Applications of Integrative Cognition - Part 1

William Blake Jr. · science forum beginner Joined: 26 Oct 2005 Posts: 18

OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE COMBINED

As a college student at University of Virginia, I worked at a
restaurant called the Tree House. All other employees were local black
people, and I noticed one thing especially: They were all referring to
each other by nickname. I asked why they did that, and the answers were
such as "What do you mean, why?" and "That's just how it is dog." One
woman with intelligent eyes said, "That's a good question."

And indeed it is a good question to ask, one that is not limited to the
Tree House. The statements like "that's just how it is, dog" reveal a
common problem that is had by people who have lived in a single society
all their lives: Lack of objective insight into its workings. Clearly
referring to everybody by nickname is not the case in Long Island or in
Sudan or in China. "That's how it is, dog"? Not exactly.

Similar is the case with referring to things as "normal" or referring
to one or another clique as speaking for "everyone." What's normal in
one place (calling people by nickname in the Tree House) is not what's
normal in another (who does that in CIA?) And of course there is nobody
who speaks for everyone (6 billion people), most of whom do not believe
in anything similar to what is believed by the bully clique under
consideration - and whose claims to speak for everyone are the heights
of arrogance - the arrogance that they claim to denounce. The arrogance
that it claims to be fighting but which it shows to a far more complete
and far more overbearing extent, with less to justify it and far more
horrid results for the people ensnared inside of it.

The results being, that people can't leave the ghetto because they feel
that would be selfish or arrogant; that people can't go into business
or long-term work because they feel that would be collaborating with
the white man; that people can't study science or engineering or
teaching or literature because they feel that would be acting white;
and what's left? Thuggery. Parasitism. Hideousness. Oppression.

All a necessary and inevitable result of the arrogance expropriated
from individual to serve the tribal consciousness, and whose only
possible outcome is war.

I need hardly speak that dynamics similar to these, but in different
forms, take place in different cultures besides the ghetto.

Alexis De Tocqueville, a Frenchman who lived in America, came up with a
balanced and highly insightful work into the nature of the United
States. He did that because, as both an outsider and an insider, he was
able to combine the external and the internal and thus to understand to
a far more complete extent than is afforded by either mode of
perception alone. As both outsider and insider, he was not subject to
the error that is functional of either: The error of insider of failing
to see the nation in its external effects and its workings - and the
error of outsider of failing to experience it from within and thus
failing to understand it in its experience. He was able to combine the
objective and the subjective - to combine the experience and the
analysis - to combine mind and heart, the two functionalities in which
people discern and experience human reality. And the result was
analysis that was insightful, compassionate and intelligent all at
once.

Both the subjective and the objective modes of understanding give part
of the picture. But both are capable of error. The error inherent in
first method is that of failure to quantify external effects - with the
result that the people practicing the merely subjective perspective are
constantly, and rightfully, accused of selfishness and lack of
consideration for others. The error inherent in the second method is
that of failure to understand the experience - with the result that the
people practicing the merely objective perspective are rightfully
accused of cruelty, coldness and inconsideration - an absolute lack of
compassion for what is being studied; and pursuant that a coldness that
is almost unhuman and that, lacking compassion by nature, therefore
seeks to conquer and to subdue. I am of the belief that complete
understanding is that of understanding things in both in their external
effects and their inner workings; a perspective possessing both
objectivity and subjectivity - both intelligence and compassion - both
mind and heart - both discerning from without and experiencing from
within.

The error of merely objective is as follows: failure to experience a
phenomenon, resulting in lack of emotional insight. When people say
they want someone to understand them, what they mean is that they want
someone to feel how they feel rather than simply analyzing it, and
certainly not analyzing them in reference to an external value set or a
normative function or a psychological theory. When cultural and social
and political entities say that they don't want outsiders telling them
what to do, what they mean is that they want to first be understood in
their experience before any agenda can be found that would be workable
for them. But to do that and merely that is not adequate; external
effects have to be quantified likewise. In combining objective
observation and subjective experience, and then in interpolating
between them, is arrived a complete picture of culture, religion, or
social locale.

Doing that, I refer to as integrative cognition.

