Ice and frightening.

Skip maybe just to the second half if you're impatient.

One Party Democracy

An Op-Ed from Thomas Friedman, which picks up on something I had been talking about here, in regards to the political differences between the US and China, and how health care is being dealt with.

Reading the title I had thought Friedman was going to talk about how much both parties are so influenced by corporate money that in effect the government had turned into a corporatocracy, but perhaps later.

READ

An Op-Ed in the NYTimes, from Harold Bloom, this century's most prominent literary critic, someone himself who I need to read a few times to begin to understand.

Get Lost. In Books.

More than ever in this time of economic troubles and societal change, entering upon an undergraduate education should be a voyage away from visual overstimulation into deep, sustained reading of what is most worth absorbing and understanding: the books that survive all ideological fashions.

There is general agreement on the indispensable canon: Homer, Plato, the Bible, Virgil, Dante, Chaucer, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Montaigne, Milton. From the 19th century until now, keeping only to English and American authors, a slightly more arbitrary selection might include Blake, Wordsworth, Austen, Dickens, George Eliot, Hardy, Yeats and Joyce in England and Ireland. Among the Americans would certainly be Emerson, Thoreau, Melville, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, Hawthorne; and in the 20th century, Faulkner and the major poets: Robert Frost, Wallace Stevens, T. S. Eliot, Hart Crane.

Many of these authors are difficult and demand rereading, but that doubles their value. A freshman may have read Shakespeare before, but the richest and most available of all writers is also the most profound and elliptical. Rereading “Hamlet” and “King Lear” should teach a student Shakespeare’s mastery of the art of leaving things out.

To think well you must rely, in part, upon memory, and possessing Shakespeare and Joyce, Montaigne and Whitman means that you can recall much of the best that has been written.

Whatever our current travails, we now have a literate president capable of coherent discourse, but too many other politicians are devoid of syntax and appear to have read nothing. Aggressive ignorance in aspirants to high office is another dismal consequence of the waning of authentic education.

Harold Bloom, a professor of English at Yale and the author of the forthcoming “Living Labyrinth: Literature and Influence,” has been teaching since 1955.

The Samatha Jhanas

Again, my apologies for the formatting. Go to the link at the bottom if interested.

Via Shaman Sun:

Steps leading to jhana/dhyana
There are 9 steps in concentration training leading to shamatha (pali samatha) as explained in Alan Wallace's "The Attention Revolution." What follows is a brief overivew of this map with 9 steps, 6 powers, and 4 types of engagements featured in Wallace's handbook, with additional notes on terminology from different sources (such as "Mahayanasutralankara" and "Shravakabhumi" by Maitreyanatha/Asanga,"Bhavanakrama" by Kamalashila etc.).

	Step	What is achieved	Power by which that is achieved	What problem persists	Attentional imbalances	Type of mental engagement	Quality of the experience	Involuntary thoughts
1	Directed attention	One is able to direct the attention to the chosen object	Learning the instructions (skt. shruti)	No attentional continuity on the object	Coarse excitation	Focused	Movement	Flow of involuntary thought like a cascading waterfall
2	Continuous att.	Attentional continuity to a chosen object up to a minute	Thinking about the practice (skt. asaya)	Most of the time attention is not on the object	Coarse excitation	Focused	Movement	Flow of involuntary thought like a cascading waterfall
3	Resurgent att.	Swift recovery of distracted attention, mostly on the object	Mindfulness (skt. smrti)	One still forgets the object entirely for brief periods	Coarse excitation	Interrupted	Movement	Flow of involuntary thought like a cascading waterfall
4	Close att.	One no longer completely forgets the chosen object	Mindfulness, which is now strong	Some degree of complacency concerning samadhi	Coarse laxity and medium excitation	Interrupted	Achievement	Involuntary thoughts like a river quickly flowing through a gorge
5	Tamed att.	One takes satisfaction in samadhi	Introspection (skt. samprajanya)	Some resistance to samadhi	Medium laxity and medium excitation	Interrupted	Achievement	Involuntary thoughts like a river quickly flowing through a gorge
6	Pacified att.	No resistance to training the attention	Introspection	Desire, depression, lethargy, and drowsiness	Medium laxity and subtle excitation	Interrupted	Achievement	Involuntary thoughts like a river slowly flowing through a valley
7	Fully pacified att.	Pacification of attachment, melancholy, and lethargy	Enthusiasm (skt. virya)	Subtle imbalances of attention, swiftly rectified	Subtle laxity and excitation	Interrupted	Familiarity	Involuntary thoughts like a river slowly flowing through a valley
8	Single-pointed att.	Samadhi is long, sustained without any excitation or laxity	Mindfulness, introspection, enthusiasm	It still takes effort to ward off excitation and laxity	Latent impulses for subtle excitation and laxity	Uninterrupted	Stillness	Conceptually discursive mind is calm like an ocean with no waves
9	Attentional balance	Flawless samadhi is long, sustained effortlessly	Familiarity (skt. paricaya)	Attentional imbalances may recur infuture	Causes of those imbalances are still latent	Effortless	Perfection	Conceptually discursive mind is still like a great mountain

