Thursday, May 07, 2009

Zen Motivational Poster

I found this at MonkMojo's 1,000 Cuts - it's funny because it's true.




Today - National Day of Reason

So, let's be reasonable today, OK? So that means no horoscopes, no magical thinking of any kind (yes, I'm talking to you "law of attraction" people), and no, wait for it . . . God.

Why a "National Day of Reason?"

Many who value the separation of religion and government have sought an appropriate response to the federally-supported National Day of Prayer, an annual abuse of the constitution. Nontheistic Americans (including freethinkers, humanists, atheists, agnostics, and deists), along with many traditionally religious allies, view such government-sanctioned sectarianism as unduly exclusionary.

A consortium of leaders from within the community of reason endorsed the idea of a National Day of Reason. This observance is held in parallel with the National Day of Prayer, on the first Thursday in May each year (May 7th in 2009). The goal of this effort is to celebrate reason—a concept all Americans can support—and to raise public awareness about the persistent threat to religious liberty posed by government intrusion into the private sphere of worship.

The Day of Reason also exists to inspire the secular community to be visible and active on this day to set the right example for how to effect positive change. Local organizations might use "Day of Reason" to label their events, or they might choose labels such as Day of Action, Day of Service, or Rational Day of Care. The important message is to provide a positive, useful, constitutional alternative to the exclusionary National Day of Prayer.

To facilitate the commemoration of the National Day of Reason by individuals and organizations throughout the U.S., the American Humanist Association and the Washington Area Secular Humanists joined together in 2003 to launch this National Day of Reason web site. This web site is designed to serve as the focal point for an effort to recognize the National Day of Reason, and as a platform to offer a criticism of the federally-sponsored National Day of Prayer. We hope that it will be a resource to the community of reason, the press, and the general public.

Look to this site for facts and statistics regarding the National Day of Prayer, essays on church-state separation from noted authorities in the field, sample proclamations and press releases, and a host of other resources. The focus of the site will be the many National Day of Reason events taking place in cities and towns across the nation.

We invite individuals and organizations to endorse this campaign, and to submit information about their plans to commemorate the National Day of Reason and their efforts to educate the public about the important underlying issues. Those organizations conducting events, activism or outreach in their communities will be featured on the site so that activists can readily identify opportunities to organize and participate in local events.

There is great potential this year to give voice to our shared concerns about the serious threats to the wall separating religion and government. We hope that you will visit our site again, and we look forward to hearing about your plans to observe the National Day of Reason.

Now, more than ever, America needs a Day of Reason!

OK, sure, why not?

But hell, if we need to remind people to be reasonable, there isn't much hope. Protesting a national day of prayer in a nation that is nearly 80% Christian isn't going to get very far.


Ven. Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche - The Seeds of Compassion

A cool three-part video with the Ven. Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche on The Seeds of Compassion.
Ven. Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche travels to the Noble Land of India making offerings and contributions to others. He discusses how the seeds of compassion blossom for the benefit of all beings.
One:


Two:


Three:



Mike Treder - Getting Past Us vs. Them

Another theoretical article on transhumanism - this time on the idea that we are hard-wired for an us vs them mentality, an evolutionary necessity. But, wonders Mike Treder, might the advent of technological transhumanism offer us a way to transcend that binary perspective?

Answer: maybe. But at what cost to our humanity? It's worth noting that as I post these articles, I am somewhat opposed to the ideals of the transhumanism movement in general (though open to some particulars).

Getting Past Us vs. Them


Mike Treder

Mike Treder

Ethical Technology

Posted: May 6, 2009

A stone age hunter-gatherer, coming upon a conflict where danger was present, didn’t have time to carefully analyze the situation, look for nuances, or seek points of commonality between combatants. Instead, driven by adrenalin, heart pumping, thoughts racing, pupils dilated—within seconds a choice was made: pick a side and join the fray, or turn and run away.

On the blog Overcoming Bias, sponsored by the Future of Humanity Institute, economics professor Robin Hanson writes:

As fiction authors know, compelling stories need conflict; readers love to root for good guys against bad guys. As college professors know, students perk up when academic topics are posed as conflicts. Sophomores love to hear each subject posed as a conflict between several possible isms, especially a long bitter conflict.

Then, describing his experience in dealing with blog readers, Hanson says:

...most commenters did not want compromise; they instead wanted to take sides and seek better ways for their side to win the war. Generation after generation, some old tell the young to seek internal peace; no internal side has the strength to win a clean victory, so all out war risks all out destruction. But the young will not hear.

It seems that one of humanity’s strongest ideals is actually war, i.e., uncompromising conflict. In our culture we are supposed to oppose ordinary bloody war, preferring peace when possible there. But we do not generalize this lesson much to other sorts of conflicts. We celebrate those who take sides and win far more than we do peacemakers and compromisers. But the principle is the same; every side can expect to get more of what it wants from compromise deals than from all out conflict.

Professor Hanson is clearly right that humans have a built-in bias to look at complicated situations and reduce them to simple binary choices. It wouldn’t be hard for someone to develop a thesis from evolutionary psychology to support this argument.

Think about it for a minute. If you’re a stone age hunter-gatherer (which 99% of your humanoid ancestors were), and you come upon a conflict where danger is present, you don’t have time to carefully analyze the situation, look for nuances, seek points of commonality between combatants, etc. If you try this approach, you’re quite likely to end up dead. Instead, driven by adrenalin, your heart pumps, your thoughts race, your pupils dilate, and within seconds, if not sooner, you make a choice, pick a side, and join the fray. Either that or turn and run away.

I don’t think a comparatively few centuries of Enlightenment will quickly overcome two thousand millennia of this sort of evolutionary development.

So, what’s the solution? We’ve come a long way already through the spread of freedom, equality, education, and the benefit of a fossil-fueled prosperity. Yet, as Hanson points out, we’re still inclined to look for right sides and wrong sides, good sides and bad sides, ready to choose up and fight.

As a transhumanist, I wonder if the availability—and, perhaps, popularity—of enhancement therapies to increase our intelligence, moderate our psychology, and maximize our wisdom will someday open a door into new ways of thinking and living without the reflex need for us vs. them conflict.


Mike Treder is the Managing Director of the IEET, and former Executive Director of the non-profit Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.

Craig Hamilton - Integral Enlightenment: Why Authentic Spirituality is Much More Than a Line of Development*

This is the text/transcript of Craig Hamilton's talk at last year's Integral Conference in the Bay area. Craig is a former student of Andrew Cohen (EnlightenNext).

Integral Enlightenment: Why Authentic Spirituality is Much More Than a Line of Development*

March 27th, 2009

*the below post is an edited transcript of a talk I gave at the 2008 Integral Theory in Action Conference

http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/home/i/ContentBox/slide-images/slide1-12.jpg

My thanks to the ITC team for giving me an opportunity to speak here at such short notice. I’ve been holed up in a cabin in the mountains working on a book, and only recently found out about this conference, so I was delighted and honored that they were willing to squeeze me into the lineup.