RELATIVITY AND EXISTENTIALISM

There are sayings such as "The only absolute is that there are no
absolutes" and "all generalizations are false, including this one."
This shows shortcomings in existentialism and relativism; however it
does not render it worthless. The relative quality of reference frames
do not make them worthless; it renders them incomplete. Which
incompleteness is reduced through introduction of other reference
frames that pose as check on the incompleteness. Through
cross-referencing it becomes possible to see where each is right and
where each is wrong.

At which point becomes possible greater objectivity. And then it
becomes possible to go to the next step: Look at the reasons for the
incompleteness of each reference frame, while seeing also the
truthfulness in it. To see the basic interests and ideologies
functional thereto, and based on seeing these interests and ideologies
for their character to see the extent to which the reflections are a
function of relativistic distortion - distortion based on interests and
ideologies underlying the mirrors - and to what extent these
reflections are a function of clarity. Which interests and ideologies,
being seen for what they are, are thus computed for the convexity that
they produce; and the beams that make mirrors convex are gradually
abraded until they become less prevalent, and greater objectivity is
achieved.

I am of the belief that this way the relative frames become closer to
the absolute, and by tapping into Einsteinian relativity while
understanding the nature thereof comes ever-greater clarity. By seeing
the sun reflecting in multiplicity of convex mirrors, develops a closer
and closer approximation of what is the sun. Convexities become
visible; are understood for their essence; and are reduced. And the
result is a more complete picture of the sun, and improvement in the
quality of the mirrors.

The existential theory of multiple truths - based on Einsteinian
relativity - suggests this: That for greater reality it is important to
experience and to assay all the truths in reference to each other,
creating a greater understanding. And the theory of multiple Galilean
reference forms, coming from physics, each frame a partial but
incomplete incorporation of timespace, means that to know timespace to
greater extent means to experience these forms and from reference point
of these forms to draw connections and understanding of one another. If
it is impossible to look at the sun for a prolonged period of time
without going blind, then to see sun's reflections everywhere is a path
toward greater understanding of the sun. And if the light is invisible,
then to see the reflections of it in the workings of cosmos as
contained in everything from neutron stars to the plants to the oceans
to human mind and human heart and inspired artwork is a path toward
greater understanding and appreciation of the light.

It stands to reason that a singular object will be reflected the same
in the entirety of the mirrors. The difference in its representation
can only be due to incompleteness of the perspective of mirrors
themselves. The correct outcome will see object reflected the same in
all the mirrors - same not in the minimalistic (and ultimately
nihilistic, since all sentient beings die and many have different
beliefs) perspective that wants to claim illusory all things that
aren't seen everywhere and by everyone, but in the maximalistic
perspective: One that sees the totality of the object, with each mirror
providing a partial view. As these things are seen, a more complete and
more thorough picture emerges; likewise the mirrors' own
incompletenesses as well as virtues become apparent. And the result, is
a more clearly and more completely glimpsed object - and enhancement in
clarity of the mirrors.

REFERENTIAL AND INTRINSIC

There is the observation referential and there is the observation
intrinsic. To know something from without, is to observe it
referentially - referentially to a mode of experience, a mode of
beliefs, a mode of cognition or a perceptual and conceptual base
forming the human perception. To know it intrinsically, is to
experience it on one's own heart or one's own skin. The integrative
perspective is a synthesis of the referential and the intrinsic,
combining assaying of the essential from multiple frames of reference
with going into it intrinsically. Arriving at an assaying of a culture,
a religion, a civilization or a mode of experience combining awareness
of its experience with awareness of its external effects.

This creates a more complete - integrative - representation of the
phenomenon. One that is not limited by either failure to understand
from within nor failure to understand from without, but rather creating
a complete pictographical representation integrating the intrinsic and
representative multiplicity of reference frames.