* Coarse excitation: attention completely disengages from the medit. object. Medium exc: involuntary thoughts occupy the center of attention, while the medit. object is displaced to periphery. Subtle exc: Medit. object remains at center of attention, but involuntary thoughts emerge at periphery of attention.
* Coarse laxity: Attention mostly disengages from medit. object due to insufficient vividness. Medium lax: Object appears, but not with much vividness. Subtle lax: Object appears vividly, but attention is slightly slack.

More here at Dharma Overground.

Anxiety and Procrastination

My apologies for the formatting. Not sure what's going on.

A great article I picked up from Integral Options Cafe.

Meditation has helped me greatly with this, personally. I have always
been a terrible procrastinator, and have relied on various things to
veg-out. The anxiety that comes up when I want to get something
done is the same across the board, felt when I see something I want
to eat, say, or when I have to deal with someone I don't want to talk
to, or approach someone when I'm afraid to. With observation, it
disappears (though this takes practice, and the observation often
must be fairly constant.) This in itself is a large part of my practice.
When I feel anxious, I watch the sensation, and later try and figure
out what about the situation was making me feel anxious so I can
uproot it.

Don't Delay

Understanding procrastination and how to achieve our goals.

by Timothy A. Pychyl

Giving in to feel good: Why self-regulation fails

Focusing on regulating mood can lead to self-control failure in other areas.

We give in to feel good. Give in to what? Food, shopping, drinking, smoking, gambling, and, you guessed it, procrastination. The problem is that focusing on regulating our moods and feelings can lead to self-control failure in other areas.

"Giving in to feel good" is the first part of the title of an important paper written by Dianne Tice and Ellen Bratslavsky (complete reference below). Anyone interested in knowing more about issues of the self and self-regulation should search out resources, and there are plenty, written by Dianne Tice or Roy Baumeister, or their students. I have quoted Roy's work before, and I will again given his prolific prominence as a psychologist.

Procrastinators will tell you that the task they're facing (avoiding) is difficult, and it creates bad feelings like anxiety or general emotional distress. Putting off the task at hand is an effective way of regulating this mood. Avoid the task, avoid the bad mood. This is what Tice and Bratslavsky refer to as "giving in to feel good." We give in to the impulse to walk away in order to feel good right now. Learning theorists would even add that we have now reinforced this behavior as the decrease in anxiety is rewarding.

Of course, this short-term strategy has long-term costs. The last-minute efforts that become necessary when we put off the task usually mean a sub-standard job overall (although not always, and this is a classic reward to the procrastinator and very memorable). More importantly, as Tice and Bratslavsky explain, "the final and overall level of negative affect is likely to be even greater than if the person has worked on the task all along" (p. 152). We actually feel worse later!

In fact, earlier research conducted by Tice & Baumeister across two academic terms demonstrated that procrastination caught up to students in the second term. Whereas in the first term, the non-procrastinators were more stressed, by second term the costs of procrastination became obvious for the procrastinators in terms of course performance, stress and illness.

The message of their research is clear. Putting off a task to control immediate mood results in problems later. They demonstrate this across a number of domains as I noted earlier, including eating, drinking, smoking, gambling, shopping and procrastination. When we give primacy to addressing our emotional distress, we usually do so at the cost of self-regulatory failure. They summarize this key idea with,

"People will engage in behaviors that may be self-destructive (gambling, excessive shopping, overeating, smoking, procrastinating) if the behaviors make them feel better in the short term. Thus, emotion regulation may have a special place in the field of self-control, because emotion regulation takes precedence over other self-control behaviors and even undermines other self-control efforts" (p. 154).

The message to each of us should be clear as well. If we focus on our feelings in the short term, we'll undermine ourselves in the long run.

I've been teaching my 3-year-old daughter this. A typical "lesson" goes something like this.

