gives way. Given reality is what it is, what would be the more useful way to relate to it. I mean even a boat floating on a sea has it's certainty, otherwise no-one would ever have attempted to cross oceans. I also think that if the way you see the world tends to alienate people it's just as easy to "not go there" with everyone. I mean why do you need any of these people to agree with you? Or anyone on the TTB'z for that matter? I haven't been plus one-ing for a while because it doesn't show up on my mobile, which is from where I do most TTB reading:-)

 

To your first question: Yes, I think. And this is based on a word you used later: useful. Also depends on our need to win as well.

 

We are told to not compete. If we don't compete there are no winners or losers, things just are.

 

Yes, there are times when two different people can have different understandings but yet they are both right.

 

And true, it is oftentimes better to "not go there" if you can foresee that it will only cause problems, for yourself or for others.

 

Where's Otis? It's his time to speak. Ha! He is probably out dancing.

[Aaron]

Hello Otis,

 

First, I would ask that you read what I posted over on the Oxymoron thread since I think it has to do with what you are saying here as well.

 

I think the issue is that you are coming to terms with the notion of duality, but perhaps after reading what I posted over in the other thread, you'll understand more clearly why I say certainty is not a bad thing, nor is it wrong to be uncertain.

 

I wish you the best in your investigations.

 

Aaron

[3bob]

All memory gone...

 

Few pay such a high price.

[Otis]

Have you considered that maybe those on this forum who appreciate posts on uncertainty aren't disposed to use the ranking system for forum posts?

I hadn't thought of that.

[Otis]

Can you be right AND have the other person be right as well?

I do think there are cases in which this is obviously wrong to do but in others, it might be possible.

I don't know where we get the zero-sum thinking from but i think it's possible for two people to be right without that being a source of hurt or alienation.

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.

 

I think it's a bit like this ego thing, once you accept it it sort of gives way, once you accept some certainties (or your need for them) the fight against them gives way. Given reality is what it is, what would be the more useful way to relate to it. I mean even a boat floating on a sea has it's certainty, otherwise no-one would ever have attempted to cross oceans.

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.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

Damn Otis! You are fighting with the concept of dualities, not specifically 'certainty'.

 

Read that last post of yours again.

I re-read it, but don't really understand your point.

 

Of course duality and certainty are entwined. But the problem with duality isn't that: it is false. It's that: it's not true. What's true is something bigger than duality or non-duality, bigger than any of our concepts. It's something more like quantum physics, something that doesn't really make sense to the human brain. I don't think we were evolved to see truth, only to see useful illusions. Realizing that what we experience are illusions, is IMO as close as we can come to seeing the truth. Like Socrates said: "I know only one thing, and that is that I know nothing."

 

Delusion, of course, is mistaking our illusions, our mental re-creations of the world, for the actual world itself.

 

Dualism is a useful tool, for many parts of life, as long as I don't start insisting that it is what's real. Certainty is what's wrong with dualism.

[Otis]

Hello Otis,

 

First, I would ask that you read what I posted over on the Oxymoron thread since I think it has to do with what you are saying here as well.

 

I think the issue is that you are coming to terms with the notion of duality, but perhaps after reading what I posted over in the other thread, you'll understand more clearly why I say certainty is not a bad thing, nor is it wrong to be uncertain.

 

I wish you the best in your investigations.

 

Aaron

I like what you wrote, Aaron, and I think you did a good job of approaching the subject from both directions.

 

Yes, there is one direction from which the light comes. And it'll serve me well, if I head toward the light. But as you say, that doesn't mean that the darkness is bad, or should be avoided. In fact, I need to head into the darkness as well, if I want to make peace with myself, if I want to let go of avoidance. I can grow in many directions at once, and they help to balance each other out.

 

But I think that certainty is an inhibitor to growth. If I'm determined that light is the way to go, I miss the dark. If I'm determined that surrender is everything, I'll miss the things that are worth committing to.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Otis

[Marblehead]

I re-read it, but don't really understand your point.

 

Hehehe. Apparently I didn't do well with it.

 

I'll try again.

 

Forget certainty; forget dualities. They both exist in the moment - they both are real in the moment. Doesn't mean they will remain that way forever though.

 

I will use my chair example again. My chair is real. I don't look at it as if it exists and desn't exist at the same time. It just is. Every time I have wanted to sit on it it has always supported my weight. Will it last forever? Hardly. Should I concern myself with questioning how long it will retain its functionality? Not me.

 

There are no dualities here, there is certainty though. Perhaps one day I will set about to sit on it and it will no longer support my weight. Should I worry about when that might happen? I hardly think so.

 

As you mentioned, dualism is a useful tool. So is certainty. But both have their limits and utility. It boils down to their usefulness. If a dualistic concept is useful we should use it - if a certainty of something is useful then use it. But, if they prove to be useless or misleading we should abandon them.

[Otis]

Hehehe. Apparently I didn't do well with it.

 

I'll try again.

 

Forget certainty; forget dualities. They both exist in the moment - they both are real in the moment. Doesn't mean they will remain that way forever though.

 

I will use my chair example again. My chair is real. I don't look at it as if it exists and desn't exist at the same time. It just is. Every time I have wanted to sit on it it has always supported my weight. Will it last forever? Hardly. Should I concern myself with questioning how long it will retain its functionality? Not me.

 

There are no dualities here, there is certainty though. Perhaps one day I will set about to sit on it and it will no longer support my weight. Should I worry about when that might happen? I hardly think so.

 

As you mentioned, dualism is a useful tool. So is certainty. But both have their limits and utility. It boils down to their usefulness. If a dualistic concept is useful we should use it - if a certainty of something is useful then use it. But, if they prove to be useless or misleading we should abandon them.

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

Edited August 6, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

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!"

 

Where should I draw the line? What do I gain (besides self-satisfaction) by insisting that any one belief is accurate to reality? As long as my working model is delivering satisfactory results, then I don't need to change it. But neither do I need to enshrine it, make it gospel. Tomorrow, I may lose a job, or a loved one, or an arm, and then suddenly I'm faced with the terror of realizing that my certainty has not brought me the comfort it promises. It only says "I know the right way!", but it does not help me live.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Otis