I shy from the use of the word objective, because I do not see complete
objectivity as possible at this level. Complete objectivity is a matter
of being completely clear of all kinds of bias or agenda, and while
that is a worthwhile pursuit I do not see it as being available for
everyone, and certainly not something I've seen employed by anyone at
all in either psychology or sociology. The "reality is what I can touch
and feel" argument results in a perspective centered in self; which is
not worthless but not complete, given the difference among selves. The
"reality is what can be reproduced" argument results in perspective
centered in canon; which is not worthless but not complete, given the
change in lab conditions and explanations afforded by scientific
progress. The "reality is what refuses to go away when you stop
believing in it" argument fails to compute the extent to which people's
beliefs shape their minds and thereafter their actions. This, once
again, is not worthless but not complete.

The method I seek is one of approximation among reference frames. Not
the nihilistic-anarchistic one of
"nothing-is-completely-objective-so-let's-burn-down-everything"; but
one rather of interpolation and check-and-balance among frames of
reference, arriving at clarity of observation - combined with
intrinsic, experiential understanding arrived at through direct
experience of the mindset, the culture or the civilization that is
being studied.

A phenomenon can be assayed in reference to a method; it can be assayed
in reference to an ideology; it can be assayed in reference to an
interest; it can be assayed in reference to a mode of thought and in
reference to one's own experience. Each perspective forms a reference
frame, akin to the Galilean reference frames of Einsteinian relativity.
Each is a function of devices that shape it; each therefore creates a
convex mirror. Each conves mirror is valuable but not complete. Each,
as such, is usable but not to the absoluteness. And enhancement of the
external perspective is rendered through interpolation among these
frames of reference, through checks and balances acting upon each other
to attain at ever-greater clarity.

There are of course many issues that come to pass. One is, Of what is
one's own experience of the world a function? Is it not a function of
previous experiences, assumptions, beliefs, characteristics,
perspectives? Can it be ever truly objective? And is not greater
objectivity arrived at through shifts of perspective, both mind and
heart, as a result of interpolation, abrasion and ultimate integration
among multiple modes of experience?

What is the definition of integrity? It is that of acting as a single
unit. A single unit premised on what? What premises are the correct
ones, and will not something based on false premises come crashing
down? The country I come from did. The static integrity of a rock can
perhaps be defined as integrity, until one starts wondering what is
under the rock and dislodges it, and then it crashes. I see integrity
that is intellectually viable and far more interesting as one that is a
dynamic synthesis; an ongoing whirling through chaos to create patterns
to give to various interests; an integration and reconciliation leading
toward meaningful outcomes and enhancement in people's experience of
life.

It is my belief that through continuing shifts of perspective and
cross-examination between one's own experiences and the condition of
many cultures, an interplay takes place between self and the object of
study that refines one's experiential self toward greater clarity as
well as that of the cultures and perspectives involved. Thus not only
is study served, but also clarity of the self. The optimal result is
exchange of ideas and understanding that helps to improve and to enrich
both. Dangers include those of losing one's good qualities along with
the bad ones if they are not part of the value of the culture at hand.
Which qualities can be regained in a still greater and more informed
manner when more informed, integrative, conclusions are drawn.

The same applies to psychological inquiry. This is where R.D. Laing
comes in handy: He believed in actually going into the person's inner
world and seeing it from within. Indeed he showed several examples of
how this could be done. For this, he is loved universally by the
patients. The reason for that love? That he made an effort to
understand them from within. Whereas, for example, Freud is universally
hated - because he made no such effort. Instead, he partly observed,
then he judged, then he stomped. Claiming himself a scientist, he
performed grievous leaps of logic such as the following: Of leaping
from analysis to judgment - of claiming that certain feelings, because
they were supposedly (and in my belief wrongly) based in an earlier ego
state, are therefore to be adjudicated infantile. It could be asked, Do
my feelings exist for the sake of your values? Do my feelings exist for
the sake of your supposed (and here obviously fallacious) rationality?
And is the fact of something running by a different logic than one used
to assay it make it irrational, or is it irrational instead to condemn
what runs by a different logic than one used to study it, instead of
understanding and making the most of the logic by which it itself runs?

Is "taken as a whole the universe is absurd" story a rational one, or
one that reflects a failure of investigation?

And finally, does the universe exist for the sake of your methodology,
and is it rational furthermore to project your method upon the universe
and judge it if it runs by a different method?

Is it rational to do the same to the human heart?