Me: "Sweetie, it's time to pick up your toys before we go."
[Mood now visibly changing.]
L: "I don't feel like it. I don't want to."
Me: "Sweetie, according to Dianne Tice and Ellen Bratslavsky it's not the best strategy to focus on your feelings now, it's . . . sweetie?? Where are you?"

Ok, so it is about delay of gratification, and we do (should) learn this early in life. But, the evidence seems to show that we all can (and do) act like 3-year-olds at times.

In fact, we may spend a lifetime acting like a 3-year-old, and rationalizing it to ourselves the whole time. I don't feel like it. I need to feel better in order to act. First, I need to feel better.

No you don't.

In fact, your feelings will follow your behaviors. Progress on that task will improve your mood.

For example, new research where introverts are instructed to act extraverted shows that the introverts who act extraverted also feel happier (an affective advantage of extraverts). We'll talk about this more in the near future.

For now, the message is, don't give in to feeling good, get going instead - don't delay!

Reference

Tice, D.M., & Bratslavsky, E. (2000). Giving in to feel good: The place of emotion regulation in the context of general self-control. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 149-159.

Quote #7

Lord, grant that I might not so much seek to be loved as to love.

-St Francis of Assisi

I read an interesting take on this quote today from the 99th Monkey rephrased like this:

Grant that I might not so much seek to be loved (and understood) as to love (and understand.)

Wow, "real" America is batshit insane.

Three Articles from Esquire:
Is Obama a Fascist?
Obama Birther's Movement Quotes
Obama Birth Certificate Update

"It was pus exploding from a wound."

This is frightening because it really is the end for these people. They have no power other than guns, and no recourse but to violence. While that is a scary thought, the upside is that if they do lash out, that could be the end of the influence of the whacko-right in the country. They are wounded.

Creativity, a baby's world, and happiness.

Occasionally I get behind in my blog reading, and sometimes this creates fortunate coincidences. Like, now.

First, an article in Scientific American about how babies see the world. (both SciAm and the Shambala Sun articles are off Integral Options Cafe.)

"As adults when we attend to something in the world we are vividly conscious of that particular thing, and we shut out the surrounding world. The classic metaphor is that attention is like a spotlight, illuminating one part of the world and leaving the rest in darkness. In fact, attending carefully to one event may actually make us less conscious of the rest of the world. We even know something about how the brain does this: connections from the prefrontal part of the brain both enhance our perception of the attended event and inhibit our perception of other events. And there is a chemical basis for this, too. When we pay attention to an event certain brain chemicals called cholinergic transmitters make a small part of the brain more flexible and “plastic”, better at learning, and simultaneously other inhibitory transmitters actually make irrelevant parts of the brain less flexible.

If you look at baby’s attention you see a related but very different picture. Babies and young children are much worse at intentionally focusing their attention than adults. Instead, they seem to pay attention to anything that’s unexpected or interesting – anything they can learn from. We say that children are bad at paying attention but we really mean that they’re bad at not paying attention – they easily get distracted by anything interesting. And young brains are much more generally “plastic”, more flexible and better at learning than adult brains. Young brains are bathed in the cholinergic transmitters that enhance attention in adults, but the inhibitory transmitters that damp consciousness down haven’t yet come on line. If you put all that together it suggests that babies consciousness is more like a lantern than a spotlight – that it illumines the entire world around them.

Finally, you can think about what adult experience is like when we put ourselves in the same position as babies. When we travel for instance, we are suddenly surrounded by an unexpected new world and, instead of just focusing on the important things, we take in lots of information at once. That actually makes us more vividly conscious of our surroundings, not less. I think that for babies, every day is like first love in Paris."

Also, on play and pretending:

"...they seem to use their imagination the way that creative scientists do. One of the big new ideas about how babies learn is that they use what computer scientists call “Bayesian inference”. That means that you imagine lots of different possibilities and test how likely each possibility is.

When we have a theory of the world, we can not only say what the world is like now, we can also explore what would happen if the world was different. We can ask what would happen, for instance, if there was a rocket that traveled close to the speed of light. In fact, the ability to imagine these possibilities is one of the biggest advantages of understanding how the world works. Because we imagine, we can have invention and technology. Its actually play, not necessity, that is the mother of invention."

In a second article from Scientific American, researchers look at a way to increase creativity, and find that making something psychologically distant from oneself (anything not happening here, now, and to oneself is psychologically distant) increases creativity around the problem, which makes sense. How playful would you feel if you were trapped in a room slowly filling up with water? You'd probably be freaking out.

