Kommentaari: So Good That They Can’t Ignore You – Cal Newport

Kirja esittelee Cal Newportin reseptin siihen, kuinka löytää upea työ. Kirja on tosi hyvä.

Kirjan keskeiset pointit pähkinänkuoressa:

– Intohimohypoteesi on virheellinen ja mahdollisesti haitallinen. Intohimohypoteesin mukaan upea työ löytyy niin, että ensin mietit, mikä on intohimosi ja sitten etsit työn, joka vastaa sitä. Intohimohypoteesi ei kuitenkaan selitä sitä, miten ihmiset, jotka rakastavat työtään ovat päätyneet nykyiseen työhönsä

– Intohimon etsimisen asemesta kannattaa investoida “urapääomaan” eli kehittää harvinaisia ja arvokkaita taitoja. Sitten kun sinulla on näitä taitoja, voit vaihtaa niiden tuottavan arvon haluamaasi työn ominaisuuksiin (Newportin mukaan näitä unelmatyötä kuvaavia haluttavia ominaisuuksia on autonomia, luovuus ja vaikuttavuus)

– Kerätäksesi urapääomaa kannattaa omaksua “artesaanin asenne”: fokus siihen, mitä arvoa tuotat maailmalle sen sijaan mitä arvoa maailma (tai siis työ) tuottaa sinulle

– Kerätäksesi urapääomaa ja taitoja kannattaa käyttää tarkoituksellista harjoittelua (deliberate practice), jonka kaksi keskeistä piirrettä ovat:  1. Haastat taitojasi ja kykyjäsi jatkuvasti (teet sopivan vaikeita asioita) 2. Saat nopeasti rehellista palautetta tuotoksistasi

– Upean työn ehkä keskesin piirre, “ihme-eliksiiri”, on autonomia: kyky päättää mitä teet ja miten teet sen. Kun sinulla on urapääomaa riittävästi, käytä sitä saadaksesi autonomiaa

– Kun mietit urapääoman vaihtamista autonomiaan, kohtaat kaksi sudenkuoppaa 1) jos yrität saada autonomiaa ilman riittävää urapääomaa, autonomia ei ole kestävää (esim. rahat loppuu) 2) jos sinulla on paljon urapääomaa, työnantajat ja ympäristö vastustavat yrityksiäsi vaihtaa sitä autonomiaan

– Yksinkertainen nyrkkisääntö em. sudenkuoppien välttämiseksi: tee sitä, mistä ihmiset ovat valmiita maksamaan sinulle. Jos kukaan ei halua maksaa sinulle ideastasi, et ole valmis vielä toteuttamaan ideaasi

– Uramissio on yksi asia, minkä voit ostaa jos sinulla on paljon urapääomaa.

– Parhaat missioideat löytyvät sieltä, missä oman alasi huippuosaamisen raja kulkee juuri nyt. Tarvitset paljon urapääomaa, jotta kohtaisit näitä ideoita

– Jos olet identifioinut yleistason mission, kannattaa protoilla sitä tekemällä systemaattisesti pieniä kokeiluprojekteja. Näiden projektien kannatta olla sellaisia, jotka huomataan: 1) ne ovat huomoita herättäviä 2) projektit kannattaa toteuttaa alustalla tai yhteisössä jotka tukevat huomion leviämistä

Seuraavaksi muutamia laajempia huomiota kirjasta.

Argumentoidessaan intohimohypoteesia vastaaan Newport käyttää mielestäni muutamia hieman heikkoja argumentteja:

“This result deals another blow to the passion hypothesis. In Wrzesniewski’s research, the happiest, most passionate employees are not those who followed their passion into a position, but instead those who have been around long enough to become good at what they do. On reflection, this makes sense. If you have many years’ experience, then you’ve had time to get better at what you do and develop a feeling of efficacy. It also gives you time to develop strong relationships with your coworkers and to see many examples of your work benefiting others. What’s important here, however, is that this explanation, though reasonable, contradicts the passion hypothesis, which instead emphasizes the immediate happiness that comes from matching your job to a true passion.”

Nämä kuvatut tulokset voivat selittyä valintaharhalla (selection bias): ne, jotka ovat olleet tietyssä työssä pisimpään, ovat todennäköisesti juuri ne, jotka myös pitävät siitä eniten. Ne, jotka eivät diganneet työstä, vaihtoivat toiseen, kun aika oli kypsä

Newport argumentoi intohimohypoteesia vastaan myös itseohjautuvuusteoriaan pohjautuen:

“Of equal interest is what this list of basic psychological needs does not include. Notice, scientists did not find “matching work to pre-existing passions” as being important for motivation. The traits they did find, by contrast, are more general and are agnostic to the specific type of work in question. Competence and autonomy, for example, are achievable by most people in a wide variety of jobs— assuming they’re willing to put in the hard work required for mastery. This message is not as inspiring as “follow your passion and you’ll immediately be happy,” but it certainly has a ring of truth. In other words, working right trumps finding the right work.”

Mun ymmäryksen mukaan itseohjautuvuusteorian autonomia-tarpeeseen kuuluu se, että tekee jotain omasta vapaasta tahdostaan. Autonomia toteutuu työssä parhaiten silloin, kun teet jotain ihan vaan tekemisen ilosta – eli tekisit sitä, vaikka et saisi siitä rahaakaan. Tältä osin autonomia ei nähdäkseni voi yhtä helposti yhden yksilön tapauksessa toteutua hyvin erilaisissa töissä sen takia, että ihmisillä on yksilölliset mieltymykset, jotka rajaavat potentiaalisten huippuduunien määrää. Autonomian suppeampi versio – se että saat ison vapauden päättää kuinka teet työtä ja milloin – voi taas toteutua hyvinkin monissa erinlaisissa duuneissa.