The merely objective - more correct term is referential - perspective
is therefore necessarily cruel, precisely because it is merely
referential. It is merely a result of observation in reference to
existing beliefs. It sees that which is studied as an object - an
object to be dissected and analyzed. And then it becomes the logic of
dissection. And the question to be asked of all people engaging in such
task (and those benefiting from it), according to their own devices,
is: Of what is the logic a manifestation? What is the mechanism that
runs the logic? How can it be linear when DNA, clouds, oceans,
galaxies, stars, and the human body are anything but linear but full of
curves and spirals and galaxies and multiplicitous interlocking
ecosystemic forms? And is it rational to then claim that a single
method is superior to all else in the universe when (A) it did not
create the universe; (B) it did not create human brain that runs it;
(C) any honest examination of such things fills one's heart with wonder
at majesty and magnificence of the Universe and knowledge of the
multiplicity of forms of logic present within it; and (D) knowing such
things, to claim one form of cognition to be superior to all else in
the Universe is not only irrational but indeed preposterous?

The merely objective logic leads by the logic contained in its own
devices indeed to the worst of narcissism and the worst of illogic. It
leads to this: A dry, cruel, destructive maliciousness. Maliciousness
that, having disconnected itself from the source of sensation, requires
the intuitive and the emotional to prey upon - which it seeks out and,
despising, goes on to destroy and discard. The illogic we see in
abominations such as behaviorism, logical positivism, 1990s feminism
and aggressive materialist fundamentalism falsely known as skepticism.

This is not accidental. This is not a stereotype. This is a necessary
result of the mechanisms involved.

If something exists at a rate greater than chance, then there must be
causes for it. The probability theory dictates that, without causal
factors, things will occur at the same rate as chance. So that, when
they occur at a greater rate than chance, it stands to reason that
there must be causal factors. And the way to discover the causal
factors is through examination of fundamental mechanisms.

The worst error of which merely objective method is capable is
therefore that of rationalistic judgmentalism. It is one thing to assay
things in a scientific manner; it is quite another to judge mental
processes - or ultimately life - as irrational because it runs by a
logic different from the one that the person uses to study it. Thus we
get to such foolish conclusions as "Taken as a whole, the universe is
absurd," "women are stupid" and "we are the only two sane people in the
universe, and sometimes I wonder about you." What rationality? If it's
a rational universe then there must be a rationale, so let's find it
out! Absurd? Absurd in reference toward what standard of thought? And
is it not wrong to say that the problem is with the universe rather
than with the method that fails to grasp it wholly, or with its
incompetent utilization?

Thus we get all kinds of hideousness coming to us through psychology.
When one sees man's primary motivation as one of adequacy, one creates
an ensnaring tribal consciousness that cannot bear what man has done
through history: Enhance human condition. No man is an adequate match
for a tiger; but he creates better technology to outsmart the tiger. To
keep alive the tribal consciousness based on the lie of adequacy it
becomes necessary to weed out those who would find better technology.
Logical result, inevitable according to the logic contained in this
method? Handicapper General, return to the roots, Ellsworth Toohey and
Appalachia for us all.

When one sees man's primary motivation as one of adaptation within
social reality, one essentially deifies whatever order exists at the
time. What needs to happen for that to remain the case? Kill off all
the damn pesky troublemakers. Shove down people's throats the same
party line. Make sure nobody thinks for themselves. Deadening,
dumbening, degenerating of the population. Until the false God that is
social consciousness turns into totalitarianism and becomes a torturer
and a killer. Expropriating what can be expropriated; destroying what
cannot. Destroying everything that is original; robbing people of their
vitality; and turning the place into an emotional, intellectual and
spiritual wasteland, in which man that the adaptation pretends to serve
simply cannot exist and the claims of serving man become tranparently
false.

This is why it is entirely requisite, for any kind of objectivity, to
see the situation in its entirety, rather than having it constituted in
one or another mindset. That everyone in the ghetto will tell you the
same thing, does not mean it is true; it means it is functional to the
perspective of the ghetto. Of what is the perspective of ghetto a
function? Let's find that out.