For those of you who don’t know me, my connection to the Integral world is that I was a student of Andrew Cohen’s for 13 years. I spent the last five of those years as part of a small leadership team helping to guide the individual and collective spiritual development of his international community of students. I also spent eight years as an editor and writer for What Is Enlightenment? magazine, and through that work, had the opportunity to develop a friendship with Ken Wilber and immerse myself in the work of the integral community at large.

I also need to confess that, although this is a scholarly gathering, I’m more of a mystic than a scholar, and as a result my interest is really in helping people transform at the deepest level of their being. So the thoughts I’ll be presenting here today are not based on a nuanced scholarly dissection of some aspect of Integral Theory, but on a mystic’s reading of the theory and my broad impressions of how certain elements of it are shaping the transformational culture of the integral community. So, if I get some nuances wrong, I’ll leave plenty of time at the end for the scholars among you to correct me.

To begin my reflection, I’d like to ask you to think about a spiritual figure whom you revere and look to for inspiration; perhaps a saint of the distant past, like Jesus or the Buddha or Saint Theresa or Rumi; perhaps a sage of recent history, like Ramana Maharshi, Sri Aurobindo, Anandamayi Ma or Suzuki Roshi; or even a saint or sage of the present, like Amma or the Dalai Lama or Thomas Keating.

What is it about this figure that you most admire? What is it that causes you to look to them as a source of spiritual inspiration?

Is it how you imagine their interiors to be? In other words, do you imagine that they feel very spiritual and peaceful and blissful and expanded on the inside, and that’s what makes you look up to them? Is the source of your respect and admiration based on your belief that they have access to glorious inner states of consciousness?

Or is it something about who they are? About how they show up in the world? About the wisdom and generosity conveyed in their actions? About the strength and singularity of their character? Their unwavering stand for the holiness they’ve discovered. About the divinity that seems to infuse their personality and shine through in their every expression?

I’m guessing that unless you are even more of an altered state junkie than I used to be, your answer is somewhere in the domain of the latter. I think it’s safe to say that when we conclude that someone is a sage or saint or even a deeply spiritual person, what most of us mean by that is that their humanity has undergone a transformation, that on some fundamental level, their values have changed, their identity or sense of self has shifted in a way that deeply changes who they are and the way they behave.

I don’t think there is anything groundbreaking about the point I’m making here. I think this is what we might call spiritual common sense. It rings with our most basic spiritual intuitions and sensibilities.

But, in the contemporary spiritual marketplace—including the world of Integral Theory and Practice—there is actually a lot of confusion on this point. In the contemporary spiritual arena at large, we find prominent spiritual figures suggesting that enlightenment has nothing to do with behavior, that it is a purely inner realization that does not affect the personality at all. Or that if it does affect our behavior, it would simply make us a bit calmer and more equanimous (perhaps like a time-released lifelong dose of Prozac). But that it certainly has nothing to do with morality. And these are just a few examples of the many popular spiritual ideas that run counter to what I’m calling spiritual common sense.

For the purposes of my talk here, though, I’ll leave aside these broader currents of confusion, and focus on those that specifically arise from Integral Theory.

As I’m sure you all know well, one of the core tenets of Integral Theory is the notion of Lines of Development. The basic idea is that human evolution or development is not one thing. You can’t ask: what stage of development is Craig at and hope to get a general answer that means anything, because we are each more developed in some areas than others. I might be a great abstract thinker but have poorly developed social skills. Or I might be a world-class athlete who can’t even read or write.

Like most of the basic tenets of Integral Theory, this also has a ring of common sense to it. In fact, at first glance, it actually seems so obvious and undeniable that one might even wonder how it made it into one of the world’s leading-edge theoretical models at all. Is it really saying anything other than what our grandmothers all knew—that we all have different strengths and weaknesses, everyone has a pound of virtue, etc? It is even in synch with many of our basic cultural stereotypes—like the dumb jock, or the genius professor who can’t tie his tie, or the hyperintellectual male who is completely cut off from his feelings. We all take for granted skewed development, which is why, when we meet someone who seems to be good at everything, it’s always a bit awe-inspiring—or irritating.

Given that it is nothing new or particularly insightful, there must be something about this theory that has garnered it so much attention—even compelled integral theorists to catalogue several dozen distinct lines of development.

So, why is this seemingly obvious notion of Lines of Development such a compelling and integral part of Integral Theory?

I think what has given this theory so much traction is that it seems to make sense of one of the more troubling aspects of our experience in relation to the whole question of higher human development.

To illustrate, I want to take a poll: How many of us have felt the sting and confusion of learning that a great musician or artist whose music or art seems to convey something almost transcendent was abusive in their personal relationships or a desperate junkie?

And, more to the point of this talk, how many of us have been deeply confused, angry, or even disillusioned to discover that a great, seemingly enlightened spiritual Master we looked up to was either abusive, financially corrupt, or a sexual deviant who lied openly to cover up the fact that they were sleeping with a harem of attractive disciples behind their wife’s back (or while proclaiming to be celibate—take your pick)? (And by the way, that statement was not a dig at anybody specific—it’s a story that’s been told so many times, we could come up with dozens of examples).

You see, what I think has made the Lines of Development theory so compelling to us sophisticated spiritually seeking postmoderns is that it seems to answer a question that has plagued us at the core of our being, and threatened to undermine our faith in the possibility of genuine higher development. That question, as our beloved friend Ken Wilber likes to put it, is “why are spiritual teachers such assholes?”

Read the whole article.

I can see how that might be a crucial question for someone who has studied with Cohen for very long (his rep as the "rude boy of enlightenment" is an understatement). Many of us who have ever looked up to a teacher have likely asked this question at some point (many integral folks felt this way after Wilber's Wyatt Earpy episode).

Read the article to see where Hamilton goes with this topic in his presentation.


Creativity and Mental Illness - Two Articles

Two different posts on the topic of mental illness and creativity - one from this week, and one from a year ago. There has long been a connection between creativity and mental illness, mostly anecdotal but not so much anymore - researchers are not starting to figure it out.

This first article is from The Independent UK. This article also looks at depression and comedians.

Creative minds: the links between mental illness and creativity

All too often, creativity goes hand in hand with mental illness. Now we're starting to understand why. Roger Dobson reports

Tuesday, 5 May 2009

Seneca:

Seneca: "There is no great genius without a tincture of madness."

At first glance, Einstein, Salvador Dali, Tony Hancock, and Beach Boy Brian Wilson would seem to have little in common. Their areas of physics, modern art, comedy, and rock music, are light years apart. So what, if anything, could possibly link minds that gave the world the theory of relativity, great surreal art, iconic comedy, and songs about surfing?

According to new research, psychosis could be the answer. Creative minds in all kinds of areas, from science to poetry, and mathematics to humour, may have traits associated with psychosis. Such traits may allow the unusual and sometimes bizarre thought processes associated with mental illness to fuel creativity. The theory is based on the idea that there is no clear dividing line between the healthy and the mentally ill. Rather, there is a continuum, with some people having psychotic traits without having the debilitating symptoms.

