Tag: mindfulness

Panpsychism

“Panpsychism is as old as philosophy itself,” write editors Godehard Brüntrup and Ludwig Jaskolla in their introduction to the anthology Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives. The editors present panpsychism as an alternative to analytic philosophy of the mind. Perhaps for this reason, all the essays in this anthology tend to be rather analytical.

The word “panpsychicism” is—like many words describing Western philosophical concepts—Greek in origin. “Pan” means “throughout” or “everywhere,” whereas “psyche” means soul, consciousness, or mind. Therefore, the term “panpsychism” refers to the idea that consciousness is everywhere, or that “mental being is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of the universe.”

Panpsychism includes commentary by 17 authors within 16 essays placed within four subjects: the logical place of panpsychism, the varieties of panpsychic ontologies, panpsychicism and the combination problem (i.e., “How can microphenomenal properties combine to yield macrophenomenal properties?”), and panpsychism and its alternatives. All these essays elaborate on and argue for the thesis that mind, or consciousness, is part of the world; that is, that it exists throughout the universe.

The anthology can be read as a reflection on the current state of this discipline. It’s not an introduction for newcomers; rather, it is aimed at readers with a good knowledge of philosophy and its terminology—from graduate students to philosophy researchers. Or, more precisely, it is a collection of essays that often debate with one another, which can make it a dense reading experience. The tones of the essays swing between humility (most of them) and pretention. For example, David J. Chalmers, who has two excellent essays in this volume, writes, “…I will present an argument for panpsychicism. Like most philosophical arguments, this argument is not entirely conclusive, but I think it gives reason to take the view seriously. Speaking for myself, I am by no means confident that panpsychicism is true, but I am also not confident that it is not true.” Brüntrup simply states, “I am not claiming that a version of panpsychism is true. But I am claiming that it might be.” On the other hand, Strawson writes, “I’ll state the four propositions first in German because I like the way they sound in German … I’m not going to argue for them, but I’ll provide a few glosses.”

In addition to providing an overview of panpsychism, this book provides excellent examples of how to argue logically. It is an interesting field; just imagine this thesis being debated by serious philosophers half a century ago. For anyone remotely interested in consciousness, experience, and subjectivity, this book is required reading.

I will give the reader a few summarizing examples without introducing too much of the complex conceptual framework. Many essays touch upon the concept of “radical emergence,” which states that consciousness emerges out of nothing. Here, proponents of panpsychism make a strong case against this assumption, basically saying that it is scientifically weak to propose that something emerges from nothing. Nihil fit ex nihilo, nothing comes from nothing; this is a thesis that was apparently first presented by Parmenides. The French philosopher Michel Serres has also written about the Roman poet Lucretius, who in De Rerum Natura wrote, “Nothing can be made from nothing – once we see that’s so / Already we are on the way to what we want to know.”

However, the problem with radical emergence is that it does not integrate consciousness in nature. “Many say that experience (consciousness) is a mystery. But what is mysterious?,” asks Strawson. He then clarifies that for him, it is mysterious to suggest that consciousness appears by adding unconscious particles together. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that these particles must have consciousness to begin with. Still, there are disagreements surrounding the idea that everything—from rocks to the Eiffel tower to goats—is conscious.

Another example comes from examining the development of consciousness in a way similar to the examination of the evolutionary development of the human body. Just think of the classic image depicting the evolution from ape to man/woman. The point is that over many years, evolution has worked with the material of the body, gradually developing features such as specialized fingers, including the human thumb, which allows modern humans to text each other. Did something similar happen with consciousness? Was it always there, only to be further and further developed?

A third example is a classical problem that the panpsychists debate: the dualism between the mental and the physical, or to put it even more simply, the mind-body problem. What is the relationship between our bodies and our minds, experiences, and thoughts? If panpsychicism is the best alternative to Cartesian dualism, then this metaphysical approach—that mind is everywhere—eliminates all hierarchies, including the hierarchies between humans and animals and the hierarchies in between humans, whether we speak of gender or race. If even rocks have minds, then perhaps we should show greater care for nature. For far too long, hierarchies—often based on nothing more than ignorance—have justified oppression. Again, think of how women, African-Americans, and homosexuals have suffered.

