News
 International
   Global Views
   Asia-Pacific
   America
   Europe
   Middle East & Africa
 National
 Embassy News
 Arts & Living
 Business
 Travel & Hotel
 Medical Tourism New
 Taekwondo
 Media
 Letters to Editor
 Photo Gallery
 News Media Link
 TV Schedule Link
 News English
 Life
 Hospitals & Clinics
 Flea Market
 Moving & Packaging
 Religious Service
 Korean Classes
 Korean Weather
 Housing
 Real Estate
 Home Stay
 Room Mate
 Job
 English Teaching
 Translation/Writing
 Job Offered/Wanted
 Business
 Hotel Lounge
 Foreign Exchanges
 Korean Stock
 Business Center
 PR & Ads
 Entertainment
 Arts & Performances
 Restaurants & Bars
 Tour & Travel
 Shopping Guide
 Community
 Foreign Missions
 Community Groups
 PenPal/Friendship
 Volunteers
 Foreign Workers
 Useful Services
 ST Banner Exchange
  America
Meditations
Concerning Discernment and Difference
By Martin LeFevre
Contributing Writer
Concerning Discernment and Difference

As a philosopher and writer, some sentences instantly strike me as true, and some sentences instantly strike me as false. How can one be sure one is seeing the true as true, and the false as false?

After all, as a famous physicist once cracked, “Don’t fool yourself. And you are the easiest person to fool.”

One can’t be completely sure one is seeing things as they are, within and without, but if one questions oneself, one has to trust one’s discernment.

Which is to say, as long as one is skeptically self-knowing, and doubting oneself to the right degree, one can and must have confidence in one’s discernment to perceive what is false and true.

With respect to doubt, as a sage once said, “Doubt is like having a dog on a leash; one has to know when to let the dog run, and when to put it back on the leash.”

That said, here’s a sentence that struck me today as deeply true: “To discover something new there has to be a period, even temporarily, when thought is not in movement, when it is in abeyance.”

The meanings and implications of that sentence are enormous, but suffice to say that it pertains to a rare but essential psychological potential and phenomenon — the complete quieting of the mind.

There is no method to bring about a still mind, since all methods of meditation, contemplation or prayer are devices of thought that are meant to trick or hypnotize the movement of thought into stillness. Intense, passive, self-knowing watchfulness, especially in the mirror of nature, is all that’s required for attention to gather and the mind to fall spontaneously silent.

Without learning this art, we humans are like the artificial thought machines we have created in our image. It’s vital to set aside a period every day to passively observe thought sufficiently for the mind- as-thought to cease operating and be in abeyance. That is what will differentiate the human being from artificial thought now and in the future.

Discovering something new refers not only to insights into life and oneself, or to scientific knowledge, but to a state of insight beyond knowledge and known.

Conversely, here’s an example of the kind of sentence that immediately strikes me as false: “Brains can be seen as prediction engines, constantly calculating what is most likely to happen next and whether it will be beneficial or harmful.”

The brain is not a “prediction engine.” Rather, the self is the engine of calculation based on the images, memories and identifications of thought in the human brain. A calculating brain is a shallow and reactive mind. Viewing the human brain as a calculating, prediction engine reinforces the darkness that rules the human mind, consciousness and society.

Avoiding the uniqueness of man’s destructiveness has literally reached dizzying heights. In an absurd attempt to blur the distinction between how humans operate on Earth and how the rest of nature operates within ecological niches, scientists are studying how our closest primate cousins — gorillas, chimps and bonobos — like to spin in circles, like children and adults occasionally do.

Catherine Hobaiter, a primatologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland also notes that based on her observations in the field that “wild apes love to spin.” However the conclusions scientists draw from these observations are head-spinning.

Marc Bekoff, an emeritus behavioral ecologist and cognitive ethologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said researching such behavior was valuable “because there’s no a priori reason to think we’re the only animals who engage in behaviors that intentionally produce altered states of consciousness.” He added, “Systematic research will help us learn more about the taxonomy of getting high and not run around thinking we’re all that unique.”

It appears that the more different and destructive man becomes on Earth, the more the hidden scientific agenda of conflating human behavior with shared traits with other animals becomes the order of the day. That makes for both bad science and bad philosophy.