Urapääoman osalta ei ole vain tärkeää, se, että kehität taitojasi, vaan myös se, että sinulla luotettavaa näyttöä siitä, että taitotasosi on hyvin korkea.

Milloin ei kannata luottaa “artesaanin asenteeseen” (siis fokusoida siihen mitä arvoa tuottaa maailmalle):

“Three disqualifiers for applying the craftsman mindset:

1) The job presents few opportunities to distinguish yourself by developing relevant skills that are rare and valuable.

2) The job focuses on something you think is useless or perhaps even actively bad for the world.

3) The job forces you to work with people you really dislike. “

Pidän Newportin esille tuomasta jaottelusta: productivity mindset vs. deliberate practice mindset. Eli keskitytkö tekemisessä tuottamaan (saamaan asioita aikaiseksi) vai tarkoitukselliseen harjoitteluun. Newport suosittelee jälkimmäiseen keskittymistä. Olen samaa mieltä: pitkällä aikavälillä osaamisinvestoinnit auttavat saamaan aikaan paljon enemmän asioita.

Notes: Brief History of Everything by Ken Wilber – Chapter 5

This post is about the chapter 5 Four corners of the cosmos.

Wilber argues that we need to move from “modernity” (rational-industrial) to “postmodernity”. In terms of transcend:

“(1) be open to modes of consciousness that move beyond mere rationality (2) embed them in modes of techno-economic structures that move beyond industrialization. In other words, a change of consciousness embedded in a change of institutions. Either one alone will probably not work. “

In terms of inclusion:

“both rationality and industry will be included as well, but now as mere components in a more balanced, more inclusive, more integrated stance that will incorporate—and limit—rationality and industry”

The four quadrants: four perspectives to reality

In this chapter, Wilber introduces the concept of four quadrants, the four different ways perspectives to reality, which I think is one of the biggest contributions Wilber’s Integral theory. It has helped me to look at reality in a clear and more complete manner. The four quadrants are: individual-interior (I), collective-interior (WE), individual-exterior (IT) and collective-exterior (ITS).

(Figure 5-1 from Ken Wilber’s Brief History of Everything)

Wilber describes that he came up with the four quadrant concept when went through different developmental theories (psychology, sociology, ecology, systems theory, physics, mysticism, philosophy, etc) and made lists various holarchical maps in there. He says he first thought all the maps refer to the same territory but later it came evident that there are four very different territories the collected maps refer to: hence the four quadrants.

Four quadrant map fits nicely with the holon theory: Interior dimensions look at insides of holon (holon from inside) and exterior dimensions look at outsides of holon (holon from outside). Individual dimensions look at holon individually and collective dimensions look at holon as part of collective or community. Results we get when using these four ways of studying a holon are correlated because what seen inside is correlated with what is seen outside and what happens on individual level is correlated with what happens in collective level.

Below is a more detailed map of different correlated developmental holarchies in the four quadrants (from Brief History of Everything):

A good example of a correlated findings in the two individual quadrants is consciousness/experience <-> brain/nervous system. Consciousness is how things look from inside, brain activity is how things look from outside. More specific example of the correlates is: emotions (interior-individual) <-> limbic system. I guess this is still bit simplistic because emotions are not represented exclusively by the limbic system – though the limbic system is the primary brain structure representing basic emotions.

Wilber argues invidividual holons exist only in communities (or collectives) of similar depth holons. By looking at these communities it is possible to map the collective holons (lower right and left quadrants in the above figure). In human context, we get: interior-collective: “cultural, i.e. the interior meanings and values and identities that we share with those of similar communities” and exterior-collective: “social, i.e all exterior, material, institutional forms of the community, from its tecno-economic base to architectural styles to its written codes to its population size.”

In the more general case, including also nonhuman holons, interior-collective or culture means worldspace or all the things that holons of similar depth can respond to:

“By the culture or worldspace of holons, I simply mean a shared space of what they can respond to: quarks do not respond to all stimuli in the environment, because they register a very narrow range of what will have meaning to them, what will affect them. Quarks (and all holons) respond only to that which fits their worldspace: everything else is a foreign language, and they are outsiders. The study of what holons can respond to is the study of shared worldspaces. It’s the common world that all holons of a similar depth will respond to. That is their shared culture. “

Wilber gives a great nonhuman example of interior-collective or worldspace of wolves:

“Nonhuman cultures can be very sophisticated. Wolves, for example, share an emotional worldspace. They possess a limbic system, the interior correlate of which is certain basic emotions. And thus a wolf orients itself and its fellow wolves to the world through the use of these basic emotional cognitions—not just reptilian and sensorimotor, but affective. They can hunt and coordinate in packs through a very sophisticated emotional signal system. They share this emotional worldspace. Yet anything outside that worldspace is not registered. I mean, you can read Hamlet to them, but no luck. What you are, with that book, is basically dinner plus a few things that will have to be spat out. The point is that a holon responds, and can respond, only to those stimuli that fall within its worldspace, its worldview. Everything else is nonexistent. “

Espacially, in the context of human societies, interior-collective relates to worldviews.

As in the case of individual quadrants, what we find when looking at interior-collective and exterior-collective are correlated. The worldviews are correlated with exterior forms of social structures that support them.

