Reasons to be cheerful
Both of the last two posts were stimulated at least in part by my reaction to people—friends, in real life—bemoaning the state of the world, usually in a vaguely left-wing liberal sort of way. I think I’d have reacted similarly, though, if the moaners—because that’s what I felt them to be—had been right-wingers, for instance saying the country’s been going to the dogs ever since the resignation of Margaret Thatcher. It just so happens that my friends tend to be left-leaning liberals.
The most recent dinner table conversion was quite similar to previous occasions, but due in part to the charming nature of both my companions, it never got anywhere near becoming an argument. What stimulated me to embark on this post, or at least on the thought path that lead to it, was one of my friends highlighting the optimism/pessimism dimension of all this. (If you’re wondering what “all this” is, you’d get an idea by looking at the last couple of posts, but that’s probably not necessary, it’s very general.)
On a previous occasion that person, a fellow Buddhist, agreed with my admittedly simplistic and arguably very naive declaration that, deep down, I feel that, due to Buddhism, everything will work out just fine. But the other night she told a story about someone she knows who is unreasonably optimistic regarding her and her partner’s own situation, while the partner finds the situation made even more difficult by her deluded outlook. My friend agreed that not all optimism is necessarily deluded, but nevertheless said something (I wish I could remember how she put it) to the effect that she couldn’t manage optimism herself. I believe she was talking about the state of the world rather than her personal circumstances, that’s certainly how I took it at the time.
So later I got to thinking about this. Why do I feel so optimistic? How is it that somebody who is generally approving of science and technology, and a materialist regarding metaphysics (not values), finds his reasons to be cheerful not (so much) in science, technology and/or economic development, but an ancient Eastern belief system?
Actually, my reasons are very closely tied up with, you might even say based on, the fact that that’s a false dichotomy. It’s not science versus religion, but science and religion coming together to save us all!
More specifically, I foresee science confirming that and explaining why Buddhist practices are so beneficial, resulting in their general adoption. And I expect to see significant progress towards that within my lifetime.
But there’s more to it than that. The philosophy that’s described on this site shows (for instance) how idealism (re values, not metaphysics) and optimism are entirely compatible with metaphysical materialism, and how the concepts of reincarnation and (better) rebirth reflect a deeper reality that can be understood in scientific terms. I have to admit, on the other hand, current writings on that philosophy are not very reader-friendly. But as somebody once said, the best way to feel better about the state of the world is to get involved in trying to improve it. So, even though I generally feel quite good about it already, I could probably feel much better still by spending significant amounts of time doing just that, in ways that make the best use of my background and experience.
I have a letter published in the current issue of Tricycle, the Buddhist magazine, on Buddhism and science. Only subscribers can view it online, so I thought about quoting it here, but it doesn’t really add much to what I’ve said above and in other posts.
I’ll close by mentioning Buddhist Geeks, with whom I plan to spend quite a lot of time, and who, instead of a motto, slogan, mission statement or such, have a question:
Our question, or koan, is: “How can we serve the convergence of Buddhism with rapidly evolving technology and an increasingly global culture?â€
(Actually, I think it’s a wee bitty gimmicky calling that a koan, but I’m guilty of much worse myself!)
Through Tricycle and Buddhist Geeks I learned about Kenneth Folk, who says “Ordinary People Can Get Enlightened“. That’s a great reason to be cheerful! Well, for Buddhists anyway, but you can guess what I think about that…
April 16, 2013
Posted in: Buddhism, philosophy 
No Comments
More on my minimalist commitments
Like the previous post, this one is aimed at summarising my position on a big issue, or closely related set of issues. I intend, as far as I can, to minimize my future engagement in contentious debate, online and elsewhere, and I hope that having these statements available for reference will help.