Mental illnesses have been around for thousands of years. Evolutionary theory suggests that in order for them to be still here, there must be some kind of survival advantage to them. If they were wholly bad, it's argued, natural selection would have seen them off long ago. In some cases the advantage is clear. Anxiety, for example, can be a mental illness with severe symptoms and consequences, but it is also a trait that at a non-clinical level has survival advantages. In healthy proportions, it keeps us alert and on our toes when threats are sensed.

It's now increasingly being argued that there are survival advantages to others forms of illness, too, because of the links between the traits associated with them and creativity. "It can be difficult for people to reconcile mental illness with the idea that traits may not be disabling. While people accept that there are health benefits to anxiety, they are more wary of schizophrenia and manic depression," says Professor Gordon Claridge, emeritus professor of abnormal psychology at Oxford University, who has edited a special edition of the journal Personality and Individual Differences, looking at the links between mental illness and creativity. "There is now a feeling that these traits have survived because they have some adaptive value. To be mildly manic depressive or mildly schizophrenic brings a flexibility of thought, an openness, and risk-taking behaviour, which does have some adaptive value in creativity. The price paid for having those traits is that some will have mental illness."

Research is providing support for the idea that creative people are more likely to have traits associated with mental illness. One study found that the incidence of mood disorders, suicide and institutionalisation to be 20 times higher among major British and Irish poets in the 200 years up to 1800. Other studies have shown that psychiatric patients perform better in tests of abstract thinking. Another study, based on 291 eminent and creative men in different fields, found that 69 per cent had a mental disorder of some kind. Scientists were the least affected, while artists and writers had increased diagnoses of psychosis.

"Most theorists agree that it is not the full-blown illness itself, but the milder forms of psychosis that are at the root of the association between creativity and madness," says Emilie Glazer, experimental psychologist and author of one of the Oxford journal papers. "The underlying traits linked with mild psychopathology enhance creative ability. In severe form, they are debilitating."

Research is also showing that traits associated with different mental illnesses have different effects on creativity. The creativity needed to develop the theory of relativity, is, for example, very different from that required for producing surreal paintings, or poetry.

Research is now homing in on whether the psychosis that is linked to different types of creativity comes through schizophrenia and schizotypy traits, through manic-depressive or cyclothymic traits, or traits associated with the autism and Asperger's disorders. A study at the University of Newcastle found significant differences between artistically creative people and mathematicians. While the artists showed schizotypy traits, mathematicians did not, and that fits in with the idea that mathematics and engineering, which require attention to detail, are closer to the autistic traits than to psychosis.

"Affective disorder perpetuates creativity limited to the normal," says Glazer, "while the schizoid person is predisposed to a sense of detachment from the world, free from social boundaries and able to consider alternative frameworks, producing creativity within the revolutionary sphere. Newton and Einstein's schizotypal orientation, for instance, enabled their revolutionary stamp in the sciences."

The stereotypical images of mad scientists working alone and preferring foaming beakers to friends, abound in literature, and reflect a popular perception of the aloof, detached and obsessive genius. But the idea goes back even further. 2000 years ago in Rome, the philosopher Seneca was obviously already on the case when he wrote: "There is no great genius without a tincture of madness."

It's no joke: Comedians and depression

Heard the one about the man who went to the doctor to get help for his depression? He's told to go and see a show with a well known comedian who would make him laugh and lift his spirits. "But that's me," says the patient. "I'm the comedian."

The joke, related by Rod Martin, author of 'The Psychology of Humor – An Integrative Approach', is apparently something of a favourite among comedians, who are known to be prone to depression, from the late Tony Hancock and Spike Milligan, to Stephen Fry and Paul Merton.

One theory is that humour is developed in response to depression, and that it works as a coping mechanism. One study, reported by Martin, looked at 55 male and 14 female comedians, all famous and successful. It found that comedians tended to be superior in intelligence, angry, suspicious, and depressed.

In addition, their early lives were characterised by suffering, isolation, and feelings of deprivation, and, he says, they used humour as a defence against anxiety, converting their feel ings of suppressed rage from physical to verbal aggression. "The comedic skills required for a successful career may well be developed as a means of compensating for earlier psychological losses and difficulties," says Martin. A second study did not find higher levels, although comedians had significantly greater preoccupation with themes of good and evil, unworthiness, self-deprecation, and duty and responsibility.

"A significant proportion of comedians do seem to suffer more with depression," says Professor Gordon Claridge, emeritus professor of abnormal psychology at Oxford University. "Comedy seems to act as a way of dealing with depression. I think there is an emotionality and cognitive style that goes along with these depressive disorders which seems to feed creativity."

Salvador Dali was not just a great artist. He also met the criteria for several psychosis diagnoses, a mixture of schizophrenic and depressive. He may also have been paranoid, as well having antisocial, histrionic, and narcissistic disorders. "Dalí and his contribution to the history of art highlights that abnormality is not necessarily disagreeable – or to be so readily dismissed as a sign of neurological disease. For without his instability, Dalí may not have created the great art that he did," says Caroline Murphy of Oxford.

This article is from last year in Cosmos Magazine. This is a longer and more developed article.

Do you have to be nuts to be a genius?

To see, hear and imagine what others cannot. But at a cost: mood swings and difficulty comprehending social norms and expressing emotions. Is this what it takes to be a genius?


Einstein pokes his tongue out

Had Sir Isaac Newton been alive today, he would have been a Harry Potter fan. He was fascinated by alchemy and the existence of a philosopher's stone that could turn any metal into gold.

Despite being grounded in the pure sciences and best known for devising the law of gravitation, Newton devoted a great deal of his time to alchemy and theology. His genius is unquestionable and his influence vast, but at school he was initially a poor student.

Newton was introverted, insecure, depressive and as an adult became embroiled in vicious quarrels with several of his scientific peers. Could he have had a mental illness, and could this have contributed to his genius?

Genius comes in all shapes and forms, from those with a creative bent in the arts – writers, painters and musicians – to those grounded in the sciences – physicists, mathematicians and philosophers.

Geniuses are defined as individuals of high intellect who possess exceptional creativity and are capable of original thought. But they are also often obsessive, depressive, compulsive, introverted or manic.

And are these behaviours within the normal spectrum – albeit occasionally at the extreme end – or do they indicate an underlying neurological malfunction that might be a factor in their genius?

The perceived link between genius and mental illness isn't just coincidence: it extends from observations made centuries ago. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle asked, "Why is it that all men who are outstanding in philosophy, poetry or the arts are melancholic?"

More recently, 19th century Italian psychiatrist Cesare Lombroso theorised that a man of genius was essentially a degenerate whose madness was a form of evolutionary compensation for excessive intellectual development.

Mental illness, by the very phrasing of the term, has long had negative connotations, and can be very destructive for the sufferer and for those around them. But things are not always black and white: having a mental illness can actually prove a boon.

Affective disorders, including bipolar disorder – also known as manic depressive illness – are believed to have contributed to the creation of some of history's most lauded poems, novels, artworks, discoveries and original ideas.