Panpsychicism has gained a lot of momentum in the last decade, mainly because neuroscience, psychology, biology, philosophy, and physics have failed to solve the riddle of consciousness. I also assume that it has gained popularity due to growing interest in Eastern philosophy, including mindfulness and Buddhism, in which everything is thought to be connected, and consciousness is seen as a sixth sense that allows us to experience this interconnectivity. Thus, to simply restate the argument, panpsychists do not believe that consciousness is created in the brain; instead, as the definition says, they argue that consciousness is everywhere. By “everywhere,” many of the theorists mean that consciousness is present in everything, from the tinniest particle (i.e., micro-consciousness) to human beings and animals (macro-consciousness).

As the editors correctly say, this anthology “focuses on the philosophical—strictly speaking metaphysical—arguments that have evolved from panpsychicism.” It is the foundations of panpsychism that are debated within this anthology.

Let me end with a quote from The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell, who writes, “Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling or certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who never traveled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.”

While reading this anthology, I came to think of Russell’s comment about enlarging our thoughts and keeping our senses alive. I think this anthology succeeds in doing exactly that.

Review published in Metapsychology, Jun 29th 2017 (Volume 21, Issue 26).

Philosopher or Meditator?

“The artist is a seer, a becomer,” wrote the philosopher Gilles Deleuze and the psychiatrist Félix Guattari in their 1996 book, What Is Philosophy.

I thought of this quote the other day, when a student of mine asked me, “What are you: a meditator or a philosopher?”

I’m not sure whether there is—or has to be—a difference, I told her, “I’m a philosopher who meditates. I guess like a carpenter, schoolteacher or football player sometimes does that, too.”

“So to philosophize is, in a way, to meditate,” she said.

“Yes.”

… read the rest of the essay here

 

Transparenssamfundet

Filosoffen Byung-Chul Han er en filosofisk pendant til den danske psykolog Svend Brinkmann. De er begge to dygtige og kamplystne; de er begge to vigtige stemmer, der går imod neoliberalismens uendelige positivitet, hvor kritikken ikke har været fraværende, men nok bare er blevet mere folkelig.

Han udfordrer i sine bøger flere af tidens tendenser – inklusiv dem, som nogle ynder at lovprise. Begrebet ”transparens” er netop et af tidens positive slagord. Jo mere gennemsigtighed, desto bedre, synes moralen at være.

Det er denne floskel, som Han angriber i bogen Transparenssamfundet.

Som de fleste af Hans bøger er Transparenssamfundet et mindre essay, det vil sige mere en pamflet end en bog. Og som alle hans bøger – jeg har vel læst seks-syv af dem på dansk, tysk og spansk (se her, her og her)– er også denne givende. De bedste er dog endnu ikke oversat til dansk!

Transparenssamfundet, skriver Han manifesterer sig primært som et positivsamfund. Her er alt glat og gennemsigtigt, hvilket gør den ”transparente tid” en ”skæbne- og begivenhedsløs tid.” Hvis nogle skulle være i tvivl om, hvad Han mener med en begivenhedsløs tid, så fastslår han dette med sætningen: ”Transparenssamfundet er et helvede af det samme.”

Tænk på sociale medier som Facebook eller Twitter, hvor der re-tweetes igen og igen. Mere af det samme. De færreste læser eller forholder sig minimalt til det, som de sender videre, enten fordi de er bange for at skabe gnidninger, det vil sige gøre kommunikationen mindre gnidningsfri, eller også fordi det, som kommunikeres, ikke inviterer til andet et ”likes” og venlige, men ligegyldige, nik.

”Et nyt ord for ensretning: transparens.”

Det, som Han efterlyser er det begivenhedsrige, det spontane, det legende, det narrative og friheden. Alle disse tillader ingen transparens, siger den tyske filosof.

Transparensen mangler respekten og nænsomheden overfor det fremmede, det anderledes; det, som ikke lader sig eliminere fuldstændig. Et eksempel kunne være de personer, der siger: ”Jeg kan godt lide dig, fordi du ligner mig.” Her er eventuelle forskelle udglattet. Intet er på spil.

Transparens tåler heller ikke huller. I stedet for er kravet, at du hele tiden skal opdatere, kommunikere, være en del af informationsstrømmen, men det betyder også at inspirationen forsvinder. Nye tanker og ideer kræver tid, altså en form for tomrum. Det er netop på grund af fraværet af pauser eller tomrum, at vi konstant zapper rundt i en positiv suppe af åndsløshed.

”Ånden er langsom, fordi den dvæler ved det negative og bearbejder det.”