Wilber gives an example of looking at reality through the intercorrelated four quadrants. Holon = ‘The thought of going to the grocery store’

  • Interior-individual: When one has that thought, what is experienced is the thought itself, the meaning – the symbols, the images, the idea of going to the grocery store
  • Exterior-individual: changes in brain: dopamine increases, acetylcholne jumps the synapses, beta brainwaves increases etc
  • Interior-collective: the internal thought makes only sense in the terms of ones cultural background. In primal tribal society milloin years ago, one would not even be able to have the thought “going to the grocery store”. Thoughts arise in a cultural background that gives texture and meaning. The thought “going to the grocery store” can only exists against a vast background of cultural practices, languages and meanings, without which one could not form virtually no individual thoughts at all. This vast background is the culture, the cultural worldview, the person’s worldspace. So in the case of the thought “going to the grocery store”, interior collective are all the shared meanings, language, culture that enables one to have this thought
  • Exterior-collective: [my own thinking here] the external correlates of the shared meanings, language, culture that enable one to have the thought “going to the grocery store”: actual grocery store(s) existing in the society, social system (grocery store in market economy?)

An important point to note is that because the four quadrants are interrelated, evolution happens in all of them in a correlated manner. For sustainable evolution in one quadrant, evolution is needed in all of them. In practice, if you want to create sustainable change for the better, four quadrant approach will help you.

In conclusion, the four quadrant map is one of the big insights of Integral theory, at least for me.

Kolme harjoitetta kielteisten tunteiden ja huolien käsittelyyn

Kirjoitimme Kaj’n kanssa Kehitystön blogissa siitä, kuinka paremmin kohdata ja käsitellä kielteisiä tunteita ja erilaisia huolia elämässä.

Kolme harjoitetta kielteisten tunteiden ja huolien käsittelyyn

Itselleni on ollut tekstissä kuvatuista lähestymistavoista apua: kielteiset tunteet tai huolet ovat helpottaneet ja lisäksi olen saanut itseeni yhteyttä syvemmällä tasolla ja sekä oppinut tarpeistani ja uskomuksistani.

Are you one with that beer can? – an argument for nondual perception of reality

I had came up with this idea when reading the Brief history of everything by Ken Wilber.

Firstly, I am going to introduce an hierarchical (or holarchical, holarchy is a nested hierarcy) “core self -environment continuum model” (couldn’t come up with a better name, sorry!)  which is a rough model of how reality is organized in the individual-interior (see Wilber’s four quadrant model of reality). The model is about individual-interior, i.e. relates primarily to the subjective experienced reality that is phenomenological, not empirical in nature. In other words, it attempts the describe the things a subject experiences them as opposed to things that can be observed from outside. So this is more a philosophical text than a neuroscience text.

Secondly, in the context of this model, I am going to argue for nondual perception of reality (there is no distinction between the self and the “outer” reality).

Core self – environment continuum model

In this model, there is a continuum from our core self to the “outer” reality or environment. In the order of increasing distance to the core of the self, the components of the model are:

observing self <-> mind <-> body <-> environment

In this model, at the core of reality experience is the observing self (the witness, the Buddha nature, etc etc). This is in accordance with the teachings of most of the ancient and modern spiritual teachers. For example, Tolle writes:

“I am not my thoughts, emotions, sense perceptions, and experiences. I am not the content of my life. I am Life. I am the space in which all things happen. I am consciousness”, from Eckhart Tolle, Stillness Speaks (2003)

The idea in the model is that the four components – observing self, mind, body, environment – interact and interface hierarchically (or holarchically).

Observing self has an input-output relationship (an interface) only with the mind. This means observing self can interact with the body only via the mind. Example: if I want to raise my hand, I need to activate some processes (plan the motor sequence and give order for execution etc) in the mind to enable me to actually raise the hand. The idea is that the observing self cannot directly interface with the body.

Similarly, mind has input-output relationship (an interface) with the body (but not directly with the environment) and the body has an interface with the environment.

I am not sure if I can make a good argument for the four categories, observing self – mind – body – environment, based on solely phenomenological subjective experience (individual-interior), that is, in this case introspection. From the view point of empirically observable correlates of observing self – mind – body – environment, the argument for these categories and the interfaces in-between could be probably made easier. In any case, here is the argument for the four categories based on phenomenological subjective experience: Observing self is the part of reality-experience that does not change. Mind is all the experiences and forms that appear. Body is something I experience with either or both of two qualities 1) I can control it (interact with) directly 2) it can directly affect my experience (i.e. sensations). Environment is something I experience conditional to my body.

Argument for nondual perception of reality

The common view of reality is dual in the sense that there is me and then there is the outer reality. Me is usually composed of body and the mind. “I have this body that I can move and feel. I also have a mind where some emotions, experiences, meanings, thoughts come and go.” In this view reality, the self-sense has not yet differentiated mind and observing self, in the sense of the above Tolle quote. If we differentiate them we get: me = body + mind + observing self.

In the dual model of reality, in addition to “me”, there is the “outer” reality, the environment. There is a dividing line between me and the environment. It seems to me that this is arbitrary.

In the context of the “core self – environment continuum model” here, dual perception of reality means that there is something special in the interface that separates body from environment that is not found in the other interfaces.

Let’s take an object in the environment, for example a can of beer. The dual perception of reality says I am separate from that can of beer. The only reason I can think why somebody would state that the can of beer separate from me is that I cannot directly influence or interact with the can in the same way I can directly influence or interact with my hand for example. In other words, I need to use my body to interact with that can.

But in the same way, I need to use my mind to interface with my body. So by the same logic, in the context of the model here

observing self <-> mind <-> body <-> environment,

it follows that I am separate from my body.

Thus, because there is no difference in the quality of the interface mind<->body and body<->environment, there is no reason to arbitrary draw the line of self between the body and the environment.

In conclusion, if the “core self – environment continuum model” is any good description of reality experience in the individual-interior (the subjective reality experience), there is no grounds for having a dual self-sense which separates me from my surroundings.