More recently, a number of history's most brilliant minds have been retrospectively diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome – a high functioning form of autism characterised by narrow interests and 'workaholism'. In fact, some researchers believe that these two types of mental illness might confer traits that are conducive to genius.

Academics and historians have trawled through diaries and biographies written about geniuses looking for 'red flags' – traits that allow them to diagnose a mental illness according to current criteria outlined in the psychiatrist's bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

But diagnosing someone who is no longer alive is difficult since the evidence for one disorder or another may not be clear-cut. To augment their data, researchers look for biographical information about family members. On occasion this can reveal patterns of inherited traits or disorders that helps with the diagnosis.

Nineteenth century British poets Lord Byron, and Alfred, Lord Tennyson both produced works of timeless genius – and both have a clear family history of mental health problems. Tennyson suffered from recurrent depression, as did four of his siblings.

A particularly bad time for Tennyson occurred in his early twenties, when the sudden and unexpected death of a good friend sent him into a deep depression.

The condition profoundly influenced his work; for the next nine years he didn't publish, but wrote a number of poems expressing his grief. Tennyson also had a brother who spent most of his life in an asylum and it was this inherited madness he feared the most.

Several of Byron's relatives had violent tempers and mood swings, and some committed suicide – a tragically common outcome in those who suffer from bipolar disorder.

Byron first wrote about his melancholy as a schoolboy and as an adult spoke about suicide often enough to worry his wife and friends. He also experienced periods of frenzied behaviour during which he would spend money compulsively.

Byron's mathematically talented daughter, Ada Lovelace (best remembered for her descriptions of Charles Babbage's analytical engine, one of the first mechanical computers, and for being the first to write a computer programme) appears to have inherited his 'genius genes', but also behavioural extremes.

Convinced she had a sure-fire way of choosing the winners in a horse race, she once lost so much money that she had to pawn the family jewels.

BORN IN WARSAW in 1867 as Maria Sklodowska, Marie Curie is the only woman ever to have received two Nobel prizes. The first, in 1903, was jointly awarded to her husband for their work on radiation; the second was awarded in 1911 for her discovery of the elements radium and polonium, and for her isolation and study of radium.

In 1935 Curie's eldest daughter Irène, was also jointly awarded a Nobel Prize with her husband, in recognition of their "synthesis of new radioactive elements".

The elder Curie first suffered from a "nervous illness" at the age of 15, after graduating with honours, and as Valedictorian of her class, from high school. The illness left her feeling extremely lethargic and she spent a year recuperating in the Polish countryside. Some believe this bout of tiredness was the first sign of a depressive illness that was to re-emerge in adulthood.

Russian authorities of the time did not allow women to attend university, so Curie was unable to pursue tertiary education in Warsaw. But by the age of 23, she had saved enough money to move to Paris to attend Sorbonne University.

Marie's single-minded determination to succeed meant she became completely absorbed in her studies and had little time for anything else. Three years later she not only had Masters degrees in both physics and maths, but she had graduated first and second respectively in her class of almost 2,000 students.

A physics research scholarship enabled her to pursue a research career, and she moved to the Paris Municipal School of Industrial Physics and Chemistry to join the lab of Pierre Curie, whom she subsequently married.

Marie's autobiographical notes reveal that she and her husband spent long days toiling in a makeshift laboratory in an old shed trying to isolate radium. Marie would lock herself in the lab to work for weeks on end until she collapsed from physical and mental exhaustion.

The Curies had two daughters, but according to American writer and historian Barbara Goldsmith, author of Obsessive Genius: the Inner world of Marie Curie, such was Marie's devotion to her research, that there were periods when she wouldn't see her children for up to a year.

In Marie's autobiographical works she writes: "It can be easily understood that there was no place in our life for worldly relations".

The Curies' Nobel Prize and subsequent fame was also a cause for lament: "The overturn of our voluntary isolation was a cause of real suffering for us and had all the effect of disaster. It was serious trouble brought into the organisation of our life."

Goldsmith was one of the first members of the public to obtain access to Marie's workbooks and diaries, sixty years after they were sealed in the National Library of France. She consulted a number of psychiatrists to arrive at a diagnosis of bipolar disorder for Curie.

Michael Fitzgerald, an eminent psychiatrist at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, believes Curie's personality traits could also be indicative of Asperger's syndrome. He says Curie's excessive drive and obsession with her research, as well as her aversion to socialising, are key signs of the disorder.

Albert Einstein has also been subject to scrutiny. Einstein was a loner as a child and didn't speak until he was three, then he repeated sentences obsessively for several years. In adulthood he lacked grooming (note the wild crop of hair) and was reportedly lax about hygiene.

These characteristics, among others, lead Fitzgerald to believe that Einstein had Asperger's – a diagnosis also suggested by Oxford University's Ioan James and the director of Cambridge University's Autism Research Centre, Simon Baron-Cohen. However, others have suggested that Einstein had schizophrenia or dyslexia.

Isaac Newton may also have suffered from Asperger's. In his latest book, Genius Genes, Fitzgerald discusses Newton's genius and "definitive" autistic characteristics, alluding to the autistic aggression Newton exhibited when he worked at the Royal Mint.

Newton was in charge of sending counterfeiters to their death by hanging, which he apparently relished. Another sign of his Asperger's, says Fitzgerald, was Newton's belief in alchemy: his inability to separate fact from fiction. This contrasts sharply with his single-minded pursuit of mathematical proofs, at which he would work continuously, without eating, for several days.

Total immersion in one's work is another key sign of Asperger's, but again the case is not straightforward: other researchers think Newton's symptoms were more indicative of bipolar disorder.

The intense focus and desire for routine associated with Asperger's doesn't only suit academic or scientific professions, however. Fitzgerald also names a number of writers, philosophers, musicians and painters (including Beethoven and van Gogh) as probable Asperger's sufferers. But again, things get complicated.

Vincent van Gogh suffered from bouts of depression, a wild temper, spasms (possibly brought on by overindulging in absinthe) and psychotic episodes before committing suicide at the age of 37. Widely thought to have had bipolar, it has also been suggested he had schizophrenia or epilepsy. Similarly, Beethoven meets the diagnostic criteria for Asperger's, but his traits are also compatible with a schizoid personality disorder or depression.

In fact, a number of mental illnesses have overlapping symptoms and associated behaviours, and some conditions could coexist with others. Schizoaffective disorder, for example, is characterised by mania and depression as well as psychosis (delusions, incoherent speech, hallucinations) or other attributes of schizophrenia. This overlap, combined with the difficulties in interpreting available data, makes a definitive retrospective diagnosis extremely difficult.

THE DANGER IN ALL this speculation is that people will be labelled as mentally ill simply because of their talent and dedication.

In his autobiography, The Double Helix, for example, the increasingly outspoken James Watson makes disparaging remarks about Rosalind Franklin – a researcher who made important, and often poorly acknowledged, contributions to our understanding of the structure of DNA.

Watson suggests she suffered from Asperger's syndrome, and insists the disorder is common among women who are talented at science.