Hans østlige rødder præger hans filosofiske tilgang. Den berører klassisk kritisk teori med referencer til Hegel, Nietzsche og Heidegger, men den er også beslægtet med mindfulness og zen, idet han konstant plæderer for at være opmærksom på det, som sker. Det er i kraft af vores opmærksomhed, at vi kan stille kritiske spørgsmål til, hvorvidt transparens reelt beriger vores liv.

Dette kommer til udtryk, når Han taler om hvordan transparens underminerer ethvert tomrum, hvor ”tomrum” refererer til det buddhistiske begreb intet eller tomhed, hvor det ikke handler om væren, men om tilblivelse.

I tomrummet kan man undslå sig enhver definition, hvorved man bedre kan følge livet, derhen, hvor det nu engang tager en. Heri ligger der også en kreativ og opfind gestus, idet man forsøger at komme på omgangshøjde eller i samklang med livet. Der ligger også noget frigørende, idet friheden ikke defineres (hvorved den ville blive mindre fri), men snarere er skabende og blivende.

Modsat er transparens blot et udslag af tidens manglende tillid. Det er, fordi jeg ikke tror på dig, at jeg vil have fuld gennemsigtighed. Når politikere beder danskere om at overvåge eller holde øje med hinanden, så underminerer dette den tillid, som reelt holder samfundet sammen. Transparens modvirker, at mennesker kan møde hinanden, som to fremmede mennesker, der kan vække hinandens nysgerrighed. I stedet for opfordrer transparenstanken os til at blotte os overfor hinanden, men altid på en genkendelig måde. Selv når folk er mest intime, lyder de som et ekko af naboen.

Transparens optimerer det allerede eksisterende, som når politikere og ledere er underlagt krav om transparens, hvorved de ikke kan tage svære, men nødvendige beslutninger. Det vil sige, beslutninger som ikke kan efterleve konsulentens naive forestilling om ”win-win” forsømmes eller udskydes.

Nogle gange gør det bare ondt, at tage en beslutning.

”Transparens og sandhed er ikke identiske.”

Transparenssamfundet er endvidere en del af pornosamfundet, hvor alt skal udstilles for derefter at blive udbyttet. Har man først set en pornofilm, bliver det pludseligt svært at skelne det ene kønsorgan fra det andet. Det er også her, at et af Hans yndlingsbilleder dukker op: vi er både gerningsmand og offer. Vi udstiller os selv, fordi vi bilder os ind at være frie, men sandheden er at vi ofrer os selv. ”Narcissisten, som er blevet depressiv, drukner i sin grænseløse intimitet med sig selv. Intet tomrum og fravær distancerer narcissisten fra sig selv.”

Begreberne tomrum og fravær berører den buddhistiske tanke om ”ikke-selv”, det vil sige at alt hænger sammen, der er ingen distinkte grænser mellem dig og mig. Vi formes løbende i kraft af en myriade af faktorer. Jeg er altså ikke andet end en foranderlig proces, som formes af alt det, som ikke er mig. Men alt det, som er mig fremmed møder jeg sjældent i dagens transparenssamfund, hvorfor jeg også bliver mindre og mindre.

Har det kapitalistiske samfund ensrettet os, hvorved vi ikke er andet end en flok næsten identiske cv’er, der per definition altid er kedelige at læse, fordi de sjældent er narrative, men blot en opremsning af en persons uimodståelige målbare bedrifter?

I al for lang og dårlig haiku-stil kan Hans konklusion opsummeres:

Den digitale kommunikation er gennemsigtig

ren transparens

en glat strøm uden hængsler

Den digitale kommunikation er uden moral

den har intet på hjerte

intet andet end sig selv

Den digitale kommunikation er gennemlyst

som en scene i en pornofilm

er den ikke oplysende

Den digitale kommunikation er opmærksomhedshungrende

her udstiller man sig selv, mens man fængsler sig selv

– friheden er blevet kontrollerende

Eller: ”Nietzsche ville sige, at vi ikke har afskaffet Gud, så længe vi endnu tror på transparensen.”

tansparenssamfindet-cover

A Philosophy of Mindfulness

 A Philosophy of Mindfulness is out!

Cover

In this book, I argue that we need a “new” philosophy because we—many of us, at least—are blind. We see rather little of that which surrounds us.