The more that is done, the greater the objectivity and the greater the
insight.

PREMISES

A mind torn from its premises is a mind that is insane. A mind put on
another set of premises is a mind that is reconstituted. A mind that is
intermingling among the reference frames of premises is confused,
passionate, ecstatic, throbbing with fire of life. According to Keats,
"The way to intelligence is by making one's mind a thoroughfare for all
thoughts" - in which experiential chaos patterns form and are
crystallized and can be used for any area of human endeavor.

In what does one place one's faith? What are its premises?

Is premise reason? Then don't reason's own investigations into the
higher mathematics, biology, astronomy and everything else show the
existence of other forms of rationality in the universe - its
fundamental nonlinearity, instead its intricacies and complexities -
that put a lie to the idea of linear logic as the be-all and end-all of
the universe?

Is premise work? Then does not the process of work (and what it takes
to maintain it) lead to all kinds of unanticipated consequences, which
then require greater exploration, which then create a more enhanced
understanding of what is work and what it is that is doing it,
expanding both the definition of work and the definition of usable and
worthwhile abilities?

Is premise morality? Then does not the process of striving for ethical
living lead to all kinds of agonizing moral choices, which likewise
expand undestanding of human existence, and which when carried out
incomptently or incompletely raise all kinds of moral questions about
the validity of the morality that oneself claims to practice? Which
morality, in order to be maintained through methods consistent with
principle, including honesty of examination, then lead to a greater
understanding and greater empathy and greater insight into just what
constitutes truly ethical choice?

Is premise responsibility? Does not acting in a responsible manner
presuppose understanding the world enough that one knows the full range
of consequences of one's actions and thus acts in a manner that
anticipates and takes responsibility for the results? And are not the
people who most loudly shout about responsibility hostile to knowledge
and what it takes to attain it, thus putting a lie to their claim of
valuing the responsibility they claim to espouse?

Is premise good of humanity? Then does not the process of being of
assistance put one in contact with all kinds of nastiness that lives in
humanity, eroding one's faith, eroding one's character, stabbing one in
the back, prosecuting one for daring to have goodwill and hope? Does
not that lead to Gandhi and Kennedy and MLK scenarios, in which the
person does great good and is repayed with murder? And if one tries to
protect oneself, does this then not open one to charges of hypocrisy
and create competing fiefdoms as each interest mobilizes to defend
itself? Does this then not result, by its own logic, in the opposite of
the intent?

Is premise self-interest? Then does not the process of striving for
self-interest put one in contact with all kinds of interests, which
have to function a way to either destroy each other or coexist, which
expands the understanding of the world to recognize the need for
multiplicity of selves, multiplicity of interests and leads either to
domination by some interests of other interests, or the need for
diplomacy that takes into consideration the multiple interests and
ultimately the interests of the world as a whole?

A convex mirror reflects the sun partially truly and partially not
truly. And to remove the beam from one's eye without replacing it with
a brick, is to see its reflections in pools - including ones that don't
contain in them the sulphur and the chlorine of the interest-shaped,
belief-shaped thought of the time - and see it clearly.

I don't regard it right to do away with things simply because they
aren't complete. I don't regard it right to do away with logic, with
economics, with politics; I seek to show the ways in which these
methods can go right and the ways in which they can go wrong. I believe
that all of these things, like all human things, are capable of both
good and bad, and it is for that reason that we have a government of
checks and balances. I believe that checks and balances could be
applied on the totality of human activity and human thinking through
complementary forms of cognition, in order that the result be both
empathic and wise; in order that the capacity for wrong in each form be
checked by balance with its opposite; in order that this synthesis lead
to quality and refinement; and in order that in this manner we have
minimax people living in minimax conditions.

The samsara is beautiful and worthy of being loved and cherished. You
don't kill a cat for not being a dog; you appreciate her as a cat, and
then she can be happy as a cat and you can be happy as a lark having
the cat - for having done what is required of intelligence: To
appreciate the cat; to clear mind's conceptions from dog-shaped ideas
of what cat should be; and thus to be able to reap of the beauty the
cat wants to impart and would to those who are willing to understand
without rushing to judgment. And if one's view of nature is a result of
propaganda done by the dogs, then the process of understanding and
loving the cat requires suspension of disbelief - suspension of
judgment from dog-shaped premises of thought - and going into the world
of the cat and there learning the beauty of which cat is herself
capable.