My general approach can be summarised as “radical agnosticism”, following Stephen Batchelor (@Wikipedia, see his book Buddhism Without Beliefs), so I don’t believe—or disbelieve—in anything, whether political ideology or philosophy, religion or environmental stance. Instead I have some “working hypotheses”, such as that Buddhist practice is highly beneficial and that climate change due to human activity is currently one of the biggest challenges facing homo sapiens. The difference between beliefs and working hypotheses is that there is no emotional attachment to the latter: they can be modified or dropped, if appropriate, relatively easily, and discussion doesn’t generate negative emotions. But that’s the ideal: in fact at the time of writing (and probably for some time to come) I do have still have such emotional attachments, for instance I tend to get angry when I come across climate change denying drivel. (We’ll see how I react to climate change denying non-drivel if I ever find any.)
I’ve been more successful in transcending the political divide between left and right. In my youth I certainly tended quite strongly to the left: for a while I flirted with the notion that all of the world’s problems were caused by businessmen. More recently I came to the view that small business is fine, indeed both natural and necessary, while big business is unnatural and, unless tightly restricted by governmental regulation, highly detrimental to society. I do, in fact, still lean that way, but it’s no longer emotionally driven—or to nothing like the extent of my early views, anyway. And I now have an appreciation that was previously entirely lacking of the positive ideas coming from the right, such as the value, for both the individual and society, of individual enterprise. Nowadays I even go so far as to see some good in being “cruel to be kind”, in the right measure of course, where it spurs someone to find resources within themselves and overcome their difficulties through their own efforts. And actual, habitual, unnecessary dependence on welfare benefits is obviously a very bad thing for both society and the individual, and I think it probably does exist, though I don’t know on what scale.
The trouble with political commitment is the negativity that it tends to generate. And I don’t mean negativity as in mere pessimism or such, but prejudice, anger and hatred. These are highly detrimental to both the person entertaining them and those with whom that person interacts. Anger and hatred, especially, are mental toxins, while prejudice prevents any move towards reconciliation.
I very recently realised, following a dinner table discussion in which hatred (I don’t think that’s putting it too strongly) was expressed towards certain right-leaning political figures, that some people on the political left believe they have a monopoly on compassion. At first this angered me, then when that wore off I briefly found it funny, now it saddens me that anyone should be so narrow-minded. The anger was partly because I felt that I had myself been accused, if only implicitly, of being uncaring in connection with Buddhism.
The idea that Buddhism is or can be selfish is not uncommon, and it is understandable. I think one reason for it is quite neatly expressed by something attributed to Shantideva (@Wikipedia): “Where would I possibly find enough leather with which to cover the surface of the earth? But (just) leather on the soles of my shoes, is equivalent to covering the earth with it…” So I just need to take care of myself? I first heard this quoted by Thrangu Rinpoche (@Wikipedia) on a visit to Samye Ling, in response to a question about anger over social injustice. When the point was pressed, asking whether anger wasn’t surely justified and even beneficial in some cases, the answer was unequivocal: no, it does too much spiritual damage. But doesn’t that imply we shouldn’t care? Absolutely not. The distinction is between negative and positive emotion. Compassion is central to Buddhism, and anyone who aspires towards Enlightenment has to cultivate it, alongside wisdom. One of the most important benefits of meditation is to gain the level of awareness that’s required to control your reactions: you have only a fraction of second, after that it’s too late, but it’s enough, if your meditation practice is good enough, to let you head off anger or any other negative emotion. So anger and hatred are avoided, while compassion and love are encouraged.
The overall aim of all Buddhist practice is to eliminate suffering, and everything in Buddhism is a means to that end. So, some might think, Buddhists want to stop their own suffering, and that’s enough for them. One way of countering that is to say that in Buddhism there’s no essential or eternal self, so my suffering is ultimately indistinguishable from your’s. But that’s a bit abstract, let’s see how it works: if the best way for me to help eliminate your suffering is to encourage your Buddhist practice, how can I most effectively do that? Surely, I need to develop my own practice, both to become a good example, and to gain the wisdom and compassion to understand what you need and how best to offer it to you. (And sometimes I might need to realise that you need to be fed and warmed before you can be expected to give my advice the attention I think it deserves.) So my practice can and should, in principle at least, benefit you and all sentient beings.