Clearly not all geniuses have a mental illness, and not all with a mental illness are geniuses.

"Most manic depressives do not possess extraordinary imagination, and most accomplished artists do not suffer from recurring mood swings," says Kay Redfield Jamison, a professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, U.S., and an expert on bipolar affective disorder.

However, over the past few decades, numerous studies, including Jamison's own, have suggested that creative and intelligent individuals are more likely to suffer from mental illness. Most have investigated the incidence of mood disorders in living artists who have achieved a certain degree of recognition.

Collectively, the studies show that artists experience eight to 10 times the rate of depression, and 10 to 20 times the rate of manic depression and its milder form, cyclothymia, than the general population.

But does this observed phenomenon extend to geniuses from other disciplines?

One of the few studies to consider the psychopathology of scientists was carried out by the late Felix Post, a London hospital physician. Published in 1994 in the British Journal of Psychiatry, Post's decade-long investigation "sought to determine the prevalence of various psychopathologies in outstandingly creative individuals".

Using data extracted from their biographies, he assessed the mental health of scientists and inventors, thinkers and scholars, statesmen and national leaders, painters and sculptors, composers, novelists and playwrights.

Among the 45 male scientists included in the study (women were "regretfully" excluded because of a dearth of data and knowledge that disease prevalence varies between the sexes), were such eminent names as Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Ernest Rutherford, Erwin Schrödinger, and Gregor Mendel – all of whom were found to have mild, marked or severe psychopathology.

The paper revealed that approximately one third of scientists, composers and artists had no psychopathology, whereas the same could only be said for a sixth of the artists and politicians. By far the most commonly affected were the writers: 88 per cent had a marked or severe psychopathology, with 72 per cent suffering from a depressive condition.

A follow-up study of writers confirmed the finding, but went a step further by analysing the diagnoses assigned to particular sub-groups of writers: poets, prose fiction writers, and playwrights. It found a greater frequency of affective illnesses and alcoholism among prose writers and playwrights. Poets, however, had a higher incidence of bipolar disorder.

The study makes fascinating reading, but as Raj Persaud, a professor for the public understanding of psychiatry and consultant psychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital in London points out, the data set is biased. It includes only acknowledged geniuses, which he likens to an analysis of reported crime versus actual crime.

"The other problem is that when biographers write about the characteristics of history's intelligencia, there's a tendency to unearth eccentricities because they are interesting and this can lead to an over diagnosis of mental illness."

"It's also possible that people who are geniuses or who are highly creative deploy mental illness as an excuse for bad behaviour, when in fact they are just badly behaved," he says. It may also be the case that in some literature pertaining to history's brilliant minds, potential psychoses are overlooked.

WHILE MENTAL ILLNESS can be devastatingly destructive, the questions remain: would cancer radiotherapy have existed if not for the Curies' obsessive research habits, would some of the most oft quoted prose of our time have been written if great poets like Tennyson and Byron were not affected by extreme moods, and would our current understanding of motion and gravity exist if not for Newton's neurotic drive to understand the universe around us? How is mental illness linked with genius?

Could it be the X-factor? Many suspect it is. Socrates believed a mental illness gave an already talented individual an edge.

In Plato's Phaedrus, Socrates' second speech contains the phrase: "If a man comes to the door of poetry untouched by the madness of the muses, believing that technique alone will make him a good poet, he and his sane compositions never reach perfection, but are utterly eclipsed by the inspired madman".

And 19th century American poet Edgar Allan Poe, who is said to have had bipolar disorder, certainly believed his condition had a positive effect on his art: "Men have called me mad, but the question is not yet settled, whether madness is or is not the loftiest intelligence… [and] whether all that is profound, does not spring from disease of thought"

Neil Cole of the Alfred Psychiatric Research Centre in Melbourne says that having a mental illness – in particular bipolar – affects creativity as well as the speed of work.

A bipolar sufferer himself, Cole has found that: "the word associations, puns, flight of ideas, that are an intrinsic part of bipolar disorder in its manic phase, and the reflective thoughts, ruminations and the stripping of life away to the bare essentials that are experienced during the depressive phase, in my view, considerably enhance the artist's armoury of ideas."

In fact, Cole believes that genius hinges on eccentricity – that mental illness is the X-factor.

He's not alone. The late Hans Asperger, an Austrian paediatrician after whom Asperger's syndrome is named, said that "it seems for success in science or art, a dash of autism is essential". But how could this be beneficial?

Baron-Cohen argues that people with autism spectrum disorders favour systems that change in predictable ways, and that they have problems with ambiguity or fiction and are strongly driven to discover the truth.

Fitzgerald even believes that the genes that give rise to genius are the same as those that give rise to high-functioning autism. "Asperger's might be a necessary ingredient of human creativity," he says. "Perhaps even the crucial ingredient."

Others aren't so sure. Persaud points out that to be recognised as genius an individual's work has to be acknowledged and accepted by their peers, so geniuses aren't just high-functioning intellectuals.

"Recognised geniuses are those who have to interact in a positive way with society and therefore have to have a certain number of social skills." These skills are often lacking in people with mental illnesses such as Asperger's. Persaud also asks: if Asperger's is linked to genius, how do we account for the large number of people with Asperger's who aren't geniuses?

He's reluctant to totally dismiss the argument, however: "Mental health is a continuum – everyone lies somewhere within the spectrum – and there is a loose association between the capacity for original thought and mental health". People at the extreme end are unlikely to produce work that is accepted as of genius nature, he explains.

No doubt Sylvia Plath, who is believed to have had bipolar, would agree with him. She said: "When you are insane, you are busy being insane – all the time...When I was crazy, that's all I was".

So, do you have to be nuts to be a genius? The answer is no, but it could help. As the late Harvard University psychologist William James noted, "When a superior intellect and a psychopathic temperament coalesce – as in the endless permutations and combinations of the human faculty, they are bound to coalesce often enough – in the same individual, we have the best possible condition for the kind of effective genius that gets into the biographical dictionaries."


Branwen Morgan is a Sydney-based medical science writer and communications specialist with a PhD in neuroscience.

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche - Nature of Mind


Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche offers a clear explanation of what it means to have accessed original mind, which describes as the best defintion of what Buddhists mean by happiness.
"Any attempt to capture the direct experience of the nature of mind in words is impossible. The best that can be said is that the experience is immeasurably peaceful, and, once stabilized through repeated experience, virtually unshakable. It's an experience of absolute well-being that radiates through all physical, emotional, and mental states - even those that might ordinarily be labeled as unpleasant. This sense of well-being, regardless of the fluctuation of outer and inner experiences, is one of the clearest ways to understand what Buddhists mean by "happiness". . . .

(Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, The Joy of Living, 22)

Pema Chodron - Bodhicitta Aspiration

"From "The Myth of Freedom". Pema Chodron arouses bodhicitta before teaching her six-week retreat on the text, "The Myth of Freedom", in California, 2007. Excepted from talk 1. From Pema Chodron's archivists, Great Path Tapes and Books."