It also accords with the candle study, explained in the video below from TED talks:

Basically, people have to figure a simple task out. There are two groups, one given money if they complete it quickly and one not given any money. Classically, you'd expect the group given money as a reward to do better, but they do worse. See, the task they have to do involves some creativity. Giving people money apparently takes away some of their playfulness. (The talk is actually on motivation and the twenty-first century work place. I might talk about it in a later post, it's good.)

One more from TED: something I've put up before:

Finally, an article from the Shambhala Sun on happiness.

Now we can get to the point. It seems to me that the mode of consciousness described in the first article is not unique to babies, we're just educated out of it, at least when we're facing concrete and tangible problems, but we have access to it at anytime, and can certainly train to enhance it (the guys on "Who's Line is it Anyway"come to mind). Of course, the restricted, focused consciousness is just as important, we'd never become adult without it, but we're losing something when we ignore it, something that (as the first video explains) is increasingly needed in our world, and which might be linked to happiness. Or perhaps over-reliance on the focused method of consciousness, the "get-the-loot" consciousness, as the article puts it, causes us to ignore those million little things that are uplifting in the day.

Indeed, though the article in the SS doesn't present it in this light, we need both of these kinds of consciousness to be successful, and in meditation are training both: a simultaneous rigid focus on an open and innocent ("virgin", the article says,) state-of-mind. This could be why both the first and the last article are concerned with paying attention. Children are paying attention to everything, and if you're unhappy, maybe you're just not paying attention.

But children are not enlightened, nor are they all-in-all more conscious than adults (well, healthy adults.) The combination of the two is something attained through growth. As the SS article says, the "get-the-loot" mindset is always looking for something exterior, an experience or thing, while happiness comes from the inside. Babies don't have this, they aren't differentiated from their environment yet.

Remove the pillars of your belief in this world and look around a little bit, at least every once in a while, I guess is the take-home message.

Dark Flow, and limits to knowledge

An oddly written but interesting blog entry about something called "Dark Flow."

The phenomenon is pretty interesting in itself, apparently hundreds of millions of stars are all rushing (relatively) towards one spot on the outer edges of the known universe, something no one saw coming (hence, "Dark.")

I'm more interested, though, in the reaction:

"This is giant on a scale where it's not just that we can't see what's doing it; it's that the entire makeup of the universe as we understand it can't be right if this is happening. Which is fantastic! Such discoveries force a whole new set of ideas onto the table which, even if they turn out to be wrong, are the greatest ways to advance science and our understanding of everything."

Which, I think, is spot-on. Too often we assume that our models of the world are correct, and we fight to keep them. Rarely does something come along that beggars some sort of contrived explanation.

I think one of the hallmarks of integral awareness (though it is in the healthy scientific consciousness that it first pops its head up) is the knowledge that we don't really know anything, except that we're here, and here is us.

Tarantino and the Ol' Switcheroo

I walked out of "Inglourious Basterds" about an hour ago. If you haven't seen it and think you might, I wouldn't read this now, but I would give the film four stars, out of four. Go see it and come back.

Violent, yeah? Oddly enough, I went to go see this movie with my mom, honestly can't tell you the last time I've seen a movie with her, let alone in the theater. In any case, all my mom would say was "that was so violent." (She'd never seen a Tarantino film before. She actually suggested this.)

Of course, that was the point- the violence was grotesque, and it served the purpose of the film, which was humanitarian. There's a juxtaposition of the violence of the movie (fairy-tale) and the violence the Nazis perpetrated in real life. This movie was a scalping of the Nazis, doing exactly what Goebbels had thought he was doing to film (there's the one line about beating the Jews at their own game.) It dehumanizes them in the worst way, because its dehuminization is a fantasy. Hitler's face getting blown off in the end, all the Nazis getting raked by machine gun fire, is the last laugh, it is the vengeance of the Jew that the main female character proclaims as she taunts the theater-goers to stare into her Jewish face (which is, of course, perfectly blonde-haired blue-eyed aryan.)

But doesn't the violence dehumanize us as much as the Nazis are dehumanized, and so tear apart the whole point of the movie? Again, no, it's a fanciful fiction, which makes the real violence of WWII that much more horrific. Hitler can portray himself as beautiful. In our film, he is disgusting, pimply and old, wearing a cape, a cartoon. That's what you get for being a supreme asshole.

Well, again, I've just seen this an hour ago. It still hasn't quite sunk in, and there's much more in the movie, but that was my first take. What do you think?