Beliefs I: Pursue Your Dreams
Jim Jefferies
. . . the human necessity to have a working framework of beliefs to help us get through each day, and so on till the end of our lifespan . . .I dashed off these ideas in comments on my last post, and thought they could be developed further, but I wonder. Is it possible to understand human belief? Aren’t we prevented from being objective by what we already believe? Let us investigate.
. . .
Most human beings most of the time are uncomfortable with doubt. We crave certainty, but there isn’t enough available. [by means of belief] we satisfy ourselves with a manufactured certainty. . . .
Since we must start somewhere, let us consider a belief widely held in the Western world today: that individual possibilities are open, and the proper way to live is to pursue a personal dream of happiness and fulfilment. We have invested much in this: notions of freedom, government, economics, education, commerce, advertising, science and technology. It is costly to have beliefs and support them. Belief is proved by the evidence of what we invest in it.
Is this Western belief well-founded? It is easy to comfort ourselves by looking at other beliefs and their adherents, and see ours as far better; or by taking time and effort to try and demolish theirs. They are poor; they live under an authoritarian regime; they live in fear; they labour till they drop; they cannot discover who they are and realize their full potential. All very fine, but it doesn’t answer the question. Is the Western belief that I have described well-founded?
What I have to say is simple, and not an especially personal viewpoint. In fact I shall call witnesses to say it on my behalf. You can find critiques of this belief that “everything is possible—go for it” in many places. That’s not the problem. The difficulty is in being able to reject our own beliefs. I nearly said “cherished beliefs” but the adjective is redundant. The kind of belief I’m talking about is cherished by definition. What happens when you sit in a tree and saw off the branch you are sitting on? You realize that you have to be supported by something. You can only shed one belief by adopting another. How easy is it to change horses midstream? Following these lines of thought, we begin to understand how the world is the way it is. We begin to wonder what anyone thinks they can achieve by attacking the beliefs of others.
As my first witness, I call Australian comedian Jim Jefferies. Shall I warn you about him first? No, listen at your own risk, but I’ll point you to two passages only, first Why I get depressed, from 27 mins 42 seconds for about two minutes; and then “You can do anything”, from 33 mins 9 seconds, about teachers setting expectations. It’s satire, not philosophy, and he doesn’t offer answers. On a higher intellectual plane, here’s a passage from La Doctrine Suprême, published in 1960, & which I’ve mentioned several times. The official English translation is literal and frankly useless—but here it is, for comparison against an idiomatic approximation which you’ll find more readable, below. The ideas are simple enough, but it’s not easy to change our viewpoint, as I’ve said already.
Pursuing one’s dream vs taking the leap
It’s basic to my humanity that I see myself as a separate being. This is my sense of “I”. Once this is developed in me it shapes my desires, which in turn dictate my hopes and fears. This “I”, which sees everything from a unique personal viewpoint, carries its own intent and expectation; makes me feel a lack. My life is spent waiting for this lack to be filled.
This ambition or expectation takes the form of waiting till my real life begins, that time when my existence will be wholly affirmed in the world as it should, not just patchily as now. Aware of it or not, we all live in hopeful anticipation of this “real life”, a place where the negatives have disappeared.
What constitutes this real life, of course, differs for each of us, both in overall pattern and moment-to-moment detail. We each have our own image of what this new era would be, free from the drawbacks of today. An inner voice whispers how nice it would be to have this, be like that, enjoy such-and-such event. Sometimes I see very clearly what this real living will be. Sometimes it stays vague: I await the coming of that which will set everything to rights. This sense of a flawed present and better future isn’t always at the forefront; but it always comes back. Paradise is somewhere to be had, I know that. All it needs is some change to the world, or to myself. This is the key that will open the door and let me back in to my lost Paradise. So my whole life is a quest for that key.
Meanwhile, I kill time as best I may. I invest effort in getting ready for the key, seeking my chosen forms of success, material or otherwise.
. . .
My understanding has not yet been awakened by right teaching, so all I can do is let myself be drawn to aspects of what I know or am able to imagine as slightly beyond what I know. The clay with which I work is the “dualistic world of phenomena”.
. . .