Notes: Brief History of Everything by Ken Wilber – chapters 3 and 4

This post is about the chapters 3 All too Human and 4 Great Postmodern revolution.

Previous chapters covered evolution up to the emergence of human beings (evolution from physiospher to biosphere to noosphere). This chapter starts to discuss the evolution of human consciousness (noosphere). By this Wilber means evolution in “worldviews”.

Wilber outlines predominant “worldviews” in epochs of human development and correlates them with major stages of technological/economic development. Wilber defines worldview as a way of looking at the world. Later in the book: “A worldview, as we were saying, is what the Kosmos looks like from a particular rung of consciousness. ”

He argues and carefully states that there is not a single pregiven world, and we simply look at it differently but actually as worldviews change and emerge actually new worlds are created:

“This might seem to be splitting hairs, but it really is very important: it’s not that there is a single, pregiven world, and we simply look at it differently. Rather, as the Kosmos comes to know itself more fully, different worlds emerge. It’s like an acorn growing to an oak. An oak isn’t a different picture of the same unchanging world present in the acorn. The oak has components in its own being that are quite new and different from anything found in the acorn. The oak has leaves, branches, roots, and so on, none of which are present in the acorn’s actual “worldview” or “worldspace.” Different worldviews create different worlds, enact different worlds, they aren’t just the same world seen differently. “

I like this point. It emphasizes evolution, development or change in noosphere (or in the realm of ideas) in addition to physiosphere and biosphere. It points to the evolution in interior reality, conciousness, realm of experiences, shared realities and culture (left-hand quadrants in AQAL model).

worldview ”rung” of consciousness Economic/technological stage of society
archaic Sensations and impulses foraging: hunting and gathering, small foraging tribes

 

magic Images and symbols horticultural: farming culture based on hoe/simple digging stick

 

mythic rules and roles agrarian: farming culture based on animal-drawn plow, 4000-2000BCE onwards, some specialization

 

rational formal operational thinking industrial
existential “vision-logic” informational

I find value in the Wilber’s assesment of development of worldviews. It is harder to assess the validity of the various claims about the correlation to “rungs” of consciousness or stages of economic/technological development. My hunch at this point would be that they are overarching generalizations painted with a broad brush which have some value.

Wilber writes about the fundamental paradigm in Enlightment which he states is the representation paradigm which has basically two axioms

  1. Separation between self/subject and empirical/sensory world
  2. All valid knowledge consists in making maps of the empirical/sensory/objective world

Wilber argues this is very limited because the paradigm leaves out the mapmaker. Post-enlightenment or postmodern scholars (Heidigger, Focault, Derrida etc) were the ones who assaulted the representation paradigm. According to Wilber, mapmaker is important to take in to account because it has own characteristics and history affect the mapmaking (what is seen, can be seen). Mapmaker/subject is situated in contexts and currents of its own development, its history. The map depends as much on the “empirical world” as much on this history.

The representation paradigm underlies scientific method. Three most important general principles of scientific method are 1) systematic empiricism or structured observations, 2) knowledge is publicly verifiable, replication, peer review (community of mapmakers, not just one individual and one history) and 3) seek problems that are empirically solvable and that yield testable theories, i.e. theories must be falsifiable (study only maps that can be tested by empirical observation). [1]

I am not sure how the mapmaker affects research in hard sciences, for example in physics. I would imagine an alien species would develop very much the same theories of physics as us. In qualitative research, the mapmaker has a more important role I think. The fact that there is a community of mapmakers (the scientific community) decreases the effect of single mapmaker history/perspective to the map. But community history and context still affects the research: how research is done, the results of research and what is researched.

“Yes. And the overall idea that worldviews develop—that neither the world nor the self is simply pregiven—that is the great postmodern discovery. ”

“And at each stage of development the world looks different because the world is different—and there is the great postmodern revelation. “

In my understanding ,the advance from representation paradigm (neutral mapmaker makes maps out of empirical world) is that mapmaker with a perspective and history (worldview) maps out the empirical world.

There is development both in maps and perspectives. Map is affected by the perspective and perspective is affected by the map. Also what is mapped is greatly influenced by the history and the perspective of the mapmaker.

Wilber notes that in growth, in transcendence there is a possibility of repression of earlier levels of development, earlier truths instead of inclusion:

“Wherever there is the possibility of transcendence, there is, by the very same token, the possibility of repression. The higher might not just transcend and include, it might transcend and repress, exclude, alienate, dissociate. “

Wilber’s example is that in our rational-industrial societies many of us have become dissociated from or repressed the truths of earlier worldviews, like the fact that we are part of the biosphere and part of the nature on Earth which was more evident in earlier societies (e.g archaic-foraging).

[1] How to Think Straight About Psychology, Keith Stanovich

Notes: Brief History of Everything by Ken Wilber – Chapter 2 “The Secret Impulse”

This post is about the chapter 2 The secret impulse.

Wilber argues that evolution in holons proceeds by a process of transcend and include.

“A molecule transcends and includes atoms. Transcends, in that it has certain emergent or novel or creative properties that are not merely the sum of its components. This is the whole point of systems theory and holism in general, that new levels of organization come into being, and these new levels cannot be reduced in all ways to their junior dimensions—they transcend them. But they also include them, because the junior holons are nonetheless components of the new holon. So, transcends and includes.

….