By mixing mindfulness with the affirmative philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, I unfold a philosophy of mindfulness. A philosophy that makes us less blind but also ethically responsible in relation to what we experience. Hereby, I move mindfulness from the sphere of psychology into philosophy, or from being primarily an inward-turned practice to an out-turned one.

A Philosophy of Mindfulness puts emphasis on experience, experiment, and actualization or affirmation. Each experience matters; life is the experience of making contact or being connected with what is in the midst of becoming—that is, life—and then passing it on to the next generations.

Love and care in the present moment – the philosophy of Arne Næss

“I’m not much interested in ethics or morals. I’m interested in how we experience the world.” – Arne Næss.

As a student of philosophy, I read the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss’s books. He wrote in an engaging and clear style that demonstrated deep philosophical breadth and he invited the reader to think along with him.

One of his strengths as a philosopher was this inviting, almost conversational style, which was related to his intuitive approach to life. By “intuitive,” I refer to something necessary—an open approach in which you follow life wherever it takes you, because it leaves you no possibility of escape.

Read the rest of the essay at The Mindful Word.

Teaching Mindfulness

“For mindfulness is not just one more method or technique, akin to other familiar techniques and strategies we may find instrumental and effective in one field or another. It is a way of being, of seeing, of tapping into the full dimension of our humanity, and this way has a critical non-instrumental essence inherent in it.” —Jon Kabat-Zinn in the Foreword to Teaching Mindfulness.

Teaching Mindfulness is authored by Marc S. Micozzi, Donald McCown, and Diane C. Reibel. It is both a theoretical and a practical book, but what does that mean?

Back in 1972, the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze had a conversation with Michel Foucault, in which they discussed the importance of theory and practice (see Foucault’s Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews). Deleuze said, “From the moment a theory moves into its proper domain, it begins to encounter obstacles, walls, and blockages which require its relay by another type of discourse (it is through this other discourse that it eventually passes to a different domain). Practice is a set of relays from one theoretical point to another, and theory is a relay from one practice to another. No theory can develop without eventually encountering a wall, and practice is necessary for piercing this wall.”

What is the proper domain of mindfulness?

The authors don’t mention this explicitly, but the proper domain is life. Mindfulness can help you bring your attention to life, that is, your relationship with life. If we step back, then mindfulness is a fundamental practice of Buddhism. Buddhism presents us with a theory of how to overcome pain and, perhaps, reach enlightenment (e.g., the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Path). However, this theory may encounter an obstacle in its Western context because of its religious undertones. However, mindfulness is also—in its Western practice—a set of relays from psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, and philosophy. The beauty of mindfulness is that it is more flexible than Buddhism, although it acknowledges the lineage and teachers within this very diverse tradition. Still, I refer to Deleuze because he can help us see that practice— mindfulness—makes the constitution of being alive possible.

When Kabat-Zinn says that mindfulness is a way of being, in my opinion he is saying that it’s a philosophy, a way of life. This also illustrates how the theory of practice (how to practice and teach mindfulness) progresses to the level of ontology. “Mindfulness in everyday life is the ultimate challenge,” writes Kabat-Zinn.

I read Teaching Mindfulness with gusto and not just because I recently taught my first session about mindfulness to children. Rather, it takes mindfulness as a practice between Eastern and Western philosophy seriously. Most teachers practice mindfulness out of love; they have been introduced to it because of personal angst or because of their travels in the East, where they met extraordinary teachers. Today, the story is a little different. People are teaching not only out of love but consider their teaching as a profession, which, of course, can be motivated by love. This addresses several problems or challenges. Like those in many other professions (e.g., teaching, nursing, and medicine) it is often assumed that these individuals are directed by some sort of “calling.” This calling often functions as a moral motivator since one could also feel “called” to become an assassin.

So, although I see philosophy as a way of being—and not a discipline where you need to assimilate a specific curriculum to pass—I am also aware that certain background knowledge from reading and practice is needed.

Philosophy is an approach to life that can be qualified through experience, including reading and discussion. As Socrates once said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Most philosophers and mindfulness practitioners would agree, even though they may disagree on how to investigate life.

The authors of Teaching Mindfulness address pertinent questions, such as: Who becomes a teacher? What do I know? Do I know it well enough? In answering these questions, the authors offer their own experiences, which give the book a personal radiance. They also place mindfulness in a Buddhist context and explain how it gradually came to the West. “If the 1960s and 1970s were a period of foundation and growth, the 1980s and 1990s could be seen as the painful passage to maturity,” the authors write.

