[From Bill Powers (951117.1400 MST)]
Chris Cherpas (951117.0858 PT) --
On the other hand, some people report a "satori-like" experience
(Buddhist enlightenment)[from LSD], perhaps because in the midst of
all the unresolved error, they continue to "go with the flow" --
i.e., maybe there's an "ultimate" or highest order of control which
corresponds to a state in which one is aware of many lower orders
being full of what would normally be perceived as errors, but "not
caring."
There are two ways to experience a state of "no error." One is to
resolve all internal conflicts amxong active systems so the only errors
are the small ones that normally accompany all action. The other is to
eliminate the ability to sense error (or to care). It's the difference
between a real cure and treatment of symptoms. I am sure that Zen
practitioners (the non-commerial ones) are aware of the difference.
You probably missed out on the various discussions of the method of
levels (which I suppose we ought to call the method of orders now). The
basic principle, which is mostly an empirical observation, albeit
subjective, is that awareness interprets the world through learned
perceptual systems, and can do so selectively. That is, you can perceive
the world more or less selectively as composed of configurations, or
relationships, or logical functions, or any other orders of perception
that may exist. You are conscious only of the perceptions of lower order
than the viewpoint currently being occupied. Numerous everyday examples
of this can be found -- for example, the fact that while you're reading
this you are not particularly aware of the reasons for which you
participate in the net conversations -- although you could become aware
of them if asked about them, and would probably agree that they motivate
your taking the time to be reading this.
Many years ago a friend and I speculated about this phenomenon, which we
saw as the fact that whatever one is thinking, there is also a faint
background of thoughts, attitudes, feelings _about_ what one is
thinking. This, too, is easy to verify without strenuous introspection.
We wondered how many successive times the transition from the foreground
thoughts and perceptions to the background thoughts and perceptions
could be carried out, the background thoughts each time becoming the
foreground thoughts and producing a new set of background thoughts. We
supposed that such a process would inevitably lead in circles, but when
we actually tried it (one person doing the exploration and the other
asking questions designed to bring out more observations), the result
was surprising.
We found that after a very small number of such steps, no more than four
or five (taking somewhere around half an hour), the "explorer" reached a
state in which there were no additional background perceptions,
thoughts, attitudes, what have you that could be discerned. Furthermore,
in this state there seemed to be no particular viewpoint involved -- no
thoughts, feelings, attitudes, etc.. Just silent observation. This state
was singularly tranquil; it seemed very much like what people have
described as satori or enlightenment. It was also a state about which
you could say that it's a nice place to visit but you wouldn't want to
live there.
Since those initial experiments, 35 or 40 years ago, I have tried this
method with many people and it seems to work quite reliably. But the
most important aspect of it concerns getting to the final state, not
being in it. If one runs across conflicting thoughts, goals, attitudes,
ideas and so forth while doing this process, the smooth ascent up the
orders hangs up, and the conflict seems to demand attention. The next
viewpoint up is hard to access and the more serious the conflict, the
harder it is to find the background thoughts. When, however, the next
order is found, the result is quite amazing: the conflict simply
dissolves. This makes sense in terms of a hierarchical model, because it
is the next order of control that is responsible for establishing the
conflicting reference signals, and thus (it would seem) it is the
logical place for focusing changes that can reset the conflicting
reference signals and thus remove the conflict.
Conflicts usually disappear when discovered in this way -- usually, but
not always. When they do disappear, the way is open to reach the final
state; otherwise, the exploration terminates there. So it seems that one
can find a path through successive orders of system to the topmost
viewpoint, but only when that path doesn't involve any serious conflicts
or other significant error-producing problems.
Most people, after going through this, can see the successive
transitions clearly, and how they fit together in a hierarchical way.
