Thursday, April 15, 2021

Excerpt: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1

Starting this chapter, even with no religious intent I fell upon the intriguing first line of the Book of John in the New Testament. There are interpretations of it and it invites interpretation. The first rule of interpretation is to go to the original, and the original was not English but Greek and so it was not Word but Logos, which presumably roughly means "word". Then we should look whether it is intended literally, or figuratively. 

I would like to write, with words no less, on the literal understandings of words. Words are such a part of our world and thinking that it is hard to remove them from our thinking or even in our sight. One of the reasons for my need to approach this early in my writing is that I have only recently begun to have genuine suspicion about words, generally thinking that while useful, they must be used very carefully and with an understanding of their limitations in any particular situation. Any situation or thing cannot be just words; words can only hold a few fields of information on anything, as all things are boundless in their complexity. Words are bluntest of tools, for which we sometimes think we are able to sculpt David; and when we see someone else's sculpted prose we must take on a lot of faith that there is some similarity with the actual King David. If there is a God, it must be before the "Word". Words are just an attempt to write the detail of reality, and as anyone know the Devil is in the detail. Or rather, the reality is in the unwritable detail.

Probably one of my greatest hatreds is the simplification of something organic into something textual. It is the degradation of something four dimensional into something that is less than a single dimension, words. Words can only capture something incontestable, or something oversimplified or, worse, misleading. And that is for almost anything that can be put into words. 

For a good many years in my twenties I labelled myself a philosophical Daoist, a conceit that could only come from those precious years of youth. I really did have an intellectual interest in the ideas of Zhuangzi and Laozi, and understood them in my own way. Whether I naturally thought or acted in accordance with them would be debatable. Some ideas are like seeds though and may of those seeds are reflective in many of my instincts and reactions now. 

Zhuangzi (Chuangtzu) in particularly was skeptical about words, with plenty of wordy quotes to demonstrate: “The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?” Nice, right? The most apt part of that is the subordination of language as a mere tool that could be disposed of once the truth is apparent. 

The problem though is that the mediation role that words have taken in our perceptions has led us to only see them. We only see the agents and forget the product they are selling. Laozi (Laotzu) said: "The truth is not always beautiful, nor beautiful words the truth" and there is more than an element of that in the exaggerated field of real estate. 

Both Daoists quotes, themselves, are undoubtedly beautiful. The first talks about words as a disposable means to an ends, that ends being to have a clear understanding of meaning. The second that they play on our senses and truth is not necessarily a pleasing, acceptable thing. My current feeling is that words are almost always inadequate to show meaning, approximations at best; and at worst, they damage meaning in the snaring, trapping process to the point that it leads to wrong understanding or self-deception. Be that as it may, I concede that they are probably the best we have to communicate. 

Words, being mere tools, can be misused or abused to create impossible artworks akin to Escher paintings. As we think in words, it is easy to be caught in an infinity loop created by them, unless you constantly subordinate the lingual meaning to a limited aspect of a non-lingual reality. The Chinese word for contradiction 矛盾 (máodùn) comes from the story of a man selling two different products: 矛, a spear that was described as capable of piercing any armour or protection; and 盾, a shield which in this case is absolutely inpenetrable. In the story, of course, a stander-by asked that obvious question: what happens when his two products are used against each other. Clearly there is a contradiction there but it is only an intellectual word game at the end of the day, because two physical objects can be speculated about but at the end of the day the theory can be tested and one object will win. And in it winning, it might only mean that it wins now - can one really know about something being the most of anything without an impossibly omniscient perspective. 

Words can only show a few dimensions of any idea, object, person or place, when there are countless others. Take our hypothetical spear. Actually, don't. It is hypothetical and is literally only words. I do not know if you have ever seen a spear before so please hold in your mind the conception of the sharpest knife you actually have in your cutlery drawer. This is your 矛. Unlike a word spear with extraordinary word powers, your knife is, well, your knife; only you know it. Imagine the feeling of holding the material of the handle; its weight and dynamics in the hand when you want to use it; recall the age, how it came to be your knife; recall what you have eaten with it, or the foods you have prepared with it; though you probably cannot be sure, imagine its production; the origins of each of its components; then look at any grooves or any imperfections on it; do any of those scars have a story? As for whether it is sharp enough to slice through your bulletproof chopping board, or whether the blade will snap upon the first, second or third attempt, let us leave that to our imagination. 

I would aver that the knowledge and the actuality of the knife that you have in your mind, after this mental probing of the knife ,cannot be adequately reflected in text. Even if you write answers to the questions above in text, it is still a mere shadow of the actuality with plenty of scope to underrepresent or misrepresent. And there are far more so for things more complex than an inert kitchen object. All of which means that we should treat meaning and truth represented words bring as approximations, and definitely cast the words away when the obscure sight of what you are trying to see.