This, is the intrinsic side of the dialectic. Empathy. Going into the
other person's world. Feeling the other person's experience of the
world.

Or - as Alexis De Tocqueville showed - going to another culture and
doing that with it.

INTEGRATIVE PERSPECTIVE

The referential side of the dialectic consists of assaying external
results. This is best done from multiplicity of perspectives. The
logical implication of relativity is that the way to approximate
objectivity is to interpolate between reference frames. Thus, one does
not observe American ghetto only from Northwest DC and the belief
structure of Northwest DC; one does it also from China and Africa and
the Cherokee tribe. Arriving at a more complete understanding of the
ghetto.

To greater elucidate what I'm talking about, let's conceptualize how a
mindset of Northwest DC views and values. The mindset of Northwest DC,
as a result of the ideologies in it contained, views and values
according to standards of prosperity and human rights - the two great
values preached by the American mindset. The mindset of China, on the
other hand, views and values according to standards of family
cohesiveness and work - its values, preached once again by Chinese
ideology. The mindset of Cherokees views and values according to the
standard of freedom of movement and courage and prudence in dealing
with the environment. So to assay the ghetto from the perspective of
China, Cherokees and Northwest DC, is to understand it more completely
than it would be understood from either perspective (each value-set,
belief-set, ideology-set, mindset shaping the convex mirror) acting
alone. Thus is achieved a more complete representation of the American
ghetto; one that, being more complete, thus becomes capable of more
thorough understanding - and, pursuant this more thorough
understanding, more complete and more valuable solutions for people in
it living.

The process also creates flux among reference points themselves. The
cultures reflect each other as much as they reflect what is being
studied; leading to understanding of each other's virtues and flaws.
The understanding of all reference frames becomes enriched and enhanced
and more thorough. At which point the reference frames, having
perspective they did not have previously, are in better shape to
correct the errors within themselves - errors that they by themselves
would not be able to see, but that through working with other reference
frames and seeing their reflection in them become apparent.

To understand a culture - a mindset - an ideology, it is necessary to
see it in both internal and external effects. It is necessary to
understand the experience of those inside it and the way in which it
affects the rest of the world and how other perspectives might see it.
The other perspectives, in turn, must be seen for interests and values
that are in them contained, in order that greater objectivity can be
achieved. It is necessary to combine observation from multiple convex
mirrors, with understanding of the nature of the convex mirrors, with
subjective experience - and then weave. Interpolate. Integrate. Coming
up with new patterns combining the mind and the heart, or analysis and
experience.

Creating an integrative understanding of the culture, combining
external observation and internal experience.

CONVEX MIRRORS

That a mirror is convex does not make it worthless. It simply means
that it, like just about anything else, is incomplete; and to
approximate objectivity it becomes necessary to either clear it
completely and to remove the curvature at the core, or to reduce the
curvature by assaying it in reference to other mirrors. Complete
objectivity may not be achievable at this level; but it is most
certainly capable of being approximated. The closer to the infinity,
the more precise the result.

Similarly different people's subjective experience of the cultures is
going to differ according to what shapes their subjective worlds. The
heart is a convex mirror just like the mind; that, like the mind, can
be trained into greater clarity. The process of interpolation through
external observation and subjective experience refines both the heart
and the mind and reduces the quantity of beam contained in one's eye.
Refinement of both organs becomes the result, and a path toward greater
observational clarity.

The quantity of beam is diminished also in the society, philosophy,
person or institution being studied. As it sees its reflections in
multiple mirrors, it cannot escape the fact of wrong that exists in it
as well as right. As convexity of each mirror is reduced, more clear
picture evolves; and as pictures become clear, it is no longer possible
to blame all things for convexity. More importantly, the object is seen
from more sides, with all the good and the bad as reflected in
reference frames being made visible. At which point external picture
becomes more and more complete.