In part, my aspirations are worthwhile, but the way I pursue them is self-defeating. While my mind is on something other than this moment, I let go my hold on the real life that’s right in front of me, the forms of the here and now which I already possess. Instead of being swallowed up in the forms actually before me, my intent is waylaid by images of the desirable. My dream of paradise holds firm. Meanwhile, the present slips from my grasp.
Thus I create an illusion of time, with the painful feeling that it’s leaking away from me. On the one hand is what I know, solidly contained in space and time. On the other is my perfect satisfaction, somewhere in the future. Time is the thing that separates one from the other, origin from destination.
I’m in two minds about time. Looking back, I bitterly regret its passing. Ideally, I want it back; at the very least I want to stop it retreating even further. But when I look forward, I’m impatient for it to pass, fed up with waiting. Looking back to a particular epoch of my life, I feel quite different now from what I felt at the time. Then, I was obsessed by dissatisfaction and images of a better future, just as I am now. Hindsight blinds me to that, but fills me with regret for all those things, all those times, which I hardly tasted while they flowed away.
As my understanding awakens by grace of right teaching, a change takes place in me. I see that I’ve had instinctive and unlimited yearnings. Nothing in this phenomenal world itself, however gross or subtle, could satisfy them. I see that what I’ve always wanted, while dreaming it into existence in this or that, is realization [“ce que le Zen appelle satori”]. I understand that this realization is not to be considered as an improvement, however you imagine it, on what I know now. It’s not a release from the play of dualistic forces, or the purging of all “evil” leaving only “good”. It is an access, beyond dualism, into something beyond dualism, a reconciliation of opposites. I don’t know how to depict this “something” to myself. I can only see it as something beyond representation, unimaginable, entirely different by its own nature, from anything I know today.
Hubert Benoit
What he says about looking forward eagerly to a better future, or regretfully to a lost past, reflects my own experience; as does his reference to “something beyond representation, unimaginable”. I’m inclined to agree that “I create an illusion of time”. I discover, taught by life rather than a particular teacher, that my dreams of the future—going back to Cowes, where I lived age 12 and 13—and of the past—reliving each moment with an intensity never realized at the time—are just additional ways to enjoy this moment. Time is an illusion and there is nothing I have to do. And yes, this is simply a belief, like anyone else’s; though I don’t attempt to defend it.
19 Comments:
Ah, "The American Dream", as it's often called (although, as you point out, all of western culture ascribes to this dream in some part. I think America is seen as the quintessential embodiment of it because we were one of the first to have a government of entirely elected officials (some coming from beginnings as humble as a log cabin) rather than a elite monarchy determined by blood and closed to the aspirations of the general population and also because we had all this fresh land that seem to present so many viable opportunities to people from all walks of life -- but that's neither here nor there at the moment.)
At any rate, I would say that as a matter of principle that dream falls under the heading of "easier said than done." It's a pat idea in a complicated world. I don't believe that everyone has an opportunity for success, and I don't believe that they would in even the best, most fairest of worlds. For every millionaire at the apex of the pyramid, you've got a thousand janitors at the base, hating their lives, scrambling for something more. Now, perhaps any one of those janitors might be able to cleverly maneuver things so that they end up at the apex, but the basic distribution remains. To tell those thousand janitors that they ALL could be millionaires if they just "set their minds to it" is actually kind of cruel, and as the passage in blue so aptly, so alarmingly, so devastatingly points out, it sets people up to have incredibly unrealistic expectations about their lives and to feel bad and ashamed of their own accomplishments. I can say this very very much from personal experience.
Well...I don't go along with generalities in general! Because no matter how crowds behave and how public 'public opinion' may be, we are all individuals and everyone experiences life differently and even when groups of people seem to share certain beliefs and goals, each of them sees these differently, feels them differently, and arrives at them from different angles and for different reasons.
The two statements with which you begin this post, and the quoted passage from Hubert Benoit, do not correspond with how I think nor do they reflect my own inner or outer experiences. But I certainly can't call them untrue since my own experience is the only one I'm really familiar with, and anything I can say about others' beliefs, experiences, desires, doubts and certainties can only be a generality or a guess. For my part, I find that doubts are very useful. They lead to questions, and questions lead to more questions, and the exciting search for the right question is much more interesting than the anxious quest for certainty.