Being and Nothingness - On Existentialism

Anthony Gottlieb has written a fun and informative meditation (in the old sense of the word) on nothingness and existentialism.

When I was in college, much like the students Gottlieb mentions here, I was a huge fan of Sartre, Camus, Kierkegaard, and all the other great existentialists. I was convinced that life was meaningless and absurd, which freed me to think about things in new ways, ultimately finding meaning and value.

In the end, we all die, and that moment is still the great mystery. Until then, life is meaningful or meaningless to the degree that we make it so.
NOTHING TO THINK ABOUT post-it.jpg
Not content with writing a book about nothingness, Anthony Gottlieb has been teaching a seminar about it to students in New York ...

From INTELLIGENT LIFE Magazine, Spring 2009

There is a priceless exchange in the 20th episode of “The Sopranos”—the soap-opera about a New Jersey mobster whose stressful career brings him to the couch of a psychotherapist, Jennifer Melfi. Tony Soprano is annoyed with his teenage son, who has been moaning about the ultimate absurdity of life:
Melfii: Sounds to me like Anthony junior may have stumbled onto existentialism.
Tony: Fuckin’ internet!
Melfi: No, no, no. It’s a European philosophy.
Quite so; one cannot blame the internet for everything. Existentialism has roots in the 19th-century thought of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, but it is most famously linked with restless French students in the 1960s and the writings of Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. Sure enough, Anthony junior has been assigned Camus’s novel “L’Etranger” in class. It also doesn’t help his precarious state of mind when his grandmother bitterly tells him “in the end, you die in your own arms… It’s all a big Nothing.”

Well, plus ça change. It is not only on television that nihilist strains of existentialism continue to tempt young minds, and no doubt the minds of some grandmothers. Last autumn I taught a seminar about ideas of nothingness at the New School, a university in New York. Most of the students were already keen on Sartre and Camus, and among the many facets of nothingness that we looked at in science, literature, art and philosophy, it was death and the pointlessness of life that most gripped them. They showed a polite interest in the role of vacuum in 17th-century physics and in the development of the concept of zero. But existentialist angst was the real draw.

Existentialism may have flourished in the 1960s, but its themes are the oldest in the world—indeed, one puzzle about existentialism is why it took so long to come into existence. The eponymous hero of the Mesopotamian “Epic of Gilgamesh”, which was written in the second millennium BC, is plunged into gloomy thoughts of his own mortality after his beloved friend Enkidu expires. Gilgamesh belatedly realises that he, too, must die, and this fact makes all of life seem empty to him:
The river rises, flows over its banks
and carries us all away, like mayflies
floating downstream: they stare at the sun,
then all at once there is nothing.
Emptiness, void, the abyss: synonyms for nothingness provide the most popular metaphorical images for death. Winston Churchill liked to refer to it as “black velvet”. And just as morbid fears make people think of nothingness, the reverse is also true. In the 17th century, contemplating the empty vastness of the heavens, Pascal recorded in his “Pensées” that “the eternal silence of these infinite spaces fills me with dread.” It is also terrifying, he wrote, to consider the “new abyss” freshly revealed in the minutest parts of nature. Pascal, it seems, found nothingness everywhere, though he noted that on the whole man is, perhaps fortunately, “incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges.”

How anything can emerge from nothingness is a question which the ancient Greeks answered by saying that it can’t. There must, they reasoned, have always been something. But that seems to raise a further question, which was given its most concise formulation by Leibniz at the end of the 17th century: why is there something rather than nothing? Another German philosopher, Martin Heidegger, who died in 1976, argued that this puzzle was the most important question of all, though he never quite got round to answering it. Heidegger was infamous for his bizarre neologisms and contorted language, which were especially evident when he wrestled with nothingness. He even invented a verb to describe what nothingness does: in the English translation, it “noths”. Well, maybe it doth, but this does not get us very far.

One might think that science will eventually be able to explain the matter; certainly many cosmologists have said so. But there is an eternal snag, because any answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing will end up chasing its own tail. Any law of nature or mathematics, any purported set of physical conditions, indeed any fact at all counts as “something”, and is thus itself part of what is supposed to be explained. Every explanation must start somewhere. But there is not, and never could be, anywhere left for this one to start.

Faced with the apparent impossibility of making much headway with nothingness, poets have resorted to cracking jokes about it, many of which are abominable puns. Most of these revolve around the double meaning exemplified in the title of a memoir on death by the novelist Julian Barnes, published last year: “Nothing to be Frightened of”. His readers may find some comfort in the fact that, however broodingly terrified they are by their own mortality, Barnes has an even worse case of the disease.

Shakespeare, too, made much merry play with the word “nothing”, and not only in “Much Ado”. Whether or not something may come of nothing is a recurring theme in “King Lear”, and there is a particularly convoluted verbal joust between Hamlet and Ophelia—some of which escapes contemporary readers unaware that in Elizabethan slang “nothing” can mean “vagina”. One verbally agile philosopher remarked in an encyclopedia entry that it is perhaps not Nothing that has been worrying existentialists, but they who have been worrying it. One wonders what Tony Soprano would have had to say about that.


(Anthony Gottlieb is a former executive editor of The Economist and author of "The Dream of Reason". His last piece for Intelligent Life was about the relationship between faith and fertility.)

SciAm Mind - What Can Magicians Teach Us about the Brain?

Neuroscience has long had a fascination with magic as a way of looking at how the mind operates. Until recently, I hadn't cared to much for this area of research.

But leave it to Penn and Teller to change all that, which they did with a recent article in Wired. It was a great article that made me appreciate the neuroscience of magic in a new way.

This article from a couple of months back in Scientific American Mind is also quite good.

What Can Magicians Teach Us about the Brain?

Neuroscience can learn a lot by tapping the intuitive knowledge of magicians as new sources for inspiration and study.

By Robyn Kim and Ladan Shams

A magician tosses a ball into the air once, twice, three times. Suddenly, the ball vanishes in mid-flight. What happened?

Don’t worry, the laws of physics haven’t been broken. Magicians do not have supernatural powers; rather, they are masters of exploiting nuances of human perception, attention, and awareness. In light of this, a recent Nature Reviews Neuroscience paper, coauthored by a combination of neuroscientists (Stephen L. Macknik, Susana Martinez-Conde, both at the Barrows Neurological Institute) and magicians (Mac King, James Randi, Apollo Robbins, Teller, John Thompson), describes various ways magicians manipulate our perceptions, and proposes that these methods should inform and aid the neuroscientific study of attention and awareness.

Magicians Secrets Revealed


The underlying concept of using quirks in human perception to learn about how the mind works is an old one. Visual, auditory and multisensory illusions, in which people’s perceptions contradict the physical properties of the stimuli, have long been used by psychologists to study the mechanisms of sensory processing. Magicians use such sensory illusions in their tricks, but they also heavily use cognitive illusions, manipulating people’s attention, trains of logic and even memory. Although magicians probably haven’t studied these phenomena with the scientific method—they don’t do controlled experiments—their techniques have been tested over time, perfected by practice and performed under conditions of high scrutiny by skeptical audiences looking to spot the trick.