Well, take any evolutionary development, say, atoms to molecules to cells to organisms. This is a sequence of increasing wholeness, increasing holons, each of which transcends and includes its predecessor. Now if, in a type of thought experiment, you “destroy” any particular type of holon, then all of the higher holons will also be destroyed, but none of the lower holons will be destroyed. “

According to Wilber evolution in whatever medium is a process where new (“higher” in the sense that they depend on their predecessors) holons emerge as in a process of inclusion of pre-existing set of holons to new holon which also transcends the subholons in some way.

I like this idea and perspective on evolution. I also like the emphasis on inclusion in addition to transcendence. I think evolution is often thought to mean transcendence, and what came before, the history, which enables the new thing/holon is often forgotten.

Wilber describes a sequence of evolution toward higher wholeness from physiosphere (matter) to biosphere (life) to noosphere (minds).

Depth, span and holarchies

Number of levels in any holarchy is referred to as its depth. Number of holons in any given level is referred to as its span.

Definition of levels is in part arbitrary – it depends on how you define levels. Despite this it is possible to make comparisons of depth: greater depth means greater depth in all possible definitions or scales of levels.

According to Wilber (and Ervin Laszlo who he is referring to), evolution produces greater depth and less span on succeeding levels. This means number of holons in higher levels is lower than in lower levels (tenet 8).

(Figure 2-2 from Ken Wilber’s Brief History of Everything)

Wilber argues that the highest level in holarchy is the spirit. It transcends all and includes all. I think the number of holons in that level needs to be one, because it is the highest level: i.e. has smallest span and greatest depth. Wilber says that “[spirit] is both the Goal and the Ground of the entire sequence”.

I think defining spirit as the ultimate whole contradicts with what Wilber said in earlier chapter “Pattern that connects”. There he says eveything is composed of holons, and:

“Q: And [Holons] all the way up, as you say. We never come to an ultimate Whole.

KW: That’s right. There is no whole that isn’t also simultaneously a part of some other whole, indefinitely,  unendingly. Time goes on, and today’s wholes are tomorrow’s parts…”

If spirit is the ultimate holon/whole and transcends all and includes all, what whole is it a part of? If it is not part also, it is not a holon, it is just a whole. One could try to postulate some circular structure – which I think Wilber, using poetic and imprecise language, could hint to here, for example he writes: “So Spirit is both the highest ‘level’ in the holarchy, but it’s also the paper on which the entire holarchy is written. ” So in this line of argument, the spirit, in addition to being the ultimate whole, is also the smallest constituent part of cosmos also, so everything from subatomic particles would be composed of spirit. In that case, spirit would both be highest level of holarchy and lowest level of holarchy. And thus it would have the smallest span (1?) and greatest span (infinity?) which would be contradiction. Doesn’t sound so convincing.

Wilber argues evolution has a direction: towards greater depth.

“Evolution has a direction, yes, a principle of order out of chaos, as it is commonly phrased. In other words, a drive toward greater depth. Chance is defeated, depth emerges—the intrinsic value of the Kosmos increases with each unfolding. “

Wilber also says greater the degree of depth, greater the degree of its consciousness. “Consciousness and depth are synonymous”. I think tying depth (number of levels in holarchy) is quite arbitrary. Molecules have more consciousness than atoms?

Wilber writes “Consciousness is simply what depth looks like from the inside, from within. ” I like this, even though the concept of consciousness is not very precisely defined here.

The chapter ends with pages of very poetic and inspiring text about how evolution in general and individual’s evolution is about touching the infinity, Kosmic consciousness, the spirit.

Notes: Brief History of Everything by Ken Wilber – Chapter 1 “Pattern that connects”

This post is only about the chapter 1 Pattern that connects.

Kosmos

Wilber divides the reality, in his words Kosmos (as opposed to cosmos which refers only to the physical reality), to physiosphere (cosmos, i.e physical matter), biosphere (i think this everything living), noosphere (domain of the mind, thoughts,concepts, etc) and theosphere (divine domain).

My question is: what about software etc. , i.e. silicon-based “constructs”? I think there is an analogy between: biological life (biosphere) gives rise to mind (noosphere) and hardware gives rise software.

First tenet: Kosmos is composed of holons

In the book, Wilber introduces some of his tenets, rules etc, about how the Kosmos works. First tenet is: Kosmos is composed of holons. Holons is a concept created by Arthur Koestler. Holon is something that is at the same time a whole in itself and a part (whole/part examples: atom/molecule, human individual/ community). Wilber writes

“So the first tenet says that reality is composed neither of things nor processes, neither wholes nor parts, but whole/parts, or holons—all the way up, all the way down. “

I really like the concept of holon, and the perspective it opens: instead of just looking at a thing, always look at the whole it is a part of. I like the concept because this pertains not only to the physical universe but also for example to our experiences, thoughts and concepts.

How would one go about proving or falsifying the Tenet 1? A counter-example would suffice to falsify the tenet. How about for example, the Planck lenght in quantum theory (smallest unit of length, in some quantum theories at least). It is not established that Planck lenght is the smallest unit of length because it is not clear which theory is right. However, concepts like Planck length point to the possiblity that there is a smallest physical size that cannot be divided (nobody believed that there is an upper limit to speed but there is as Einstein proved).

In any case, I find tenet 1 fruitful way to look at things.

Second tenet: Each holon has four tendencies or capacities or drives (Wilber uses all of these terms): drive for agency, communion, transcendence and dissolution

Drive for agency and communion
Wilber calls drives for agency and communion vertical drives. These drives are motivated by the fact that every holon is a whole/part: to “survive” it needs to maintain both its wholeness and partness. Drive for agency means that every holon seeks to maintain its own wholeness, identity, autonomy, agency. Drive for communion means that holons seeks to remain a part of whole, i.e. to fit in in its community or surroundings.