How does one see the object in all its external manifestations? By
having it seen in multiplicity of convex mirrors arranged in a sphere
pointing at the object. Given that the object is one, it will stand to
reason that the reflections should match; and all the divergencies
would be a function of the convexity of the mirrors. Since mirrors also
reflect into each other, it can be assayed from each mirror what
convexities the other mirrors hold. As divergence is being reduced, so
is convexity, and the quantity of beam in each eye is diminished. Until
the completeness of the object becomes visible in the totality of the
mirrors, and the object is seen in its external manifestations with an
ever-greater degree of completeness - while the mirrors become abraded
through interpolation into ever-greater clarity.

INTRINSIC UNDERSTANDING

The intrinsic side of the process is more difficult for some than it is
for others, depending upon the person's capacity for empathy or
understanding of how to wield it. It involves suspension of disbelief
(more precisely, suspension of prejudice) and actually going into
someone's world - or the culture, or the mindset, or the worldview, or
the spiritual practice. It took Don Juan a fair deal of work of
deconstruction of prejudice before Carlos Castaneda could actually go
into his world and understand it from the inside, instead of simply
assaying it from without as he was trained to do. The result, was a far
more complete understanding on part of Carlos Castaneda than would have
happened if he had assayed the shamanic practice only referentially to
his canon and methodology.

Understanding something intrinsically does not mean abandoning
scientific method. It means this: That some things (cultures; mindsets;
spiritual paths; inner worlds) cannot be tested or understood
completely except from the inside; and scientific analysis involves not
only assaying such tings from without but also investigating them from
within. And this requires something that some practicioners of
scientific method would find heretical, but that is in fact required by
the best of science: Suspension of judgment and prejudice - for a time
being - and actually going into the world under consideration. After
experiencing it - and feeling it on one's heart and one's skin - it
then becomes possible to arrive at a more compassionate, more complete,
more wise, understanding of the situation. And then one can be not only
a scientist but also a writer, conveying an understanding that involves
heart and mind both and that therefore is far more human.

For example, it is possible to investigate Buddhist practice or Zen
meditation by actually participating in it. Not all claims are
immediately testable; but many are. By actually performing the task at
hand, it becomes possible to see to what extent the immediately
testable claims are valid. At which point it becomes possible to go
back to being a scientist - though now with intrinsic perspective to
supplement the canonical - and convey a more thorough understanding of
the dharma at hand instead of one that comes from investigating it
merely referentially as a mere observer.

The same is true for understanding cultures; participation within them
gives a more complete understanding than mere observation. Which means
at times suspension of disbelief and of prejudice. One does not have to
leave these things behind forever; they'll remain there like clothes on
the beach while one is swimming. He could go back to them anytime - but
in the meanwhile, once having swam, he will have experienced the
culture on the inside, and will have far more to say about it (and to
it) than he would from either perspective acting alone.

And the same is likewise true for understanding people at individual
level. As someone who has decided uncompromisingly to understand
certain people I cared about, I made it my project to build empathy for
them deliberately by actually going into their worlds, or asking to be
placed in situations where I would be experiencing similar things to
what they've experienced, or trying to see things from their eyes. In
so doing, in many cases I was what was needed: Someone who felt the
situation, and having likewise my own perspective was capable of
providing insight, or assistance, or confirmation, that was necessary
and that was required -

While also, having felt their perspective, developed a richer and more
complete understanding of the world.

I am of the belief that this can be of use in a variety of professions.
While empathy training can be of use to anyone, period.

<CONTINUED>

Ilya Shambat

sapphiresdarkhorse · science forum beginner Joined: 26 Jun 2006 Posts: 1

I agree. I come frm such drug ridden oppression,,and although I am
not of darker skin,,,,I come from that type of life-------morelike the
biker thing, but you can understand. Killing, gun toting, drugged up
individuals were plentifull, and living that way--horrible. Having to
hide anything of value just to leave the house. I have since pulled
myself up out of that gutter and avoid it like the plague that it is.

William Blake Jr. wrote:

ilya_shambat2004@yahoo.co · science forum beginner Joined: 22 Oct 2005 Posts: 13

sapphiresdarkhorse wrote:

Google