An example of a visual illusion used by magicians is spoon bending, in which a rigid horizontal spoon appears flexible when shaken up and down at a certain rate. This effect occurs because of how different parts of objects (in this case, the spoon) are represented in the brain. Certain neurons are responsive to the ends/corners of the object, whereas others respond to the bars/edges; the end-responsive neurons respond differently to motion than do the bar-responsive neurons, such that the ends and the center of the spoon seem misaligned when in motion.

Attention can greatly affect what we see—this fact has been demonstrated in psychological studies of inattentional blindness. To misdirect people’s attention and create this effect, magicians have an arsenal of methods ranging from grand gestures (such as releasing a dove in the theater to distract attention), to more subtle techniques (for instance, using social miscues). An example of the latter can be found in the Vanishing Ball Illusion described at the start of this column. At the last toss, the magician does not actually release the ball from his or her hand. Crucially, however, the magician’s gaze follows the trajectory the ball would have made had it been tossed. The magician’s eye and head movement serves as a subtle social cue that (falsely) suggests a trajectory the audience then also expects. A recent study examining what factors produced this effect suggests that the miscuing of the attentional spotlight is the primary factor, and not the motion of the eyes. In fact, the eyes aren’t fooled by this trick—they don’t follow the illusory trajectory! Interestingly, comedy is also an important tool used by magicians to manipulate attention in time. In addition to adding to the entertainment value of the show, bouts of laughter can diffuse attention at critical time points.

Magicians can also manipulate the audience’s memory, thus making it difficult to mentally reconstruct what happened. In the cognitive science literature, it is now established that providing misinformation about past events can reduce memory accuracy and create false memories, a fact magicians have intuitively known for centuries. Consider this trick: a person is shown pairs of photographs and asked to choose the more attractive face. After he makes a choice, the magician slyly switches several of the chosen faces for the rejected faces. Then, the subject is asked to explain his preferences. According to a recent experiment, even when people are shown faces they rejected, they still tend to invent explanations for why that face was more attractive. In other words, they make up a false narrative to explain away the sleight of hand they couldn’t detect.

Magic’s Role in Neuroscience

Cognitive neuroscience can explain many magic techniques; this article proposes, however, that neuroscientists should use magicians’ knowledge to inform their research. For example, perhaps cognitive scientists could have learned about important false memory effects earlier if they had considered magicians’ intuitions on the topic.

More concretely, the use of cognitive illusions—for example, during brain imaging—could serve to identify neural circuits underlying specific cognitive processes. They could also be used to map neural correlates of consciousness (the areas of the brain that are active when we are processing a given aspect of consciousness) by dissociating activity corresponding to processing of actual physical events from the activity corresponding to the conscious processing.

Indeed, scientists too often become too entrenched in their own circumscribed area of expertise; they do need reminding that a wealth of insight can be found in unexpected places. Recently, there has been an increasing acknowledgment by the scientific community of the insights that artists have had throughout the history about human perceptual mechanisms. For example, painters intuitively knew about pictorial depth cues and opponent processes in color perception long before these notions were established in vision science.

We wonder though, how practical this idea of using magic in research will turn out to be. Magicians spend years perfecting their skills. Will researchers be able to perform such tricks adequately? And most crucially, other than this paper’s magician coauthors, will magicians give their secrets away to researchers?

Are you a scientist? Have you recently read a peer-reviewed paper that you want to write about? Then contact Mind Matters editor Jonah Lehrer, the science writer behind the blog The Frontal Cortex and the book Proust Was a Neuroscientist. His latest book is How We Decide.


Ronald Bailey - Transhumanism and the Limits of Democracy

This interesting article on the realities of transhumanism and politics was posted at Reason Online, a libertarian magazine/blog. The piece argues for a limited intervention approach in regulation of technologies in the transhumanism movement - I'm not sure I agree with all of this.

There are some serious potentials for abuse with this technology as it develops, from "designer children" to cloning to lifespans of over 150 years (image the health care costs on that). BUT, if there is to be little or no regulation of these technologies, the first step would be to make growth hormone and steroids legal for the general population (with doctor prescriptions). That is something I could support.

Transhumanism and the Limits of Democracy

A paper presented at the Workshop on Transhumanism and Democracy

Below is a paper I presented at the Arizona State University's Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict Workshop on Transhumanism and the Future of Democracy last week. The workshop was directed by ASU history professor Hava Tirosh-Samuelson. My fellow participants were Case Western Reserve University law professor Maxwell Mehlman, Georgetown University law professor Steven Goldberg, University of Southern California law professor Michael Shapiro, University of Chicago political philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain, Emory University bioethicist Paul Root Wolpe, with a closing response by University of California, Berkeley Nobelist Charles Townes.

The workshop addressed such questions as how does the enhancement of human beings through biotechnology, information technology, and applied cognitive sciences affect our understandings of autonomy, personhood, responsibility and free will? And how much and what type of societal control should be exercised over the use of enhancement technologies?

What is transhumanism? A pretty good definition is offered by bioethicist and transhumanist James Hughes who states that transhumanism is "the idea that humans can use reason to transcend the limitation of the human condition."[i] Specifically, transhumanists welcome the development of intimate technologies that will enable people to boost their life spans, enhance their intellectual capacities, augment their athletic abilities, and choose their preferred emotional states. What's particularly noteworthy is that Hughes argues that democratic decision-making is central to the task of guiding humanity into the transhuman future.

I will argue that where Hughes and others go wrong is in fetishizing democratic decision-making over the protection of minority rights. Second, I will argue that transhumanism should be accepted as a reasonable comprehensive doctrine and, as such, that it should be tolerated in liberal societies by those who disagree with its goals. Third, I will illustrate the problems of democratic authoritarianism by detailing some of the history of legal interference with reproductive rights. And then, I will briefly outline and analyze various arguments used by opponents of human enhancement which they hope will sway a majority into essentially outlawing the transhumanist enterprise.

Hughes and other would-be democratizers fail to recognize that the Enlightenment project that spawned modern liberal democracies sought to keep certain questions about the transcendent out of the public sphere. To keep the social peace and allow various visions of the human to flourish along side of one another, questions about the ultimate meaning and destiny of humanity were deemed to be private concerns.

Similarly, hostility to biotechnological progress must not to be used as an excuse to breach the Enlightenment understanding of what belongs in the private sphere and what belongs in the public. Technologies dealing with birth, death, and the meaning of life need protection from meddling—even democratic meddling—by those who want to control them as a way to force their visions of right and wrong on the rest of us. One's fellow citizens shouldn't get to vote on with whom you have sex, what recreational drugs you ingest, what you read and watch on TV and so forth. Hughes understands that democratic authoritarianism is possible, but discounts the possibility that the majority may well vote to ban the technologies that he believes promise a better world.