I think these are both sort of abstract survival drives. Holon seeks to maintain itself as a separate entity, failure would mean it ceases to exist. Holon seeks to be succesfully a part of whole, to fit in because it needs to fit in to survive.

It is not clear for me these drives actually exist. What it means to have a drive? Does a coffee cup have a drive to be coffee cup, or a drive to be a part of a serving or whatever whole we look at?

Drive for transcendence and dissolution
Two other drives, drive for transcendence and dissolution, are what Wilber calls vertical drives. Drive for dissolulution means drive of a holon to break down to its subholons. In the book, Wilber uses the term “capacity” for dissolution instead of drive. So is it a drive or a capacity? Isn’t a drive for dissolution contradictory to drives for agency and communion (the “survival” drives)? What sense does it make to postulate a drive for maintaining itself and a drive for self-destruction at the same time?

Drive for transcendence means drive to build up new more complex holons (like molecules forming living cells). I am not sure why holons would have this drive. Wilber argues basically that because evolution produces minds out of life and life out of matter, “drive for self-transcendence seems to be built on the very fabric of Kosmos itself”.

In particular, Wilber argues that something almost miraculous needed to happen for wings or eyeballs to evolve. This is then used to support the drive of holons to self-transcend. The view that something nearly miraculous needs to happen for complex adaptations like wings or eyeballs to evolve seems fallacious to me. It is just “normal evolution”. For instance, eye has evolved independently 50-100 times.

In his article, Frank Visser clearly shows that Wilbers understanding of Darwinian evolution is deeply flawed.

I am not convinced that holons have innate drive for transcendence.

Tenet 3: holons emerge

This tenet simply says that new holons creatively emerge.

Wilber argues chance cannot explain what is going on in the Kosmos/universe because in 12 billion years only so man chance mutations can take place:

“Calculations done by scientists from Fred Hoyle to F. B. Salisbury consistently show that twelve billion years isn’t even enough to produce a single enzyme by chance. “

This seems to be weak argument against traditional Darwinian evolution refuted by Dawkins and others. See for example Frank Visser’s article

Tenet 4: holons emerge holarchically

Holarchy is Koestler’s term for natural hierarchy composed of holons. Whole of a lower level comes a part of another:

“A natural hierarchy is simply an order of increasing wholeness, such as: particles to atoms to cells to organisms, or letters to words to sentences to paragraphs. The whole of one level becomes a part of the whole of the next.”

I like the concept of holarchy. And I think assuming that everything is composed of holons (tenet 1), it means everything is organized to holarchies. I.e everything is composed of parts, everything is a part of a whole and a whole unto itself.

Wilber equates the terms holarchy and natural hierarchy [in other places growth hierarchy] and contrasts them with dominator hierarchies. In dominator hierarchies, one holon tries to dominate the whole or other holons at the same level, i.e rise above its position. Dominator hierarchy is based on oppression (example caste system), holarchy or growth hierarchy are based on inclusion and transcendence.

Tenet 5: each emergent holon transcends but includes its predecessor(s)

This means holon includes all its parts but in itself is more than just its parts, i.e. it transcends its parts:

“The point is that since all holons are whole/parts, the wholeness transcends but the parts are included. In this transcendence, heaps are converted into wholes; in the inclusion, the parts are equally embraced and cherished, linked in a commonality and a shared space that relieves each of the burden of being a fragment. And so yes, evolution is a process of transcend and include, transcend and include. And this begins to open onto the very heart of Spirit-in-action, the very secret of the evolutionary impulse.”

I very much like the idea of evolution/growth as process of transcend and include (or include and transcend). Everything new is built on something that came before. Point I get here myself is that sustainable growth can happen when the predecessors, that which came before, is included (not rejected) and embraced in the novelty that was born (transcendence).

Kommentaari: Valonöörit-kirja

Luin hiljattain Frank Martelan Valonöörit-kirjan. Se on todella hyvä ja suosittelen sitä vahvasti ihmisille, joita kiinnostaa mistä rakentuu hyvä elämä. Se on myös hyvä johdatus itseohjautuvuusteoriaan. Tässä muutamia spesifejä kommentteja ja ajatuksia, joita heräsi. Vaikka kommentit ovat pääosin kriittisiä, on kirja kokonaisuutena tosi jepa.

Kommentti #1: Kappale ”Evoluutio, oksitosiini ja hyväntekeminen” -sivupointti siitä, miten pitkälle meneviä johtopäätöksiä voidaan tehdä

Tässä kappaleessa Martela ilmeisesti argumentoi, että ihmiset ovat biologisella tasolla taipuvaisia hyväntekemiseen. 

”Toisten auttaminen on siis järkevää sellaisissa yhteisöissä, joissa jäsenet a) kykenevät pitämään kirjaa siitä, ketkä tekevät hyviä tekoja b) jakavat hyvää toisten maineen ja aiemman hyväntahtoisuuden perusteella c) rankaisevat vapaamatkustajia. Harva eläinyhteisö täyttää näitä ehtoja, mutta on hyvin todennäköistä, että esi-isämme elivät tämänkaltaisissa yhteisöissä, joissa siis auttavainen käytös pääsi vahvistumaan. Tällaisissa olosuhteissa hyväntahtoisuuteen taipuvaiset ihmiset menestyivät ja lisääntyivät todennäköisemmin kuin itsekkäät lajitoverinsa, ja alttius hyväntahtoisuuteen vahvistui.”