It would have been extremely neat to end with that (it was inspired by a traditional dedication used at the end of ceremonies and teaching and meditation sessions), but I feel I have to say a wee bit more. To be able to avoid negativity (or anything else) using that sort of control is not necessarily to know what to replace it with, so there can be a gap, a sort of blankness, in one’s reactions, that might look like uncaring aloofness to others. But it is just the space between the departed negativity and the skilful expression of positivity that will eventually, ideally, take its place. Which is not to say that nobody ever gets stuck at that stage. But just don’t think that caring needs to be demonstrated by negativity or adherence to any particular ideology. The world and the people in it are much bigger and better than that.
April 9, 2013
Posted in: Buddhism, environment, politics No Comments
Political and personal independence
The question of Scottish independence is one on which every Scot might be expected to have a view. I certainly feel some pressure to take one side or the other. In fact, I’m attracted both by the progressive idealism of the yes camp and the pragmatic conservatism of the nay-sayers. The prospect of my country being a free and equal member of the community of nations is positively intoxicating. On the other hand I fully expect most or all of the consequences of independence to be both difficult and expensive to deal with. But that’s all I have to say on the issue, because I’ve made a carefully thought-through and fully committed decision not to take either side, as a matter of principle.
Why? I’m a Buddhist, and believe in avoiding negative speech, actions and states of mind, as far as I possibly can. Prejudice is pernicious, and anger is a poison, in my view, and the taking of political positions seems inevitably to mean entertaining prejudice, anger, disrespect for opponents, etc, etc. But isn’t it worth it, on issues of such importance? For me, absolutely not. For better or worse, my commitment is to the longer view, the bigger picture, and if that makes me sound pompous, tough titty, I don’t give a shit. (And yes, a little negativity does creep in here, this is an aspiration, I’m not claiming moral superiority.)
But doesn’t democracy demand the informed involvement of all good citizens? Yes, I think it probably does, but then I don’t believe in democracy. Ultimately, that is—like I said, this is the long view, the big picture. Churchill was probably right that “democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried.” But I believe that enlightened anarchy is better than any possible form of government. I will grant that enlightenment is a long way off, in the meantime the weak still need protecting from the strong, and that’s best done by democratic means. But because I don’t ultimately believe in it, seeing it as merely a temporary expedient, I feel no compunction about being a free-rider.
So this is my declaration of personal independence: to stay aloof from the fray, preserving my equanimity (such as it is), to resist the ego-ridden temptation to view any contribution I might be able to make as important, to keep taking the long view, not to forget the big picture. And yes, I’m egotistic enough to see this as a contribution worth making. It’s just a blog post, after all! 
But more seriously, it represents a commitment to screen my future contributions very carefully indeed, whether on the web or in the pub.
March 21, 2013
Posted in: Buddhism, politics One Comment
Published at last!
A few days ago I received this long awaited message:
Your article “Mind, Matter, Meaning and Information” has now been published in tripleC volume 11 (1). You can download it under the following link: http://triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/323/437
By sheer coincidence it was exactly a year ago today (December 16) that I submitted the article. But I’m not complaining, for all I know this might be a typical turn-around time, and there was a fair bit of revision required. (I believe I have some raw philosophical talent, but I’m certainly not a great scholar!)
December 16, 2012
Posted in: announcements 2 Comments
Skepticism, Buddhism, philosophy and science
Fascinating discussion this morning (repeated in short form tonight at 9.30 and available indefinitely on the web) on BBC Radio 4′s In Our Time programme, on skepticism, or as they spell it, scepticism. (I might be suspected of sucking up to the Yanks by using their spelling, but I think it is much more common worldwide.)
I had no idea that the ideas of the early Greek skeptics, or some of them (the Pyrrhonists), were so close to Buddhism, their goal being to achieve tranquillity through suspension of judgement. It very much reminds me of Stephen Batchelor‘s “radical agnosticism”, in which both belief and disbelief in anything and everything are let go, their places being taken by working hypotheses (the difference being that there’s no emotional attachment to the latter).
