![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
No Mind! Says Who?
I’ve been tangling a lot over the past few days with this idea that there is no such thing as the mind. That’s right, you heard me - the idea that there is no mind. Sounds preposterous right? How could you have an idea without having a mind?
Not really sure to be honest with you.
But the thing I’ve been noticing about it is that the idea takes on an entirely different tone depending on who is talking about it. Take Alan Watts, for example. His thought is deeply influenced by Buddhist and Hindu philosophy. I posted a nice quote from him recently where he was trying to argue that no mind actually exists. His “proof” was that if you try to remove yourself from experience, you can’t do so. You simply move into other types of experiences: thoughts, feelings, etc. I think his argument ultimately was a bit more complex than that, but it’s a nice toehold for our purposes. In any event, the ultimate goal in his description of events seems to be that you live entirely in the moment, the eternal “Now” moment that you’re experiencing constantly, and that you don’t allow the distractions of the mind to foil you from the complete enjoyment of that moment.
Pretty standard Eastern-sounding mystical stuff, right? There’s probably some element of truth to it and some usefulness too. And it sort of sounds like a noble goal.
But turn things around and apply that idea in the context of social planning. Take an idea like eliminative materialism which says something roughly like desires, beliefs, love, consciousness don’t exist at all as real things, that advances in neuroscience will show us that they are nothing more than superstition. Start applying that sort of nihilistic behavioralism as a philosophy of governance, and the whole thing takes on a decidedly creepy air. A little clip about B.F. Skinner’s book Beyond Freedom and Dignity from Wikipedia I think does a nice job of highlighting that creepiness:
Beyond Freedom and Dignity advanced the thesis that social concepts such as free will and human dignity (by which Skinner meant belief in individual autonomy) were obsolete, and stood in the way of greater human happiness and productivity. Skinner was opposed to inhumane treatment and bad government, but he argued that the champions of freedom went so far as to deny causality in human action so they could champion the “free person.” In a sense, the champions of freedom were enemies of a scientific way of knowing.
As understood by Skinner, ascribing dignity to individuals involves giving them credit for their actions. To say “Skinner is brilliant” means that Skinner is an originating force. If Skinner is right, he is merely the focus of his environment. He is not an originating force and he had no choice in saying the things he said or doing the things he did.
So concepts like freedom and dignity become worthless, impediments to progress, happiness and understanding. When you apply it from a governmental stand-point, it sounds like a terrifying totalitarian state of the worst possible kind. But with somebody like Alan Watts as our guide, these ideas seem soothing, accessible - perhaps even liberating. I’ve said it myself a number of times, that it seems that ideas and concepts often stand between us and the truth and that we’ve gotta go past them to get anywhere.
But which ideas and concepts? Do we need to set up certain strict boundaries in our relentless inquiry and investigation that are not to be crossed? Does the individual discovery of mystical universal unity necessarily lead into the backroads of fascism when applied and enforced on a collective scale?
Bill Hicks famously joked:
Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration - that we are all One Consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively. There’s no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we’re the imagination of ourselves.
That’s great for one person to discover, but what would happen if suddenly a powerful government started saying the same thing? We’re all one consciousness? There’s no such thing as death? It would be pretty much carte blanc for them to do whatever whenever they wanted. They could murder rape and pillage with abandon with perfect justification, claiming that the people they mowed down by the hundreds of thousands were nothing more than illusions, and that death doesn’t exist. And worst of all, what if they would be right? By that, I mean, they weren’t just adopting a caricature of spurious mysticism, but were actually operating according to God and Truth and the Eternal Principles, and spreading them finally and forcibly on the face of the Earth.
The notion of governmental consciousness being “raised” to that level fills me with a sick dread. Think through what would really happen practically if these ideas really caught on the next time somebody tells you we need to “wake people up” and raise consciousness on a massive scale. Do we really? Is that really what we want?
So that leaves us with a variety of confusing questions. If it’s not necessarily good on a collective scale, is it therefore good on an individual one? Or maybe the causal “therefore” link in that statement is deceptive. In any case, maybe the seemingly backwards and sluggish and non-mystical nature of government is actually to our benefit during our time spent in the human state of experience. Maybe without them, we’d have nothing to rebel against to lead us towards these realizations of unitive consciousness or the irrelevance of the mind.
