The Cacoon of "Now"

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

The lower animals of the animal kingdom, due to their lack of self-awareness, are limited to living only in the present. Their life is simple, they don’t think reminisce about the past and they don’t worry about the future, instead, they take life as it comes and rely on their programmed instincts for survival. Humans, on the other hand, can “live” in the past, in hypothetical futures, and in fantasy worlds. Humans can place themselves in multiple reference points and time frames. This ability makes the humans stand out from other animals and places them in position of being stewards of their own destiny and the destiny of other animals. The ability to project thinking to multiple reference points does come with responsibility and painful consequences (fear of death, anxieties/worries,regrets, etc.), but it is a part of human existence and more importantly, it is a part of us, our identity, so it should be accepted and utilized as it was meant to be, not pushed away.
Many of the spiritual teachings, however, promote “the present perspective”, the same perspective that lower animals live by. Basically, they tell you to let go of your gift of intelligence and choose to adopt the frame of mind of the lower animals. They say it is the enlightened state of your being (whereas it is simply a regression to the lower passive mental states of lower animals) and proclaim it the secret to living a full-filling life. They call it the return to your true self, while turning the blind eye to the fact that by stigmatizing the mind, they are rejecting a fundamental part of what makes humans human (what makes humans unique in the animal kingdom). It is not the state of true self but a forfeiture of your more evolved parts of self and embracing of the simplest parts of your prehistoric being.

2

I see a paradox here. Do you see it?

3

Don’t play coy. Just spit it out, Sauwelios. :confused:

4

According to you, the “spiritual teachings” you mention advocate a “regression” to our “prehistoric being” by “promot[ing] ‘the present perspective’”. You on the other hand advocate “accept[ance]” of our ‘present being’ by promoting a perspective that is not confined to the present.

5

There is a difference between regression and progression. People regress to their earlier childhood mindset when they cannot handle the pressure. Yes, part of you is your “inner child”, but it does not encompass the entirety of your being, nor does it define you, especially if you’re already grown up. The gurus view is that “grown up”, critical mindset as evil. They cannot handle it, so they regress and call it your true Self.

6

This is what regression looks like:

It’s a place in the state of mind from your childhood where you feel safe from the world.

7

You may escape a great deal of suffering by doing this, but it means nothing. It doesn’t mean you are enlightened, but just a coward before reality.

8

I really am quite sick of hearing people talk about happiness and fulfillment. I am indifferent to misery and joy. The question is rather I produced thoughts that can teach others, or did things in the service of general mankind. And in fact happiness would be my greatest enemy: it would make me rest, cease trying to be of good service.

9

Pandora, I’ve noticed that you rarely respond to me when I respond to statements like this. So I’m not sure if I should bother responding. You seem to have an agenda that you want to push despite reasonable and informed arguments from others. You could at least do us the favor of citing your sources. Perhaps some “spiritual teachers” really do endorse becoming dumb. Or perhaps you’ve taken something out of context or have misunderstood them. I’m open to anything, if you’ll just allow an actual conversation to take place.

10

A paradox is a seeming contradiction. It remains to be seen, then, whether this is an actual contradiction.

Premises:

  1. Our prehistoric being is epistemically confined to the present.
  2. Our present being is not.

You promote acceptance of our present being. Our present being includes our prehistoric being, but is not defined by it. Your promotion, then, is not inconsistent.

According to you, the spiritual teachings you mention promote limitation to our prehistoric being. Our prehistoric being, however, is epistemically confined to the present. And our present being is not limited to our prehistoric being. By promoting limitation to our prehistoric being, then, such spiritual teachings also promote a limitation of that being, for the being they promote does not take account of the whole present, but only of a part of the present which does not even define it. Their promotion is therefore inconsistent. To be consistent they would have to promote a limitation to a part of our (prehistoric) being that does not define it (I place “prehistoric” between brackets because any part of our prehistoric being is also a part of our present being). Their aim, then, is (spiritual) lobotomy.

11

Nice try setting up a hierarchy out of evolution to support you thesis. But it doesn’t work that way, evolution isn’t a valuetheory.