Like you, Natalie, I don’t go along with generality, nor do I follow the crowd. I try to avoid belief of any kind---which leads to the discovery that you can’t avoid it altogether. The moment you shed one belief, you are likely to embrace another. And then, whatever it is, you start taking it for granted and it becomes transparent like glass, and you don’t know it’s even there until it’s challenged. That’s how it seems to me. And if we had no beliefs at all, we would have no basis of disagreeing with one another.
I strove, when starting the piece, to avoid saying anything about others’ beliefs and so forth. But we are like fish, all swimming in the same water, with the same gills. This imposes upon us a form of generality, which we may call our baseline humanity. The peculiarity of our species is to be in conflict over beliefs.
I see you as a representative of the artist, shaman or prophet type, who withdraws from the tribe and its set of necessarily cohesive behaviours in order to point them to truths which they would otherwise take pains to avoid. I can imagine you saying that such descriptions “do not correspond with how I think nor so they reflect my own inner or outer experiences”. Precisely. As an artist you are well equipped to speak for yourself and your own unique view. All the same your view has an amount of universality, otherwise your work could have no public value.
That’s a very good point, Bryan, that America invented this new slant on the European world-view: an irrepressible optimism. In a sudden birst of lateral thinking, I suddenly thought of Ernest Becker, a first-generation American & author of Denial of Death. (Death must somehow be denied to uphold the American Dream, right?) His Wikipedia article has a section on Beliefs which is worth reading in our context and includes this:
Becker eventually came to the position that psychological inquiry can only bring us to a distinct threshold, beyond which belief systems must be invoked to satisfy the human psyche.
The poignancy of “I can say this very very much from personal experience” has not passed unnoticed, Bryan. But every time I pass through town, and note the varieties of human forms, many familiar to me by sight, with all their visible handicaps & others only to be guessed at, I feel the need of some inclusive belief on their behalf, that gives scope for both hope and fulfilment. Lieberalism couldn’t do it. Even socialism couldn’t do it, because fairness and equality cannot be achieved by human hands when nature has already rejected it.
As you say, “the basic distribution remains”.
"...I feel the need of some inclusive belief on their behalf, that gives scope for both hope and fulfilment. Lieberalism couldn’t do it. Even socialism couldn’t do it, because fairness and equality cannot be achieved by human hands when nature has already rejected it...."
What do you mean by this, Vincent?
To answer your question adequately would take a certain eloquence, which doesn't arrive that easily. And perhaps a long essay which wouldn't give you an answer which satisfies.
But I suddenly think of my piece called Colloquy here, http://perpetual-lab.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/colloquy.html ; and another called Laughing Water here, http://perpetual-lab.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=mustardseed
Or even my most recent piece, http://perpetual-lab.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/the-organizing-power-of-words.html which is really about blessings.
So perhaps what I'm saying is that I believe in the existence of blessings more than I believe in the power of changing the world.
And at this point I want to redefine "belief". Richard Dawkins & Christopher Hitchens, to name two, imply that belief can be something you choose voluntarily, so that you might be persuaded by argument that your beliefs are wrong, and change them.
I see belief, in the context of this current investigation, as something unchosen, a kind of bedrock that you reach after sweeping away the dross.
"I see belief, in the context of this current investigation, as something unchosen, a kind of bedrock that you reach after sweeping away the dross. "
Ah, okay, I see. You took the long way round to reach the simple conclusion! I don't mean this as a criticism - the long way round is often the most interesting.
It may be the simple conclusion but I did not reach it prior to our dialogue. For which thanks.
If I ever write a full-life memoir, you've just provided the appropriate title, something like "The long way round".
Glad to be of service!
"And at this point I want to redefine "belief". Richard Dawkins & Christopher Hitchens, to name two, imply that belief can be something you choose voluntarily, so that you might be persuaded by argument that your beliefs are wrong, and change them.
I see belief, in the context of this current investigation, as something unchosen, a kind of bedrock that you reach after sweeping away the dross."