Or, maybe how things are is the real trap. Maybe corporations and governments collude to build up our individual identities, and instill in us mistaken notions of us having minds and consciousness and freedom and dignity. Maybe it’s a useful fiction which they encourage, manipulate and fill in the gaps of with products and services. But maybe that’s just how things ought to be. Because a truly enlightened government which stripped away all these cherished and possibly childish illusions (from a mystical perspective) would be the most awesome and terrible thing that ever stalked the face of the Earth. Death, destroyer of worlds. Final and ultimate liberty for all.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
I understand what you’re saying. Truth be told I’ve been thinking about eliminative materialism all day, and the concept has really disturbed me for some reason. I realize scientists, skeptics, and atheists have proposed that there is no God, spirit, or life after death for generations. But their claim that consciousness is just a random fluke that will eventually disappear after humanity inevitably becomes extinct never really bothered me. I knew in my heart it wasn’t true for me because I FELT that it couldn’t possibly be right. That there’s too much beauty and mystery in the world for it all to just be meaningless.
But now with eliminative materialism, they’re throwing not my whole world into question because they’re saying my thoughts and feelings ABOUT these things don’t even exist!! I never quite thought of it like that, but it really bothers me thinking that the feelings that I believe I’m feeling aren’t real in any sense of the word, and that everything is temporary and arbitrary.
At any rate, I think that if society adopted the belief that we’re all one consciousness and that there is no death, the transformation in our world would be wonderful. You seem opposed to this concept because you’re still operating from a “me” point of view that is desperately afraid of the death of the ego, etc. Given this new understanding, I think all of us would operate completely differently. . .with no need for governments or institutions that control us in any way shape and form. And if we all believed we were one consciousness, and acted accordingly, we wouldn’t hurt or kill other people because it would be in our best interest not to! Giving us the freedom to kill, rape, and plunder at our leisure does not necessarily mean that we would ever ACT on that freedom, especially when we would be acting AGAINST ourselves. And we would see that, and know it, if we operated from the consciousness that “we’re all one”.
Of course, that’s merely conjecture on my part. . .but I have a great friend, reminds me of you in a lot of ways, only his mind is less focused on the mystical/mysterious nature of the universe, and more on the practical aspects of it. Anyway, he lives in NYC, and he once said that the city itself seems to be self-governing, that the people there look out for one another for the most part, and if they see something bad happening, they get together to stop it. Now, I have no idea if any of this is actually accurate, but I like the idea that certain places in this world are becoming more compassionate. . .and that solidarity could eventually become the natural order of things everywhere.
May 11th, 2006 at 2:10 am
Am I? I’m trying to articulate a particular way of looking at things, rather than necessarily espousing it. That said, if we’re truly all one consciousness, then YOU are the one who is operating from a “me” point of view and desperately afraid of the death of the ego.
SO THERE!
What I’m trying to say though is that the goals we cling to have the potential to become terrible nightmares when taken out of their original contexts. Which makes me wonder if their original contexts aren’t equally flawed as well, but we’re unable to see them, because we have a sentimental personal attachment to them as our goals.
May 11th, 2006 at 2:36 am
Just to clarify, I’m not as much talking about society or about a ground-swell of this sentiment from regular people - but about a top-down government or political party that comes in and starts preaching and enforcing such a philosophy.
May 11th, 2006 at 5:06 am
That’s great for one person to discover, but what would happen if suddenly a powerful government started saying the same thing? We’re all one consciousness? There’s no such thing as death? It would be pretty much carte blanc for them to do whatever whenever they wanted. They could murder rape and pillage with abandon with perfect justification, claiming that the people they mowed down by the hundreds of thousands were nothing more than illusions, and that death doesn’t exist. And worst of all, what if they would be right? By that, I mean, they weren’t just adopting a caricature of spurious mysticism, but were actually operating according to God and Truth and the Eternal Principles, and spreading them finally and forcibly on the face of the Earth.
But that is a caricature of spurious mysticism.
Provided people actually experienced theses truths, instead from just taking the mystical statements at face-value, there would be a feeling of absolute hopelessness in doing any such thing. If everything is the same, and all distinctions are illusory, then there is no hope for any sort grand ambition on the part of the government — there probably wouldn’t even be a government anymore. From this sort of high mystical perspective, everything is *perfect*. I know how much people hate to hear that, and dismiss it as New Age bullshit, but once you start vibrating high enough, no other perspective is tenable. There is no need for a forcible correction, unless you’re still insisting on taking issue with the work of God — in which case, you still ain’t got it, son.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:50 am
One simple question to ponder, first off: why do mystical experiences in history seem to happen to people other than those in positions of governmental power? Are there any good resources which trace the mystical experiences of world leaders, cause I’d love to read it.