If you look to science for support, you might be disappointed. We evolved and lived countless of millenia in a state that was very likely more present oriented. And we haven’t really evolved since.

I think the desire to live in more present oriented state than the current one, is clearly there. Arguments can be found in science, there are certain mystics/guru’s pointing in that direction and there is art returning to that theme very often. Not all of them are mad lunatics.

Doesn’t mean we should return to that however.

12

We were slaves to the whims of nature… and now we are slaves to our own structures. That’s probably putting it a bit too dramatic :smiley: .

13

From an evolutionary-psychological perspective, what Pandora calls our “evolved parts of self” have probably evolved by sexual selection through mate choice, not by natural selection in the narrow sense: see Miller, The Mating Mind. Adopting such a perspective, we might say that such spiritual teachings as Pandora mentions seek to negate sexual selection and reduce man to behaviour that is efficiently aimed at survival (as opposed to ‘wastefully’ at reproduction).

14

So… this is pretty much your argument:

  1. “self awareness” is necessary for not being “limited to ‘living in the present’”
  2. Lower animal = lacks self-awareness
  3. Lower animal = only able to “live in the present”
  4. higher animal = able to “‘live’ in the past”, “‘hypothetical’ futures” and in “fantasy worlds”
  5. higher = possessing rare/unique desirable tools/abilities
  6. self awareness = exclusive to humans = precious
  7. Human intelligence/logic = holy
  8. a human should be that which distinguishes it from “lower” animals
  9. a human should be “living” (thinking about) the past and future
  10. a human should be “self-aware”
  11. for a human to be/experience its “true self” requires “self-awareness”
  12. a “human ‘self’” that is not being a “human ‘self’” = logical contradiction = breakdown of intelligence functions = lower (than “human”) = bad

The only point worth taking seriously is 11.

15

perhaps

16

I wouldn’t say an evolutionary-psychological perspective itself suggests the ultimate value/good/purpose/etc. of survival and (, at least, before dying,) procreation.

Psychology is simply the study of the mind, and evolutionary psychology takes into account how certain psychological tendencies can be explained in light of (their contributing to our ancestor’s successful) natural selection. Its goal is studying the mind in light of natural selection, not finding out how to make the mind fit for selection.

Lifeforms behaving in ways that maximize survival and/or reproduction doesn’t mean there’s an objective value or purpose of existence (to pass genes). This is an idea that reflects just how arrogant humans can be…as if all those “fit” actions are “good” actions, simply because they resulted in us being born. Things act (seemingly) “for” survival because they’re “operating” according to the “same basic program” that–by surviving long enough to reproduce–“constructed” them. And back and back and back.

17

I entirely agree. Amor fati, however, demands that we embrace what we are, not negate it.

18

As I see it, the idea behind amor fati is kind of similar to an idea of “living in the present” (or–more accurately–realizing that you are in the present, and it’s going to be what it is regardless of what you want). “Living in the present” isn’t NOT planning for the future and learning from the past, it is simply not GRASPING for ways out of a present condition that is a) a regular part of like you have to deal with, and ought to adapt to and b) only threatening/uncomfortable because of misunderstanding arising from “intelligence”.

As Nietzsche pointed out, it all comes down to will for power (will for competence, easy of mind, etc.). However, the mind can anticipate this and that problem happening, and tries to the fix it. The more intuitive and imaginative and intelligent and knowledgeable one is, the more possible "dangers that can “predict” (as potentials), and the more they feel futile in trying to steer away from them all. Eventually, one has to find a way to accept an, in the end, ultimate impotence in one’s (illusory self’s) future experiences. Amor Fati uses a faith that that there is a fate–a determinism our minds just have to deal with, and cannot alter, as much as we feel we can–and that our constant worries about changing some bad to make some good future (whether near or distant) is, in the end, a fool’s errand. Rather, one has a “love for fate”, meaning, a love for experiencing a moment of fate (rather than denying it and trying to alter its unwaving course).