Being mature means being accountable for your actions. Especially when the teacher becomes something like a healer.

The authors identify four interrelated skill sets that are common among mindfulness teachers:

  1. Stewardship of the group
  2. Homiletics, or the delivery of didactic material
  3. Guidance of formal and informal group experiences
  4. Inquiry into participants’ direct experience

By using these skill sets, the authors present many interesting ideas about balancing the interdependence of the group’s freedom and resonance, the teacher’s responsibility, how to deal with aggression, and other topics. They present concrete exercises and meditation topics for each of the potential challenges: development and care for your “teacher’s voice,” connecting and maintaining curiosity with your students, etc. In this way, the book is useful for the individual teacher, for a group of teachers who can debate and develop their own style of teaching, and even for schools.

One of the book’s greatest advantages is that it illustrateteaching-mindfulnesss the full range of practices: awareness, being present, yoga, and loving-kindness. In that sense the three authors establish the beauty of mindfulness. I would like to stress this point.

Mindfulness is part of an industry that attracts many good teachers, but it also draws those who are in it only for the money. If you are interested in mindfulness (or anything else) because of the money, it negates the so-called goodness, loving-kindness, and true altruism intrinsic to these individuals and makes them hypocritical. When profit or payment enters, the world is again for only those who can afford it. The rest? Let them scramble in the dirt. What I mean when the authors show the beauty of mindfulness is that they pass on their experiences instead of capitalizing on them. Even though these textbooks are ridiculously expensive, we are grateful to the authors for explaining their practice.

Mindfulness can teach people to pay attention, and to become aware of themselves and what happens around them. This can help them see that they need to do something. For instance, I imagine living in a world where people can become who they are. Unfortunately, the persecution of gender, race, and sexuality still hinders the individual’s freedom to become. Before this can be changed, we need to pay attention to how we think and act to make equality and respect possible in the future.In other words, mindfulness can’t change the world alone but together with critical thinking, I believe, children (and others) will have a good foundation for engaging in this world.

In conclusion, I recommend this book to all who work with mindfulness, but it is also a valuable resource for teachers in general.

Finn Janning, PhD in philosophy, is a writer.

Some years ago

Some years ago, I began contacting book publishers for review copies. At that time, I didn’t have any money but a great hunger for reading books on philosophy. All I offered was a review or a mention on this blog. Many publishers were kind enough to send me copies.

While reading these books, I have gradually tried (and I am still trying) to formulate and practice an affirmative philosophy. A philosophy for everyone! This us a journey that began with my PhD-studies that I finished in 2005.

A few years ago, I decided to see if mindfulness could add anything to this philosophical approach. Loosely said, all ethics requires that we “see”—that is, that we are aware or paying attention as a way of being. Yet most philosophies don’t really nurture this skill.

Therefore, as a way to get acquitted with mindfulness (I was interested in its nonreligious approach to meditation), I participated in courses and retreats, and I am now in the last stage of finishing a master’s degree in mindfulness.

Philosophy is serious, as Kierkegaard said (for which reason he elegantly added humor and irony to pass on his thoughts). During this process, I have contacted publishers for books on mindfulness as well. And that is why I am writing this post.

One of the books I received in 2016 was Malcolm Huxter’s Healing the Heart and Mind with Mindfulness. I lost the book several months ago, probably in a park somewhere in Barcelona, since I read it during the summer. Now I feel obliged to keep my word: keeping your word is important even if no one else cares about your words. That is, I have to mention the book!

As I recall the book, it was slim and an easy read, almost an introduction to mindfulness. Yet it was not one of those that are centered on the author’s own suffering; rather, it was based on research and deep knowledge about both Buddhism and psychology. It doesn’t debate whether mindfulness lacks a real Buddhist touch but unfolds the fruitful interactions among mindfulness, psychology, and Buddhism. Most of the chapters ended with meditations, and I did some of them, mainly because they seemed honest and not something that the author felt was needed.

Healing the heart and the mind can be seen as “self-care”, not self-love (an absurd term). Self-care is a healthy investment of my participation in both the present moment as well as in the future.

Mindfulness, as many probably know, is not just about paying attention; it is also about not forgetting. The mind is not the brain; rather the mind is anchoring somewhere in the body like wrinkles and scars that are signs of a lived life.

That I recall this book, on the verge of 2017, is a sign that it is worth sharing and therefore reading.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