En ole varma tarkoittaako em. ehtojen täyttyminen eläinyhteisössä sitä, että hyväntahtoisuus kehittyy biologiseksi ominaisuudeksi. Mielestäni se voisi tarkoittaa myös, että vain valmius hyväntahtoisuuteen (ts. kognitiivis-emotionaaliset valmiudet ja kapasiteetit) kehittyy biologiselle tasolle. Toisin sanoen meillä on kyky tiedollisesti ja tunteellisesti arvioida toimintaa sosiaalisessa kontekstissa niin, että voimme toteuttaa tehokkasti toteuttaa lainauksessa mainittuja a) , b) ja c)-kohtia. Mun pointti on se, että eikö voi olla, että itse hyväntahtoisuus ei ole tullut biologisesti osaksi perimäämme vaan perimämme osaksi on tullut pelkästään kognitiivis-emotionaaliset tiedonkäsittelylliset valmiudet, jotka mahdollistavat tietyssä yhteisössä hyväntahtoisen toiminnan. Hyväntahtoisuus ei olisi tässä ”mallissa” siis biologispohjaista, vaan se kuuluisi kulttuurievoluution piirissä tapahtuvaan kehitykseen.

Kommentti #2: Kappale ”Vääristynyt järkevyyden normi” – pointti koskien rationaalisuuden määritelmää taloustieteissä

”Syy on siinä, että tieto ei ole toimintaa. Meidän toimintamme ei ole puhtaan järjen ohjaamaa, vaan seuraamme motiiveja, joista osa on enemmän, osa vähemmän tietoisia. Ja yksi tällainen elämäämme ohjaava voima on kulttuurimme järkevyyden normi. Mitä on järkevyys tänä päivänä? Jos kysyt asiaa taloustieteilijältä, niin se on oman taloudellisen edun maksimointia.

                     Vanha järkevyys = Oman edun maksimointia”

Mun mielestä tässä esitetään väärin taloustieteen ja taloustieteilijöiden käyttämä määritelmä rationaalisuudesta. Rationaalisuus/järkevyys taloustieteissä yleensä tarkoittaa vain tavoitteellista toimintaa. Määritelmään ei sisälly kuvausta siitä, mitkä preferenssit (esim. voi olla oman edun maksimointi mutta voi olla myös muu) ohjaavat toimintaa.

“At its most basic level, behavior is rational if it is goal-oriented, reflective (evaluative), and consistent (across time and different choice situations). This contrasts with behavior that is random, impulsive, conditioned, or adopted by (unevaluative) imitation” (Wikipedia, Rational choice theory   

Kommentti #3: Suhdelo – diggailupointti

Tykkään paljon käsitteestä suhdelo. Diggaan myös sen takia, että suhdelo on ”holoni” (holon – samaan aikaan itse kokonaisuus ja suuremman osa). Tykkään Wilberin integraaliteoriasta, jossa holonit ovat keskeisessä osassa (integraaliteoriassa todellisuus sen eri tasoilla rakentuu holoneista).  Mietin, että onkohan suhdelo käsitettä olemassa englanniksi?

Kommentti #4 Kappale ”Menestysansa” -seuraako menestyksestä se, että henkilöstä tulee mulkku tmv

”Mutta se henkilökohtaisuuksista. Myös tutkimukset kertovat, että menestys tekee ihmisestä helposti mulkun. Paul Piff tutkimusryhmineen meni liikenneympyrään katsomaan, mitkä autot kiilaavat toisten eteen. Tutkimuksessa joka kymmenes auto etuili törkeästi ja stereotypiat pitivät paikkansa: Audit, BMW:t ja Porschet olivat kaikista todennäköisimpiä kiilaajia. Sama juttu, kun katsottiin mitkä autot eivät pysähdy jalankulkijan eteen: kalliimpi automerkki ennusti todennäköisempää ohikaasuttajaa. Kalliimman auton omistajat ovat siis keskimäärin itsekeskeisempiä liikenteessä. Eikä kyse ollut vain automerkistä. Toisessa tutkimuksessa ihmisiä pyydettiin kertomaan, mihin tuloluokkaan kuuluvat ja sitten pyydettiin arvioimaan toimisivatko epäeettisesti eri tilanteissa (Esim: Jos saat liikaa rahaa takaisin kahvilan kassalla, pidätkö sen itselläsi?). Jälleen ylempiin yhteiskuntaluokkiin kuuluvat olivat todennäköisempiä säännönrikkojia. Ja he tosiaan olivat valmiimpia huijaamaan: Kun pelaajia pyydettiin heittämään noppaa voittaakseen rahapalkinnon, he itse raportoivat nopanheiton tuloksen kokeen pitäjälle. Mutta he eivät tienneet, että kokeen pitäjä itse asiassa tiesi mikä heidän tuloksensa oli. Arvaa ketkä huijasivat useammin kuin muut: Ylempään tuloluokkaan kuuluvat.”

….

”Tämä ei tarkoita, että kaikki menestyjät olisivat mulkkuja. 30 % kalleimman autoryhmän ihmisistä kiilasi toisten eteen. Se tarkoittaa, että 70 % – eli valtaosa – ei kiilannut. Ei pidä siis tehdä mitään yleistyksiä siitä minkälaisia ihmisiä kaikki rikkaat tai kaikki köyhät ovat. Valtaosa menestyjistä on hyviä tyyppejä. Mutta menestys altistaa ylpistymisen vaaralle. En siis kerro tätä dissatakseni menestyjiä. Vaan varoittaakseni heitä. Siinä vaiheessa, kun alat menestyä, ole varuillasi. Muuten voit huomaamattasi ajautua menestysansaan.”