But the interesting thing about this is that if the process is started
all over, by picking some mundane topic at random, the path to the top
level is usually different each time. New conflict may be found that
didn't show up during the previous pass. So this is not a once-and-for-
all process of enlightenment; it's more like a sweep through one subset
of all hierarchical processes in the whole system, with many sweeps
being needed -- perhaps a lifetime of them -- to bring the whole system
into a single coherent unit.
I think this is a natural process that people use all the time. I know
that those who have been through the formal method seem to get the hang
of it, and can consciously pause when there is a problem and "go up a
level" to resolve it. I guess "level" is the best word to use there, in
this context. Furthermore, I think that most psychotherapists are aware
of this process -- some call it "insight" -- and count on it, although
they don't necessarily have any formal model of what is going on. It's
obviously involved in the personal explorations that Eastern
philosopher-psychologists have written about for some thousands of
years, although without the hearts and flowers and fanciful theories. I
think it's a natural function of the brain, or of something connected to
the brain (who knows?). It probably has something to do with
reorganization.
The reason for bringing all this up is your comment:
In other words, satori comes not from having all your lower-order
wants satisfied, but by short-circuiting wanting. The paradox (and
definition) of the zen master is to have as a purpose "no purpose."
Imagine the freedom and calm euphoria one might experience in a
state where one is neither dead nor purposeful. OK, I've said
enough.
The state I'm talking about doesn't short-circuit wanting. Normal
control continues at all levels. People don't fall out of their chairs
or forget how to talk. What it does involve is a state of normal rather
than exaggerated error of the kind that results from unsuccessful
attempts at controlling perceptions. When the hierarchy is operating
normally, there are error signals, but they are kept small by the
actions they drive. Normal controlling doesn't feel like controlling (as
usually understood); it just feels like "doing." When you move your hand
to grasp a glass of water, this action is completely error-driven as all
control actions are, but the amount of error needed to produce the
required actions is so small that it feels like no error at all. Moving
your hand seems to be effortless, although we know intellectually that
no motion can take place without generating muscular efforts.
It's only when unusually large disturbances, or conflicts, occur that we
become aware of any difference between what we want to perceive and what
we do perceive. The rest of the time, normal control processes keep the
perceptions essentially matching the reference conditions. Most behavior
is not a process of correcting large errors; it's a process of varying
reference signals, with the perceptions following immediately behind.
Some people think that if you achieved all your goals, you would
collapse into an inert bowlful of protoplasm. This opinion shows only
that the concept of a goal hasn't been thought through. A runner in the
Boston Marathon may have the goal of running at a 5-minutes-per-mile
pace, as many of the leaders did a week ago. This goal can be achieved
and maintained very precisely. But to maintain it, there must be
continuous coordinated action; satisfaction of the goal _requires_
action at a level that few ordinary mortals could maintain for long. A
state of (almost) zero _error_ does not imply a state of zero _effort_
or an absence of _action_.
···
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Spence Saunders,Ph.D. --
JAVA is interpreted; that is, the interpreter runs on the client
and interprets and executes code downloaded from the host. The
interpreter does not allow the low-level access needed for
traditional viruses, so the virus risk is not great.
In that case, what is gained over just downloading the code for the
demos? If anyone's worried about viruses (I don't think there's much
risk if the Web manager doesn't allow free uploading) the source code
can be downloaded and compiled on the client system. But maybe for some
applications it would be convenient to be able to send demos this way.
Unless the client machine is _very_ fast, however, interpreted code
(unless compiled to machine language) would lead to abominably slow
performance for some of our demos. Little Man version 2 uses all the
resources of a 486-33 to run in real time, coded in C. Even running it
under Windows results in an annoying slowdown, with no other processes
running. The myth of multiprocessing with a single CPU becomes very
evident if you have to run simulations while time-sharing with anything
else, even at 20 MIPs. Digital computers are a terribly slow way to
implement analog computing.
Anyway, is Java free? And can it be downloaded from the net? I'm willing
to give it a try if anyone wants to use it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best to all,
Bill P.