Scientists aren’t immune from the very human trait of trying to have things both ways. On one hand, they take enormous pride in man’s scientific and technological capabilities, and on the other they evince false humility by preaching against “running around thinking we’re all that unique.”

Drawing childish parallels between spinning apes and “intentionally produced altered states of consciousness” does nothing to understand why man alone on this planet has fragmented the Earth to the breaking point. It’s as superficial as suggesting the cause of human destructiveness is our opposable thumbs.

The human brain is unique in its complexity and power for amassing knowledge, in its inventiveness, and in its increasing destructiveness to the planet on which it evolved.

However, rather than honestly investigating why man, using ‘higher thought,’ is so uniquely detrimental to the Earth, many scientists are indulging in a circular, disingenuous philosophical project intended to blur and obscure man’s anomalous difference in nature.

Philosophy takes priority over science, and we shouldn’t expect scientists to do philosophy. For the last century however, philosophers have followed in the wake of science, thereby rendering philosophy nearly irrelevant.

It’s time to restore philosophy to its rightful primacy, since science and society need philosophical inquiry and insight now more than ever.

Martin LeFevre



Related Articles
    Narratives or Insight?
    Oppenheimer, and “I Am Become Death”
    Doing Philosophy In America
    Regarding Nihilism and Negation
    Providence, the End of Man, and the Emergence ...
    Awakening Intelligence Within
    Teilhard Got It Backwards
    Awakening a Proprioception of Thought
    Human Being Is Not a “Very Small Phenomenon”
    Finding False Comfort In Impermanence
    Has the Retreat Industry Contributed to Human ...
    Letter to a Friend about Meditation
    A Birthday Wish from America for Humanity on ...
    Our View of Nature Is the Cornerstone of Our ...
    Three Kinds of Singularity
    An Explanation, Though It Won’t Change the ...
    When Did Progressives Become Warmongers?
    AI’s Quantum Leap Demands a Quantum Leap in ...
    The Ending of Psychological Thought
    Mystical Experiencing Is Our Birthright
    AI, AI, AI, or I, I, I?
    What Is Art, and an Artist?
    Canaries in the Coal Mines of Consciousness
    Cosmic Pointlessness or Infinite Immanence?
    Cardinal Errors
    Concerning Stagnancy, Demography and Vitality
    Mind, Brain and Consciousness
    The State of Insight
    The Religious and Scientific Mind
    Q Craziness and Unaddressed Evil
    Localism Increases Fragmentation of Earth
    Collapsing the Distinction Doesn’t Resolve ...
    The Silence of Being
    Heightened Senses In Nature Opens the Door to ...
    The Inter-National Order Is Dead and Gone
    Polarization Isn’t the Problem
    Enlightenment Isn’t Personal
    Human Beings Can Meet This Moment
    Nagasaki and the Incorrigibility of Man
    There Is No Evolution of Consciousness
    Imagining ‘Umwelts’ Is Unnecessary
    Expansion or Negation of Self?
    Intelligent Life, Meditation and Transmutation
    The Source of Evil Is Not a Person or a Nation
    The Dialogue Buffet at the Death Café
    Higher Thought: Threshold and Impediment to ...
    Is Universality a Western Idea?
    What Is Your View of Human Nature?
    Defeating Evil Without Violence
    A Recipe For World War
    Beyond Thinking Machines
    There Is No Such Thing as "Personal ...
    Time Is a Tremendous Illusion
    Breakthrough Infection, or Inflection?
    Requiem for a Meditation Place
    Fragmentation and Wholeness
    Did Evolution Go Wrong With Man?
    The Urgent Indifference of Enlightenment
    Death Isn’t After Life; It’s Inseparable ...


Martin LeFevre, a contemplative, philosopher and writer in northern California, serves as a contributing writer for The Seoul Times. His "Meditations" explore and offer insights on spiritual, philosophical and political questions in the global society. LeFevre's philosophical thesis proposes a new theory of human nature. He welcomes dialogue. lefevremartin77@gmail.com

 

back

 

 

 

The Seoul Times, Shinheung-ro 36ga-gil 24-4, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Korea 04337 (ZC)
Office: 82-10-6606-6188 Email:seoultimes@gmail.com
Copyrights 2000 The Seoul Times Company  ST Banner Exchange