Vaikuttaisi siltä, että kirjassa esitettyjen tutkimusten perusteella ei voida tehdä johtopäätöstä, että rikkaat tai menestyjät ovat keskimäärin enemmän mulkkuja kuin tavalliset ihmiset, tai että menestys johtaa mulkkuuteen. Pienempi taipumus hyväntekeväisyyteen voi johtua muista asioista kuten persoonallisuuden piirteistä, ei menestyksestä. Esim. Piffin tutkimuksessa ei voida sanoa, että kiilaamisen taustalla olisi varakkuus. Taustalla voi pikemminkin olla muita (jo ennen menestystä olemassa olleita persoonallisuus tai arvotason) tekijöitä, jotka saavat tavoittelemaan BMW:n ostamista ja rikastumista.

Schwartzin arvoteorian pohjalta on itse asiassa ymmärtääkseni todennäköisempää olettaa, että henkilöt, jotka eivät pidä hyväntekemistä (benevolence) tärkeänä, arvostavat valtaa ja ulkoisia saavutuksia (achievements, power). Siispä mututuntumalta näkisin, että parempi lähtöoletus vois olla, että  “menestys” (bmw!) seuraa näistä arvoista (pienempi halukkuus hyväntekemiseen ja vallan ja arvostuksen tavoittelu) kuin että menestyksestä seuraa nämä arvot/käytös.

Two exercises to deal with negative thoughts and worrying based on cognitive behavioral therapy

I want to share two exercises that have helped me to deal with negative feelings (suffering, pain, anxiety, sadness etc.) and excessive worrying.

Exercise 1 – Decomposing pain: Dealing with negative thoughts

This exercise is based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) (see for example [1]). Big thanks to Kaj Sotala for introducing me to this type of exercise in a workshop last year. ACT considers psychological pain normal part of life. ACT suggests you cannot deliberately get rid of your psychological pain, but you can take steps to avoid increasing it artificially.

Clean pain = original, primary reaction to a painful event or loss (e.g. grief and loss of losing a loved one, being hurt after somebody treats you unfairly, hurt or sadness over an past or present experience that you have’t grieved or worked through)

Dirty pain = pain that is caused when we try to limit or avoid feeling the clean pain or when we imagine things or hold beliefs that are not likely true (e.g. ruminating and worrying about painful experiences, blaming yourself or others for something that was out of your/their control, thinking and spinning thoughts about what should have happened in the past or could happen in the future)

EXERCISE #1: Choose a negative feeling that has been bugging you lately

  1. Estimate what part of the feeling is caused by clean pain and dirty pain (remember dirty pain is something we create ourselves). Write down what part of the feeling constitutes clean pain and what part of it is dirty pain.
  2. What beliefs do you think are underlying this feeling (threats, beliefs about yourself or others, etc.)? Write them down.
  3. What personal needs does the feeling reflect (often negative feelings reflect real unmet needs that are important to acknowledge and pay heed to)? Write down any needs you come up with.
Exercise 2 – Decomposing worries: Dealing excessive with worrying

This exercise has a cognitive behavioral (cognitive restructuring) vibe to it but it is actually based on a Buddhist proverb I encountered some time ago:

“If you have a problem that can be fixed, then there is no use in worrying. If you have a problem that cannot be fixed, then there is no use in worrying.” – Buddhist proverb

EXERCISE #2: Choose a thing you have been worrying about too much.

  1. Consider can you realistically affect the likelihood of whether the scenario you have been worrying about is going to actualize. (yes/no)
  2. Assess do you want to do something in order to affect the probability of that scenario coming true (yes/no)

If you answer “no” to either one of the above, it is just best to accept, embrace and breath into the uncertainty you are facing in the form of the scenario you are worrying about.

If you answer “yes” to both, decide what are you going to do about the scenario and when.

[1] Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K.D and Wilson, K. G. (2016) Acceptance and Commitment Therapy – The Process and Practice of Mindful Change. 2nd edition

Cognitive science view of meditation and mindfulness

I came up with the following cognitive science definition of mindfulness based on Stanovich’s Rationality and Reflective Mind [1] which I am reading:

Mindfulness = being able to suppress the algorithmic mind from creating secondary representations of the world and engaging in cognitive simulation

In normal language, I would define mindfulness as:

The state of being present in the now, accepting all that is unfolding without trying to change anything or being attached to the hypothetical scenarios arising in the mind

jason-lee-getting-started-01-300x300

Stanovich introduces a tripartite theory of the mind in his book. In the tripartite theory, the mind consists of the following modules:

  • Autonomous mind: heuristic, fast, intuitive, subconscious mind. Comprises of the autonomous subprocesses that execute automatically based on current stimuli
  • Algorithmic mind: A module which processes information analytically and makes calculations with a set goal. Processing is conscious. Responsible for sustaining decoupled secondary mental representations of the world, which are formed on the basis of the primary representation of the world that is generated automatically by the autonomous mind, and the cognitive simulation and hypothetical thinking, which are done based on these secondary representations
  • Reflective mind: a module that decides when to suppress processing and reactions based on autonomous mind and begin cognitive simulation activites in the algorithmic mind

Nowadays large and increasing proporition of people work in jobs that require analytical thinking. Analytical thinking means using reflective mind to initiate analytical processing in the algorithmic mind when necessary. Because behaviors that are repeated tend to become automatic, commencing cognitive simulations and hypothetical thinking in the the algorithmic may become automatic or habitual for many people. This means, a large number of people are automatically starting cognitive simulations and hypothetical thinking even when it is not needed or good for them. Thus, mindfulness becomes a goal.

Our reflective minds need to learn also to override the too-easily-triggered cognitive simulations in the algorithmic mind. How? Meditation. In meditation you specifically train your reflective mind to stop the algorithmic mind from running amok with all the hypothetical thinking and return to the primary representation of the world: the Now.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Rationality-Reflective-Mind-Keith-Stanovich/dp/0195341147