In terms of my own growth, especially in the last ten years, it would have been towards leaving linear thought, perhaps a sign that the seeds from my twenties are bearing fruit. Linear thought is a product of the oversimplicity that word thinking can instill. For me linear thinking is the kind that is pure, reasonable, on-paper analysis without any dimensions of rough-and-ready reality. It is what I have an innate ability to do and regrettably has been one of the biggest obstacles for understanding the nuances of the real world. 

What I am calling linear thought is best shown by obviously reasonable but clearly wrong conclusions:
- A smart couple will have smart children.
- He is the smartest so he will be the most successful.
- He is successful so he must be happy.
Similar certainties are commonly heard. Anyone with any worldly experience knows these are reasonable possibilities but definitely nowhere near the certainties logical, linear thinking should dictate. The sentences should clang in the ear in their arrogant certainty; so many truisms have this kind of reasonability about them that almost certainly recalls Laozi's observation about beautiful words not being true; and true words not beautiful. A smart couple could have a range of children with different intellectual talents; they may have one on the autistic spectrum, a child with Downs Syndrome and a rebel who distains learning and resents the expectations of their parents. Our own experiences of real people will show the linear thoughts to be clearly wrong about success and happiness: Anthony Bourdain, Michael Hutchence, Heath Ledger and Greg Boyd were all smart successful people whose lives ended by their own hands probably in lives where true happiness was a rarity and the agony of being was beyond belief. Linear thinking would not make sense of these people, and to be clear a lot of people still cannot understand their acts of suicide. 

Yet for most of my life I have thought this way. Being someone with a strong affinity to words, I would write down my ideas and draw conclusions. When things did not go according to logic, I would say that it happened incorrectly, rather than to see that I had an inadequate tool for understanding why things happened the way they did. It might be an age thing - we see so much and realise that the inherent complexities in things and people are much more than can be perceived.

Apparently F. Scott Fitzgerald was the first to say the line: "The sign of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." When I heard it it nailed a notion that I have enjoyed pondering for some time:  If one statement is 80% likely to be correct to a degree of 80% or more and a completely contradictory second statement is 80% likely to be 80% correct, it is entirely possible that both seem correct and consistent with most of the evidence. Therefore, if you negate one on the basis of another, you are in jeopardy. I would like to stand up and bear witness to holding two contradictory thoughts. Yet, I am sure it would not be understood.

Words fail in just the same way that numbers do. A staff headcount, something that is always lurking at the background of my managerial life, counts each person as an identical unit, whereas they are all different people with respect to ability, productivity, legacy and fit, not to mention the importance of their ongoing employment to their financial viability. The headcount could be a proxy for an accountant for the cost of salaries, which is only a financial perspective, whereas it loses relevance for the operation in the business and the human side of a working staff. Death tolls are the same, counting each person as an equal unit, which for public health monitoring may be useful but from any other angle had blinders towards the age, family impact of loss, contribution to society, etc. These two counts of human bodies is equal but not equitable and, more to my point, only ever meant to be taken as one dimension because there is no true way to count absolutely. Words are no different. 
Clearly I've rambled for quite some time in words. Obviously the suspicion of words has not stopped me being prolix in my elaboration. I do not find it discouraging for my use of language, but it rather pushes me to try better to touch the concrete, the real and ask the questions without prejudice or prejudgement.  

Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?

Monday, April 05, 2021

Excerpt: Non-dualism

There were three weird moments in the first half of my life that I sometimes reflect on. I remember the experiencing them at the time, and also reflecting quickly on the experience. But since then there was recollections of these moments, and who knows to what degree they have changed in nature. They may have been qualitatively different but even through the innocent categorising of them together here, I might be mentally drawing them in to one section to make a point. Dear Reader, I hope you read the below and consider whether anything similar has happened in your life. I will describe them below and leave my own understanding of it to the end.

The first and the most wondrous was during a trip to Surfers Paradise in Australia. At this time I cannot be certain of my age but probably around 10 years old. It is also the sketchiest of the three to include. There is a Ripley's Believe It or Not "Odditorium". To unpack that, many people my age or older will remember there was a show on television, Ripley's Believe It or Not?, where strange but real stories are presented. This show, and anything with the name Arthur C. Clarke, or supernatural stories, I was crazy for. So to find this "Odditorium" (i.e. a specialised exhibit venue of odd things) was like going to heaven. It had visual illusions, stories and artefacts to see. The route was a loop through one floor, with panels on either side of the route. Being ten or thereabouts and in an overstimulating sacred venue, I imagine I probably ran around on my own. At some point though somewhere between the middle and the end, I lost myself. I just remember at the end that for a time I felt as if in a timeless dream, but nevertheless everything in the dream was actually there, just nothing more than the material substance. The final exhibits were just what they were without the expectation that I would have layered on top. It was just what it was. And it felt timeless, it felt like over an hour but it was probably no more than ten minutes. At the end my family caught up with me and we went on.