What “we” “are” (psychologically/spiritually/existentially) is a subjective experience that, as of now, seems best explained as coming from caustic physical “processes”. I understand that, socially, one (subjective experience/r) is (seen as) a certain body that a certain mind (IE a seemingly “constant”, due to habitual beliefs and a predicted ability to recall certain “personal” experiences/memories) depends on. The brain processes certain facial and body proportions, subtle movements, etc. which link to memories of witnessing those movements with those characteristics and a network (of “neurons”) are all fire/light up/activate/whatever “switch” that “enlightens” the mind (into consciousness)–“That’s Matt”.

Just about everyone will accept that, but if asked to argue that case all one can really say is “That’s Matt, I know it just as well as you will recognize yourself in a picture. I have pictures of us partying in San Diego. He can be strange at times, like he’s somewhere else, but he’s pretty intelligent and funny. He has a sister and…” etc. etc. Just a bunch of stuff stemming from that “Matt” network, a circular argument. Socially (for communicating about “sentient ‘people’”–minds with certain tendencies/uses/weaknesses/etc), saying that some (“Homo Sapien”) body IS Matt is practical (and, assuming that context–strictly communication–there’s no reason to deny the statement) BUT, it becomes less practical when one doesn’t understand that “MATT” (a “self”) refers to recognizable (configurations of) perceptions, and those being connected to a subjective experience that–seen as an illusory constant that has existed, though and acted in certain ways in the past in differing environments–is predicted to behave, or not behave, in certain specific ways.

Basically, to equate a subjective experience with a “self” that only has meaning as a (n objectively existing) constant (requiring an association with things that are outside–not that present–subjective experience) is a sign of ignorance, not intelligence.

The problem with the OP is it sees intelligence (looking into the past and future and reasoning about it) as depending on “self-awareness”, and so to “live in the present” is to not be in the state of the “true self”, and not use intelligence. “Intelligence” is seen in light of a “self” with intelligence, and the use of intelligence then is to affirm the good of the “self”, and the “self” to be intelligent of “itself”, with its self being “intelligence of past and future”. It’s a ridiculous circle that brings nothing but angst. It can be curbed by seeing intelligence as being used to simply think of the past and future in order to minimize present/subjective experiences of “pain”. Live in the present is an existential philosophy, that one ought to see thoughts of the past and future in light of the present.

19

Anon, I don’t even remember talking to you much. When was the last time you and I had a conversation?

I just want all to see what I am seeing, and how I am seeing it.

This in part, is my reaction to Tolle’s “Now”, and other New Age teachings in which the recurrent theme seems to be stopping the higher-order brain functions - critical thinking. If the view was balanced I’d be okay, but it’s exhalted to spiritual realms, hence my reaction.

You know, you come across as if you feel somewhat neglected, by which I am honestly surprised.
Okay, fine, let’s talk it out…you and me.

Our present being is capable of both, not limited by one. Also remember, number 2 includes number 1, not vice versa.

Yes, that’s what I am saying. Thank you.

Yes.

Yes.

I wasn’t thinking specifically about how it relates to sex. What is it with you, men?

I agree with things you said; it’s not my point to downplay the importance that primitive brain still plays in our survival. However…persuading others to shut down their critical thinking also puts them in a very vulnerable position, especially in relation to those who still employ it. But this is only one of the problems that I have with it. (The other one is addresed by Sauwelios).

This is not the reason why I am defending it.

This point is synonymous to point 7.

It is not precious because of its exclusivity in the animal kingdom, but because it is part of who we are.

I am not saying that high order brain functions are holy. I am saying that they are part of us, of what we’ve evolved to be right now, and should not be pushed away as if they are evil.

He already is distinguished from lower animals.

Yes, a human should be utilizing his mind, not making it his life mission to reject it.

A human is already self-aware. It is already a part of humans.

Human’s sense of self should encompas all of his attributes, including the attribute of self-awareness.

This is a regression.

Yes, and that is also part of you. The subjective experience of pain as a result of using intelligence should also be accepted.

20

It’s just that the things that distinguish us from all other animals, spiritually, have probably evolved by sexual selection through mate choice.