The other point I’m trying to make, I guess, is that if everyone across the entire face of the earth came to this realization of unitive consciousness, that would be one thing. (But even then, what would happen? You can’t just drop a lifetime of habits in an instant) But if only an elect group came to that realization, things would get dicey. There would inevitably people who didn’t believe in it, wouldn’t accept it and would resist it because it diminished their earthly power.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:58 am
I have nothing to say but I’ll say it anyway! What about faerieland? I am pretty sure elves and nature spirits exist. The government can’t control them! Nor can the gov’ fully control humans, the inner world can not be conquered! It is filled with rebellion and non-conformity, true freedom is inside! Give me Carl Jung, and Joseph Campbell, Rumi, Osho, Taoists, Zennists, Celtic paganism, Thoreau, Emerson, any day of the week over the fascist logic of BF Skinner or the positivists.
Speaking of mystical experiences, Last night I danced in a forest in New England (Maine is freaking beautiful!) And I felt such a magic! It was a cool breezy night in the month of may, my heart was ablaze, I had such a deep feeling inside, I’d call it divine. It was easy to feel that existence is beyond measure.
Rumi said “Thinking gives off smoke to prove the existence of fire. A mystic sits inside the burning. There are wonderful shapes in rising smoke that imagination loves to watch. But it’s a mistake to leave the fire for that filmy sight. Stay here at the flame’s core”
May 11th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
[…] There’s a nice comment from Citizen Candy Cane on my recent post about enlightenment, the mind and government. Candy writes: I am pretty sure elves and nature spirits exist. The government can’t control them! Nor can the gov’ fully control humans, the inner world can not be conquered! It is filled with rebellion and non-conformity, true freedom is inside! […]
May 11th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Interesting post.
Since the individual state applied to gov - wouldn’t you say that on an individual level, that unity consciousness dealy could go either way as well? I mean, one person wakes up to the idea that everything is one and so you should do better for all, and it is a positive application. Other person wakes up to same idea and does a Columbine type killing spree because they don’t recognize the consequence or distinction, since it’s all just an illusory game…so it comes down to sane / kind government vs warped and fucked gov, applying their sane vs fucked view of the same idea.
May 11th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Another thing I meant to bring up is that section in the Bagavad Gita where Arjuna is out there on the battlefield, about to go to war with his family members, and I think it’s Vishnu who appears to him as his charioteer. As far as I remember, Arjuna is made aware of the unity of consciousness, but this doesn’t stop him from killing his relatives. Instead, Vishnu urges him to go through with it, because it is his dharma, his duty to fulfill the law of his social position.
The notion that enlightenment means universal compassion and the renunciation of violence is certainly not universal.
May 11th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
In the philosophy of Nagarjuna, the great Buddhist logician, the “mind” (more generally, subject) that perceives, the perception, and the object of perception arise simultaneously. One cannot be without the others, they exist only relative to each other.
This is called “dependent arising” or “interdependent arising”:
http://bahai-library.org/personal/jw/other.pubs/nagarjuna/
May 12th, 2006 at 4:12 am
Are there any good resources which trace the mystical experiences of world leaders, cause I’d love to read it.
Just for fun, I’d like to mention Napoleon, while painting pictures of himself on a tall white stallion sent through the media to the people….he rode a donkey into a seeminly losing war, and won. I think that’s mystical. And he was a world leader at the time.
May 12th, 2006 at 5:41 am
In response to the Skinner quote (and eliminative materialism in general), if consciousness is merely reduced to biological processes, and free will is eliminated all-together, then morality goes out the window with it. For that matter, legal laws may join them too.
Think about it, if there is no “you” (or “me”) to determine a course of action, then you or I cannot be held responsible for our actions. And if we are not responsible for our actions, then how can a group punish an individual for making a wrong or immoral decision? That essentially reduces Hitler and all other creators of genocide down to social factors. It also reduces everyone down to the level of machines.
So, we must ask, can machines every be happy? Isn’t happiness just another belief/feeling/etc? If happiness is an illusion as well, then why not just kill yourself and get it over with?
Just a thought or two
May 12th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Ktulu, that’s exactly the types of conclusions I draw from this philosophy as well. It’s very scary.
May 12th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
[…] Or is it something even more insidious: tentative proof that what we think and say doesn’t actually amount to a hill of beans to them. It only matters what we do in the world. Maybe they don’t even believe that we have minds or consciousness in the first place. I honestly wouldn’t be too surprised. Read Similar Articles: […]
May 13th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
You may not know this, but Mark Twain wrote a book about this very subject.
It surprised me when I stumbled upon it a few years ago…
I think it would make an interesting addition to your thinking on this.
The book is called WHAT IS MAN? and you can read it in its entirety here:
http://users.telerama.com/~joseph/mantble.html
May 13th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Oh wow, really? I will definitely be checking it out. Thanks Shawn! We should get together again sometime soon, too!