Friends,
Our dialog on climate change, which has gone on long enough, has I
think been worthwhile. I don't know if anyone else has shifted their
position, but at least people were expressing themselves more fully
than usual. My own views shifted considerably.
The dialog led me to think about the learning process, and how
beliefs both help and impede learning. So I'd like to share some
thoughts with you, of a more or less philosophical nature...
Learning can be stifled by beliefs in two ways: by believing too
much, and by believing too little.
---
'Believing too much', ie. being too invested in ones beliefs, is the
more obvious impediment. Here we find the fundamentalists of all
religions, the single-minded ideologues, and all cults. Beliefs here
become part of ones identity, and a comforting support in the face of
a confusing world. Learning becomes essentially impossible as regards
anything contrary to the basic belief system.
There seems to be no hope reaching such people with informational
material. That approach would require some kind of deprogramming
technology, which would be a violation of their human rights and
dignity. In order to productively approach such people, one needs to
begin with humility -- giving up righteousness about ones own beliefs
-- and then to proceed with human-to-human dialog, about what we all
have in common. That's really the point of what I call 'enlightened
dialog', which is the central thesis of Escaping the Matrix.
I've been mentioning the extreme cases, but all of us have some
beliefs that we are too attached to -- more attached than logic and
experience justify, and which therefore interfere with learning. One
sign that indicates such attachment is defensiveness on our part when
a belief is challenged. If our belief is well-grounded in our
understanding of the world, then we can be patient and calm in
attempting to explain / debate our position. But if our belief is a
bit shaky, or grounded in faith in some authority, then we're more
likely to feel threatened and get angry when challenged. When such
signs appear -- if we want to further our own understanding -- a bit
of reflection is to be recommended. Why are we so attached to this
belief? What is it based on? Why do we feel threatened? It is also a
time when exploratory questions to 'the other' might be more
productive than a restatement of our position.
---
'Believing too little', or suspending judgement, also impedes
learning, but this is a much more subtle case to understand.
At one level, suspending judgement is a very wise thing, and is
recommended by enlightened spiritual paths. This is in line with
avoiding the kind of excessive attachment discussed above, and with
remaining always open to what the world has to teach us. It is
important to keep in mind that we never know the 'whole truth' and we
can turn out to be wrong about almost anything.
But every principle can be taken too far. 'Moderation in all things'
may be the wisest thing we've gotten from the Greeks. Making
judgements and adopting beliefs, if done in the right way, can be
very helpful in increasing ones understanding. If we suspend
judgement too much we can find ourselves watching data go by,
noticing always that there are 'two sides' to every issue, and
remaining in a state of confusion about essential matters. I'll share
with you my own strategy for using beliefs as a learning tool...
When I say "I believe X", what I really mean is that X is currently
my 'most likely model' for whatever. There's always a bit of
detachment, like the belief is 'out there' on the lab table. At the
same time, I try to 'own' the belief, express it like I really mean
it, and see where that leads. It's an experimental approach to
learning. This is a process that's been happening here on the list
since the beginning, and you folks have mainly been the teachers.
There's a reason behind the name cyber 'journal'.
We all need to have models. Most of our models we build out of our
own experience. That is our own understanding of our day-to-day
world. Sometimes, with more difficult issues, we feel overwhelmed,
and can't really build a model out of our own experience and
knowledge. When this happens we sometimes adopt the strategy of
selecting an authority to go along with on a given issue.
In my case I could never stand the uncertainty, the sense of being
lost, of not having a model that made some kind of personal sense,
for whatever X. Even if I accepted the evidence for fact X, and
trusted the authority, I had to have an explanatory model before I
could make any sense of X, or do anything useful with it. Given that
schools emphasize rote learning, I had to make up my own primitive
'explanations' for lots of things as we went along.
If one attempts this kind of thing from an early age, then one
clearly encounters frequent rude awakenings as life opens up, and
models crumble. One grows accustomed to shifting models, is forced to
forego attachment, if one is to keep up and maintain coherence. In
this way I've come to see all models, and systems of models, as being
dynamic and evolving. They all trace back to lowest-level assumptions
-- the DNA of the belief organism -- and those assumptions evolve
just like DNA does. From Newton to Einstein to Bohr -- whole new
worlds appear. A small shift in DNA can lead to a big shift
throughout the organism.
During this process of 'getting serious' about learning, these years
on the net, I've been forced to reconsider basic assumptions time and
time again...about politics, about people, about history, and about
science (ie, the world) generally. When I look 'out there' at
consensus models, alternative models, upstart models, etc, I see
everywhere assumptions in a state of flux, DNA unstable. Physics may
be the poster child of models in disarray, but I think its the same
everywhere, eg, geopolitics. Are we going into a multi-polar era, a
one world government, or a civilizational collapse? It's all wide
open, the DNA is being scrambled as we speak, unpredictable forces
are afoot.
Nonetheless I want things to make sense, somehow, despite all the
flux at the bottom -- but not by denying any of that flux (ie,
uncertainty). The first thing I find useful here is to try to get
clear about what the fundamental assumptions are in a domain, how
stable they are, and what range of models are on offer. What I'm
looking for here are two things about the domain: a survey of the
field, and a stability quotient.