But, as is Melvin Bragg‘s wont, the programme was very wide-ranging, with Montaigne and Hume among other early modern philosophers having their relationship with skepticism assessed, and its place in modern science coming in too. (There’s another BBC Radio 4 programme, Reclaiming the Sceptic, on skepticism and science, at 9pm on Wednesday 11 July 2012.)
All this, but especially the commonality between Buddhism and science, has regenerated my enthusiasm for non-academic philosophy—not that that was dead, but I’ve done almost nothing with it for ages. I say “non-academic”, because it is far too wide-ranging to fit within any formal study programme, to the best of my knowledge. Due to my busy-ness with the New Business I can’t do anything with it now either, but some day…
July 5, 2012
Posted in: philosophy No Comments
New Business
I’m starting a new business! It’s called Giclée Print Stirling. If you’re interested take a look at the site. The biz itself won’t start operating much before the end of July, as there’s a lot of preparation to do. I’m going to run it in parallel with the computer repair business for the foreseeable future.
You might think that won’t leave much time for writing, and you might be right. I’m working on an article based on the DMTD2011 paper at the moment, with a deadline of the end of this month (June), but have no plans for any other academic-style philosophy, though I do still intend to write something, sometime, for a general readership. When (or if) the article appears (it’s an online publication) I’ll post a note here. I know thousands of people will be desperate to see it!
June 23, 2012
Posted in: announcements, business No Comments
Turing and the decoding of meaning
Wired article summarising neuroscientist Ray Dolan’s recent Turing Lecture:
…Dolan argued that just as cryptanalysis was critical for decoding the Enigma machine, used by the Germans in World War II, the brain decodes the state of the world. In doing so, it uses statistical procedures very much like those Turing and his colleagues used at Bletchley Park.
“The state of the world,” of course, includes the configuration of dots on the screen at which you’re currently gazing, and Dolan’s thesis appears to provide powerful support for my contention that meaning is best considered encoded in material form (or “physical information”), being decoded in use.
February 29, 2012
Posted in: information, philosophy No Comments
DTMD abstract and slides
My talk at the DTMD workshop (see recent posts) is this afternoon, and I thought I’d make the abstract and slides available.
September 7, 2011
Posted in: announcements, consciousness, Dennett, information, philosophy, physics No Comments
Dissertation comments
Throwing caution to the wind, I’ve decided to publish selected markers’ comments on the MSc dissertation. I’m striving for a degree of balance, here, but I’m not claiming to have achieved it. There were two markers, who wrote about 3.5 sides of A4 paper between them. (“Selected” in the first sentence applies to the comments, not the markers.)
…a novel and highly original theory of consciousness and its relationship to empathy… Overall the last part of the dissertation was one big mess…
The dissertation is impressive, well written, and covers a lot of ground… The candidate’s position is bold, original, and cleverly defended. One disadvantage of the impressive sweep is that the dissertation covers too much ground… Despite this, the dissertation delivers a great deal of its promise.
July 21, 2011
Posted in: announcements, philosophy No Comments
Dissertation
In a complete turn-around from The Last Post (that’s what it’s called), I’m working on an abstract for The Difference that Makes a Difference conference. (I sometimes think that the more decisively I make up my mind about something, the better the reasons I’ll soon find for rethinking the decision.)
Anyway, sliding back into academic ways, as I seem to be doing at the moment, and in the interests of scholarly openness, I’ve decided to put my dissertation online. I am not particularly proud of it, I procrastinated quite drastically then had insufficient time to do a proper job, and I shoehorned loads of only barely relevant ideas into it just because I’m so keen on them. Even so, it remains the best account yet of some of these ideas, so here it is, exposed for all to see (in theory, though I don’t expect that many will in practice).
June 19, 2011
Posted in: announcements No Comments