Not that you would accept this "set of beliefs" either, but cognitive psychology agrees with you. It states, and I believe has proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that beliefs come first, and their defense long after. The suggestion is that no rational dialectic as we know it, contributes to our basic beliefs (God/no God/ Conservative/Liberal, right from wrong), and this it is ALL "gut reaction." Any argument we make, is "after the fact" patchwork to beliefs we already hold.
Many of these experiments "proving" this can be found in "Strangers to Ourselves," by Timothy Wilson (which I encountered int he bibliography) to "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt." Interestingly enough, when you start reading about the experimentation done to prove this, the scientists all quote each other, and you get the sense that you have fallen into a thought vortex that just happens to be about beliefs.
John, thanks for these references which appear to show scientific confirmation of an intuition. Together with other comments, it’s helped me say that I really don’t want to fall into a thought vortex on which many scientists agree (which sounds rather like Dante’s first circle of hell).
As for “the righteous mind” I don’t want to go there either. There’s enough righteousness on this street during Ramadan and the other eleven months, to last me for a lifetime, let alone the thirty years of unthinking righteousness I suffered on my own account, which is best not revisited.
I checked my library and discovered they don’t have that book by Timothy Wilson but another called Redirect : changing the stories we live by, which is more recent and probably more relevant to my interests, and which I’ve ordered.
I’m so glad, after what seems like years, to hear from you again, and at just the right moment when I’m planning a follow-up post, which will leave the generality of beliefs well alone and stick with my own gut reactions, for what they’re worth.
Damn! He wrote another book! I will have to order it also, though I will probably not finish it for a year. It seems unlike his former works in that he is not attempting merely to explain why things are the way they are, but rather to solve problems. That is not what Mr. Wilson does (or not the Wilson I know). The Wilson I know is merely an investigator, and nothing more.
I am working long hours and currently reading a biography of Mithridates of Pontus, one of Pyrrhus of Epirus, one of Antiohus III, and trying to study Latin. I have two young children and I simply cannot undertake anymore.
OK, off to order the book now.
By the way, I also read Blink (which I think he wrote), and it was disturbing, but often cited scientific studies, how they were performed and the results (I think it was more of precursor to Stangers to Ourselves)..
Blink - do you mean Malcolm Gladwell's book of that name? It looks interesting too.
I can sympathize with your predicament, and have similar problems to read all the books that arouse my curiosity and desire, despite not working and having no young children. Only a kind of tunnel vision will keep me from irremedial distraction.
Irremediable.
"Blink - do you mean Malcolm Gladwell's book of that name? It looks interesting too. "
Yes I do, and I often get the two of them mixed up. They are "cut from the same cloth" and colleagues of sorts.
I am reading Redirect now. I am "on the fence" concerning it at this point. He is trying to apply science, which I am not sure is his forte. This is the first book I have read of his where he did more than try to understand using science, which appeals to me more, I guess, than him trying to fix something.
Regarding "I" - there was a good article in the UK Guardian newspaper a while back:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/-sp-why-cant-worlds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness
Thanks for pointing this out, Sackerson. By coincidence I've been reading Sam Harris's Waking Up which has a long chapter on "The Mystery of Consciousness" & acknowledges the work of David Chalmers.
But the the best thing I found in the article was a single word panpsychism, which makes me realize that I've been a panpsychist for a while without knowing it, just as M. Jourdain, the Bourgeois Gentilhomme, suddenly discovers he's been speaking prose all along and never knew it.
I stumbled on it in this post
http://perpetual-lab.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/everything-desires.html; but not being a neurologist (like Harris) or a philosopher, like Thomas Nagel for instance, whose work I greatly admire, I've never bothered to see it as a "hard problem", preferring the experiential approach, and to gaze in wonder at the mysteries.
On the other hand it is a joy to compare notes with others aware of those mysteries, & grasp what I can of their progress in "problem-solving". I mean, when you're content to just watch, and marvel, problems are not problems.
John, I'll be glad to hear of your further thoughts on Redirect. I'm still waiting for another reader to return the library copy I've ordered. And I'm interested in the difference you hint at between applying science and trying to fix something.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home