The next step in this process is where I tend to lose people (or
where I might lose touch with reality). What I want to do next, in a
given domain, is to choose a model and work with it. So far so good.
My selection criteria, however, are a bit radical for many folks.
What I look for is the model that best brings coherence to the
domain, and for which I haven't yet seen a sound rebuttal. In picking
a model, I give very little weight to whatever the 'scientific
consensus' might be. Some would say I should research such radical
models for a while first, but it turns out my method of research is
precisely to 'believe' a model, and see where it leads!
This got me into a lot of trouble when I was ready to tag along with
the "Warming Swindle" model, as it did seem to explain a lot of
things. But then rebuttals came along, so we move on to more nuanced
views. The temporary foray was productive, and led to new questions
and insights.
---
Here's where I am right now, FYI, on the climate change things, in
the context of this current discussion.
(1) I tend toward the view that solar activity is
probably much more determinative of climate than
anything terrestrial. The warming of the other
planets, in particular, is rather persuasive.
(2) I see unsustainability as being a clear and
present danger, an immediate global crisis, the
dysfunctional father of all the more visible crises.
From this perspective, all the attention being
directed toward climate change, in the world and on
our list, encourages us to see the tree and miss the
forest. We get the idea that watering that one tree
-- requiring a major a society-wide effort -- will
be a step toward saving the forest. That would make
some sense -- assuming the tree will be helped by
water -- if we had all the time in the world to play
around.
(3) Clearly elites have grabbed onto the issue and
are running with it. They're framing the debate in
terms that will justify the next steps in their own
agendas (eg, NWO), and their media is very effective
at projecting those framings into our minds. Instead
of debates about HOW we should proceed, we'll see
YEAH vs. NAY debates, and we'll be tempted to
cheer ("BAAH! BAAH!") for whatever 'steps' are on
offer.
In terms of 'where I go next', working with this model, item (1)
plays very little role. The action imperatives are dictated by items
2 and 3. Item 1 -- ie. the 'truth about global warming' -- is for the
time being a matter of idle curiosity, just one more consideration
within item 2.
---
How much credence I give to a model depends primarily on how long
it's remained stable -- how many times it has survived a foray into
a new domain. So, following our foray into the global warming domain,
I want to take stock of other models that are related, and see how
they have fared.
The following beliefs / models have been further substantiated by our foray:
(1) Global society is in need of a thoroughgoing
transformation, from top to bottom.
(2) Reform efforts (and efforts within the political system
generally) are not only a waste of time, in the Western
context, but they tend to make things worse rather than
better.
(3) The 'left' and 'right' are equally susceptible to herding
by elite propaganda, though each in a different way.
I also have a model about learning, and that's what this posting is
about. This is the model that was most 'activated' by our dialog. I
was struck by the number of people who were entrenched in one
position or another, by the degree of defensiveness exhibited, and by
the dependence on authorities and ad hominem arguments. For those
people, it seems little if any learning emerged from our dialog.
Contrary ideas were seen as something to be defeated, rather than as
something to be considered.
This turns out to be related, I suspect, to another of my models:
(4) The belief that we live in a democracy is perhaps
the most disempowering myth of our era.
It seems to be this belief that causes us to want everyone to
subscribe to what is 'politically correct'. That is to say, a belief
in democracy-achieved makes us think that public opinion matters,
that it influences government policy. So we argue with people in the
hopes of building a 'united front' that elites will be forced to
listen to. The defensiveness around global warming arises from the
fact that we feel we are close to achieving a united front on this
particular issue.
In this regard, permit me to suggest that when elites are on your
side, it's time to reexamine your model. Elites never do anything
unless it's for their own selfish benefit, or for PR reasons. .
If we give up our faith in democracy-achieved, and the imperative to
create a united front, then we can approach something like global
warming with curiosity, with an eye toward learning from the debate.
---
Let's return to the topic of 'believing too little', suspending
judgement too much, as an impediment to learning.
The point here, in my view, is that it is important to try to
understand everything for yourself, without referring to experts or
authorities. That is, it's important to have your own models, that
you defend with your own arguments, rather than by pointing to what
experts have said. I'm not saying not to cite authorities as an aid
to argument, but I don't respond well to people who say: "I don't
know much about that, but you must be wrong because X says so."
Of course by this approach one will often be proved wrong, and one
must pay the price in embarrassment. But the payoff is that you are
more likely to be able to learn from new information. If you have a
model that is anchored in your own experience and reasoning, then new
information is not just a 'sea of data', but rather it impinges
directly on your current understanding. It either confirms or
challenges your beliefs. You have a tool with which to make use of
new information. You have a framework with which new information
either resonates or clashes. The resonations and clashes act as
'goads to learning'.
imho,
rkm
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the Matrix website: http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website: http://cyberjournal.org
Community Democracy Framework: http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html
Subscribe cyberjournal list: •••@••.•••
(send blank message)
Posting archives:
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
cyberjournal blog (join in): http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/
Moderator: •••@••.•••
(comments welcome)
