Monday, October 26, 2009

Trick or treat?

A reader (and fellow blogger) left the following comment on a recent post:

"A shift in perspective can lessen the impact of an event...but it does seem to me to be a trick that one can play [on] oneself, which may work sometime, and not...actual freedom from the impact."

This is a very interesting point, and one worth exploring. To begin, let us say we essentially agree with our reader's statement--in fact, many (if not all) of the strategies we have suggested in this blog could be categorized the same way. None, in and of themselves, are intended (nor should they be expected) to effect fundamental changes in one's perception of the world. After all, no matter how hard we work at pretending to be Nicolas Cage, such efforts to delude ourselves are simply that. Aren't they?

Regular readers will notice we have (purposely) wandered into a thicket here--if one views "reality" and the concept of self as delusions, then what does it mean to say one is deluding oneself in the first place? Let's come back to that...

Again, our reader is correct that our "recommendations" are essentially thinly-disguised methods for imposing an alternate view of reality on oneself, and do not prima facie change anything about a given situation. If (to return to an earlier discussion) our wife has an affair, pretending it happened 300 years ago (or to someone else) doesn't change the fact that she did in fact have the affair; moreover, any comfort we take from this alternate view of events seems to come from fooling ourselves rather than representing a long-term solution to the pain we understandably feel. (In our reader's words, it is "a trick," rather than "actual freedom from the event.")

However, in our opinion this is to focus on the effect rather than the cause. Put a different way, the point of all these tricks is to get one to focus on the fact that our feelings and emotions are not representative of some larger "truth"; instead, they merely represent millions of years of genetic hard-wiring. Consider again the example of our wife's affair. Why does it bother us? Well, she and I promised each other we would be "faithful." Why did we do that? (Indeed, monogamy is the rare exception in nature.) Most likely, human monogamy is a tradition that grew out of agrarian cultures where it was advantageous (i.e., increased one's chances of survival) to set up a family "unit" to work the land. Going further, why did we find her (or women in general) attractive in the first place? On and on, until...we come to the root of the issue, which is that we are all (as Richard Dawkins so eloquently put it) "gene survival machines," and all the things that seem so important and relevant turn out to simply be byproducts of whatever survival strategy worked best for our ancestors.

To return to the original issue, our reader is correct that the "strategies" we offer on this blog for dealing with the absurdity of human existence are nothing more than tricks--but that is precisely the point! Let us put it this way. The "conventional wisdom" is that things have meaning, and this belief system is constantly reinforced by extraordinarily powerful genetic and cultural factors. To cite just one example, our knowledge that the sex drive is entirely due to evolutionary factors does little to diminish its effectiveness.

Thus, even those who recognize the absurdity of the human condition--who believe, as we do, that the entire notion of "existence" is cut from whole cloth, right down to the concept of the self--find it difficult to maintain this view on a day-to-day basis, as it goes against everything we see and hear (not to mention being taught to believe, essentially from birth). It is with this in mind that we offer these tricks; not to delude ourselves, but precisely the opposite--to remind ourselves, on a fairly consistent basis, that reality itself is the true delusion.

5 comments:

  1. Interesting blog, if verbose...why do you refer to a woman as "our wife" (how many husbands does this woman have?) and also, is this blog supposed to be about the absurd human/person or is it really about the absurd (verbose, self-important) male? I suspect the latter...Women tend to find the obvious absurdity of life a subject of humor, have a good laugh, and then get on with life. Good luck to you though...great topic!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, thanks...we think...

    To answer your questions:

    1) We use the "editorial we" to signify our belief that "we" don't matter (and that we do not, in any real sense, even exist).

    2) Our blog is certainly intended to be about the absurd person, but we admit that since it is often about our own experiences, it tends toward the male viewpoint. (One point of clarification - do you find all males verbose and self-important, or is it just us?)

    3) We are interested in your perspective on women. In our experience, men are far more likely than women to recognize (and appreciate) the absurdity of life; most women we know believe strongly that things such as family and friends (for example) "matter."

    Anyway, thanks for your note!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Rick:

    Two responses:

    ---

    You say: "However, in our opinion this is to focus on the effect rather than the cause. Put a different way, the point of all these tricks is to get one to focus on the fact that our feelings and emotions are not representative of some larger "truth"; instead, they merely represent millions of years of genetic hard-wiring."

    I think the "trick" approach focuses on the effect when in many cases it might actually be possible to be free of the underlying cause itself. As an example, an Indian might start loving a Pakistani if he is convinced by a sleight of mindwash that the other is indeed an Indian since the partition happened in 1947. But, in my opinion, it is far better to be free of nationalism and such divisions as factors of affinity in the first place, and such freedom is indeed possible. Through a trick, one postpones this kind of actual freedom in lieu of a short-term palliative. In some cases, the palliatives may indeed be very helpful, but for an enquirer, they may not be satisfactory.

    ---

    You say: "It is with this in mind that we offer these tricks; not to delude ourselves, but precisely the opposite--to remind ourselves, on a fairly consistent basis, that reality itself is the true delusion."

    It is correct that feelings and psychic reactions are based on a /view/ of the world which is formed by our selfish instincts, and this view is quite illusory. However, I would propose breaking this illusion and entering into what is (the inherent existence without human superimpositions), rather than put another tricksome veneer on top of the existing illusion (say of relativistic time or of essential oneness, etc.). What do you think?

    Regards
    Harman

    ReplyDelete
  4. Harman-

    Very well put. We certainly agree it is better to "treat the disease rather than the symptom," as it were, but for many people this is a bridge too far, at least at first. As you well know, the human condition is such that it is very difficult to keep one's perspective on what is, particularly for those relatively new to this (as we assume is true for many readers of this blog). Thus, we have spent a fair amount of time discussing relatively simple ways of illuminating the absurd, but you are certainly correct that one who accepts this truth at a fundamental level would likely be nonplussed by such tricks.

    There is also the issue of how one uses these tricks. For us, we have found them useful not as a palliative, but rather as a means to remind ourselves of what we believe at a fundamental level to be true, particularly when such a view conflicts with our more primitive animal emotions. We have also found that we have used such tricks less and less as our perspective has become more "entrenched."

    The bottom line is we agree with you - these tricks are a means rather than an end. And we would also not expect people to use them for too long - as we said, while we once found them a useful "crutch," we do not use them nearly as much as we once did.

    All that said, your objections are noted - specifically, we wonder if such tricks are not analogous to event-based epiphanies, against which we recently argued. In other words, perhaps such tricks do (as you argue) simply layer another "veneer" on the existing illusion of meaningfulness, rather than (as we had hoped) guide individuals down the path to peace and contentment.

    Let us think some more on this.

    Rick

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow, I am surprised your comment about women not appreciating the absurdity on life as much as men didn't garner more comments.
    Prior to reading this, I did wonder if I had stumbled upon some philosophical boys club.....but I let it go. Now, this brings the feeling back!
    I would really love it if your wives would start a blog about being married to self proclaimed absurd men. It would be great for perspective!!
    Anyway, I do enjoy this blog.....and I think the intention is nice and I like the basic idea. But I don't think because you have somehow found a way to enjoy sports as an absurd activity, you have proven your man absurd abilities are stronger.
    Just sayin.....

    ReplyDelete