The second was after we moved to Hobsonville. We had a PC in the so-called "Pool Room" that I was increasingly hogging it for my own personal interests of computer games, philosophy, computer programming and English or Japanese BBS ("bulletinboards", a form of online chat boards). Again I cannot put a year on this but likely 17 or 18 years old. I was thinking about non-dualism - probably when I was new to the idea - and for a moment looked away and briefly again lost myself. I cannot say for how long, but for that time things just were. I just was. And then the spell ended and I went on writing, albeit with a new perspective.

The third I can definitely place in a time: The AIESEC Weekend Away conference in 2001 where I was on the OC (Organising Committee). For context, I had returned from Taiwan in September 2000 and felt something of a change in my being; I supported the OC with an Asia Pacific AIESEC conference in Auckland in January of 2001 and felt unconstrained socially and started challenging my boundaries; and then the university resumed in March, new members joined and it was part of the calendar to have an early conference with new members as part of the education process and planning for the year. I remember bringing the same mind and energy to this that I had at the Asia Pacific conference in the little moments. The only duty I can recall at this time twenty years later was one of my menial roles, washing dishes, and it was there that for periods I would just lose myself again. I would be there but without thought. Just doing. 

Now, others may have these feelings regularly; I might be impoverished and treat these meagre shiny experiences as sacred, while similar may be a dime a dozen for meditators, or available with a tab of Ecstasy. But each moment I think grounded me and opened my mind. They felt akin to a religious experience. I have meditated for periods of my life without every coming close to this, even though you would think that was the most appropriate technique to achieve it. Only one of them was while contemplating something, the other two could have been while in "flow" dissociating from self and only on existence. Without any strict guidance in my own naming of things, I consider these moments when I dipped into a mindset of non-dualism where there is no division between mind and body; no right or wrong; good or bad. It was just is; no subject; no object; no predicate; just verb.

Sunday, April 04, 2021

Heart of Darkness

Is there anything better than the Easter break? Four days is just the perfect break length. I'm writing this on the start of the first day and I feel like I've already had a great rest and now I have a full two days to do things. But isn't there anything worse than a four day week, two of which flank the Easter break. 

It has been four weeks since I sprained my ankle but the last week I've started to push it by starting to jog. So far it seems to be therapeutic but I bears some risk. Every sprain is different, the result of a very specific incident with its own torques and forces to an ankle with its own idiosyncratic strengths and weak points. There are three grades of sprain. The ultrasound which revealed five partial tears was sufficient to show I had a grade two sprain, and a 4-8 week recovery time. Easter has been a time to make sure I do my exercises and focussing on the exercises to recover.

I thought the injury would have opened a lot of writing time but I have only done a few bursts of creativity and production. I have been thinking about and listening to many things which sometimes is related to what I am writing and sometimes something parallel. One person I have listened to a great deal is Ramani Durvasula, a psychologist with an interest in pathological narcissism (AKA narcissistic personality disorder, NPD). As a complete layperson in matters psychological, the idea that there is that there are personality disorders at all; I understood mental disorders of various shades, but personality disorders are different in essentially they are strictly about the personality, and not a mental condition. I would be suspicious about a personality described as a disorder, and though I have known my fair share of people I regard narcissists, I would have not considered it necessarily as a condition.

For example, if narcissism were a disorder, it would be something that narcissists would be in all aspects of their lives. For whatever reason, I may have mistaken thought that narcissists acted narcissistic with particular people, or in specific situations. (To be clear, I had not really thought about the subject.) I could imagine someone being a narcissist in a relationship but who works fine as a colleague and does not manipulate the boss; or someone who grows up as a narcissistic child in a family but at school is not abusing others for their own aggrandizement. That may be because there is a borderline between something pathological (NPD) and just the everyday selfishness or our innate tendency of egocentrism that we all exhibit at times, or during phases of our lives. Or perhaps I did not know whether those nasty pieces of work are as nasty in the other environments and with the other people in their lives. Apparently based on the evidence, they are, or can be so, thus NPD is in the DSM (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition).

Ramani spends time distinguishing psychopaths, sociopath and narcissists, and estimates that narcissists are different from the other two, and are much more common. Some of the typical phenomena outside of those in a relationship are the berating the customer service staff; they are also the ones who have hugely selfish (and hypocritical) driving habits and attitudes; they are the ones who if another person does not feed their self-esteem or give them their needs will tend to cut off and treat coldly. 

If it were a common personality disorder, I would be able to spot many within my sphere. In my working life, I think I have only met a few that I would be able to state with any confidence, and without any psychiatric credential, are likely NPD candidates. For past colleagues, EG seemed to be one. SB another. Back in China, LB and RG were probable. But that was from my own experiences with them, in a professional capacity. But if they weren't NPD sufferers, then there aren't too many others to choose from. It could be that now that I deal with more people in lower positions than me within my small professional pond so fewer people in my working life can afford to show me their darker side. Not that I want to have such a person acting out and affecting my peace of mind. 

How well we know others, how well we know ourselves and how perceptions of the world are a big interest to me and disorders that affect perception are curious.