In fact, Hughes extols social democracy as the best guarantor of our future biotechnological liberty, while ignoring the fact that it is precisely those social democracies that he praises—Germany, France, Sweden, and Britain—which now, not in the future, outlaw germinal choice, genetic modification, reproductive and therapeutic cloning, and stem cell research. For example, Germany, Austria and Norway ban the creation of human embryonic stem cell lines. Britain outlaws various types of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to enable parents to choose among embryos. (Despite worrisome political agitation against this type of biotech research, in the United States, private research in these areas remains legal. More recently, President Barack Obama directed the National Institutes of Health to begin formulating guidelines under which embryonic stem cell research might receive federal funding.)

This ideal of political equality arose from the Enlightenment's insistence that since no one has access to absolute truth, no one has a moral right to impose his or her values and beliefs on others. Or to put it another way, I may or may not have access to some absolute transcendent truth, but I'm pretty damned sure that you don't.

Under constitutional liberalism, there are questions that should not and cannot be decided by a majority vote. As James Madison eloquently explained in Federalist 51, "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."[ii] Alexis De Toqueville made the same point when he asked, "If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach?"[iii]

John Rawls updated and extended the arguments supporting these Enlightenment ideals in his Political Liberalism, where he made the case for a limited conception of politics that could reconcile and tolerate diverse "reasonable comprehensive doctrines." According to Rawls, a reasonable comprehensive doctrine has three features: it deals with the major religious, philosophical, and moral aspects of human life in a coherent and consistent fashion; it recognizes certain values as significant, and by giving some primacy of some values over others expresses an intelligible view of the world; and it is not unchanging, but generally evolves slowly over time in light of what its adherents see as good and sufficient reasons.

The result is "that many of our most important judgments are made under conditions where it is not to be expected that conscientious persons with full powers of reason, even after free discussion, will all arrive at the same conclusion. Some conflicting reasonable judgments (especially important are those belonging under people's comprehensive doctrines) may be true, others false; conceivably all may be false. These burdens of judgment of are the first significance for the democratic idea of toleration."[iv] Because there is no objective way to determine the truth or falsity of diverse beliefs, moral strangers can only get along by tolerating what each would regard as the other's errors.

Consequently, Rawls argues, "reasonable persons will think it unreasonable to use political power, should they possess it, to repress comprehensive views that are not unreasonable though different from their own." If, however, we insist that all members of a polity should adopt our beliefs because they are "true," then, "when we make such claims others, who are themselves reasonable, must count us unreasonable."[v] In such a case, members of the polity have the right to resist the imposition of views that they do not hold. Rawls concludes, "Once we accept the fact that reasonable pluralism is a permanent condition of public culture under free institutions, the idea of the reasonable is more suitable as part of the basis of public justification for a constitutional regime than the idea of moral truth."[vi]

Arguably, the kind of constitutional regime that is compatible with reasonable pluralism is one in which the powers that government can exercise over the choices of its citizens is limited. While certainly not endorsing it, the German political philosopher Jurgen Habermas describes the point of view of liberalism pretty well when he explains that the dispute between liberalism and radical democracy has "to do with how one can reconcile equality with liberty, unity with diversity, or the right of the majority with the right of the minority. Liberals begin with the legal institutionalization of equal liberties, conceiving these as rights held by individual subjects. In their view, human rights enjoy normative priority over democracy, and the constitutional separation of powers has priority over the will of the democratic legislature."[vii]

So the question is: Is transhumanism a reasonable comprehensive doctrine?
Read the whole article.


Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche - Using Panic Attacks for Meditation

As someone with SAD, this is very cool. Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche is in town this week, so I feel extremely fortunate to be able to go see him Thursday night.




Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Buddhist Geeks Episode 119: The Dharma Overground (Daniel Ingram)

This is part two of the Buddhist Geeks' excellent discussion with kick-ass dharma teacher Daniel Ingram.

Episode 119: The Dharma Overground

Listen Now
RSS: Subscribe
RSS: iTunes

Daniel Ingram, Theravada meditation teacher, joins us today to discuss the online community he and Buddhist Geeks host, Vince Horn helped create, The Dharma Overground. Daniel shares how the Dharma Overground has been a grand experiment in discussing practical, down-to-earth, and empowering dharma out in the open and the results of that experiment thus far.

This is part 2 of a two-part series. Listen to part 1, An Unusually Hardcore Dharma Book.

You can read the transcript now at their site.


Elza S. Maalouf - Natural Design Principles for Madrasas in Pakistan and Afghanistan

Elza is an associate of Don Beck's - she heads up the Spiral Dynamics efforts in the Middle East. And there could not be a better person for the job. Here she outlines her plan for how to reshape madrasas in the world's Taliban hot spots of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

This is from her Integral Politics in the Middle East blog.

Key passage:
This is the basis of the value-based concept of Innovation in Memetic TechnologiesIMT® for short. I have been developing these value-based technologies throughout the years of my work in tribal and feudal cultures, from the early days of being a community organizer and attorney in the Middle East, and later framed by my work with Dr. Don E. Beck on his Large Scale Branch of Psychology.
Here is the beginning of the article:

Natural Design principles for Madrasas in Pakistan and Afghanistan

Elza S. Maalouf

On today's Fareed Zakaria's show, GPS, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admitted that power alone will not achieve the US' goals in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. In the Secretary's speech to the National Defense University he stressed that "Our National Defense Strategy is BALANCE..." Included in this strategy is counter-insurgency operation manuals, Special Forces and Navy programs and "A variety of initiatives are underway that better integrate and coordinate U.S. military efforts with civilian agencies as well as engage the expertise of the private sector, including NGOs and academia."

I did not expect the Secretary of Defense in his speech at NDU to go into details on how to integrate military and civilian efforts. This lack of specificity has been a theme with Clinton, Gates and even Zoellick, president of the World Bank. They all talk about integrated efforts, smart power and societal issues as a complementary part to their strategies, a kind of a by-product that they stumbled upon when their initial strategies did not work. These societally-fit and culturally-fit strategies should be an integral part of their defense, diplomacy and development strategies. In light of the failures we face — economic, political and military — the central theme of our Foreign policy has to change to include at its center a comprehensive understanding of the underlying codes of the cultures we operate in.

This is the basis of the value-based concept of Innovation in Memetic TechnologiesIMT® for short. I have been developing these value-based technologies throughout the years of my work in tribal and feudal cultures, from the early days of being a community organizer and attorney in the Middle East, and later framed by my work with Dr. Don E. Beck on his Large Scale Branch of Psychology.

One of the most effective tools we use in IMT® is based on the framework of Natural Design Principles (Graves-Beck) which in its simplest form asks the following questions in descending priority:


  1. WHERE (Geo-Social Landscape) are these people we want to lead/teach/reform?

  2. WHAT is the overarching goal of this project or intervention?

  3. WHO are they? What are their capacities? Their Value-systems? their belief-systems? their history? religion? tribal loyalties etc....

  4. After assessing these essential element of our systemic strategies for change, we now decide on HOW to do this change? and Change from WHAT to WHAT?

Go read the rest of the post to see how she applies these principles to reforming madrasas,