Ch. 7 Strange Loops & the Infinite Regress (3/16-3/22)

[Hannah]

1. Have one member of the study group find a small rock that fits easily into the human hand. At the weekly meeting, pass the rock around. Allow each person to hold and examine the rock and attempt to say "all" about it.

Continue this exercise until everybody realizes that we never can say "all" about even a simple rock, or until everybody becomes embroiled in a debate between those who think eventually, in a few million years perhaps, we can say "all" and those who think we can never
say "all."

2. Have those who think we can eventually say "all" about the rock set out to investigate the geological history of the region where the rock comes from and report the following week on "all" the history of the forces that produced the region that produced that particular rock. Have everybody else try asking questions to find important areas of information left out of this attempt to say "all."

3. Attempt the same exercise with the room in which the group meets. Have everybody take turns attempting to tell "all" about the room. Then have somebody prepare a report for next week on "all" about how the house came to have its distinct design and location and that room within it.

4. Have each person sit silently and write a description of the house in which the group meets. Take about five minutes. Read the descriptions aloud, noting on a blackboard or large pad:

(a) how many things appear on some lists and not on others.

(b) how many things do not appear on any lists but can quickly come to light with further investigation.

5. Have every person close her or his eyes and listen to the sounds in the room and the sounds coming in from outside. Let one person with a watch time this exercise to last two minutes, then compare reports. Note how each nervous system has heard different sounds.

6. Let the group attempt to say "all" about the city where they meet.

7. Let the group attempt to say "all" about the economic history of the city.

8. Let the group attempt to say "all" about the geological, ecological and economic history of the region in which the city exists.

9. Let the group again pass the rock around, silently. Let every person look at it in the manner of Zen meditation — without forming words in their heads. (Those without experience in meditation will find this very difficult, but try it anyway.)

10. Note especially the points at which any members of the group begin to resist the exercises — e.g., complain "This is silly," "I know this already," "This is some kind of put-on," etc. Note any symptoms of irritability. Pass no judgments on one another when such reactions appear. Discuss the factors that make these exercises appear "boring" (uninteresting) or "threatening" (too interesting) to some kinds of people.

11. In another book, I suggested the new word sombunall meaning "some but not all." In the week after doing the above exercises, let each member of the study group try to remember to ask, each time the word "all" occurs, "Can we safely say 'all' here? Do we know enough? Would sombunall perhaps fit the facts more closely?"

[Hannah]

I really appreciate this from the chapter:

...so many people have been hypnotized by Aristotelian "yes/no" logic to the extent that any step beyond that Bronze Age mythos seems to them a whirling, dizzying plunge into a pit of Chaos and the Dark Night of Nihilism.

I agree that if more humans could dwell with the nuanced reality of perception, we would not need to go to war over differences in said perception. That quote makes me wonder about an imaginary society where "yes" and "no" do not exist...

[jjones]

I wish these were more widely known ideas:

"Thus, if Pure Certainty equals 100% and Pure Uncertainty equals 0%, the logic of Quantum Mechanics and of
the Quantum Psychology in this book does not tell us that the impossibility of reaching 100% leaves us stuck at 0% forever. Quite the reverse. Many things in daily life have probabilities over 50%, which will satisfy any gambler and keep up his interest; even better, some things have probabilities of 90%, 95% or even higher." (Pg. 66)

"Thus, the "loss of certainty" does not mean a descent into the void of solipsism. It merely means a graduation from the kindergarten level of "yes" (100%) or "no" (0%) to the adult world of "how closely can we calculate the odds on this happening?"(5%? 25%? 75%? 95%?)" (Pg. 67)

This has some pretty strong implications for the search of True Will.

[zeph]

What are the strong implications in this for the search of True Will?

[jjones]

@Hannah so true!

Yes/no logic, more often than not, makes people really difficult to work with, since the mental categories created by yes/no logic simply don't survive reality testing. I say that knowing that people think I'm the difficult one to work with, since I don't often give yes/no answers

If someone hasn't experienced probabilistic logic, it feels like an abyss between myself and the other. Where I think I'm expressing a nuanced picture that will be more practical in a situation than some vague absolute yes/no, I'm actually just causing the other a lot of cognitive dissonance because yes/no logic doesn't really strengthen our mental uncertainty muscles. Meanwhile, the other doesn't realize that their intended meaning isn't universal or absolute, so when they give a "simple" polarized answer, I often don't know what they are specifically referring to.

I've noticed that probabilistic logic seems to encode more information in a decision than yes/no logic and that seems to overwhelm the people who cling to yes/no logic. I like that RAW specifies, "the kindergarten level of 'yes' (100%) or 'no' (0%) to the adult world of 'how closely can we calculate the odds on this happening?'(5%? 25%? 75%? 95%," because it does come off childish to demand everything be simple enough to warrant a yes/no answer.

Reality "is" so much more interesting than "yes" or "no."

[jjones]

@zeph Hahaha I was hoping to dodge that question. I have been trying to type out specifically what I mean all morning and have been unable to adequately communicate it. I don't know that this is an entirely new idea, but I like the way this chapter combats some of the blockages in understanding the True Will. If the True Will is a distant object that we are aspiring to align with and grow closer to, Aristotelian, or binary logic appears as one of the earliest obstacles obscuring the nature of the True Will.

I notice, between myself and others I have spoken to online or in person, the discussion of the True Will can easily become a question of individual certainty. The True Will inherently contains a large amount of uncertainty at the outset of the path, and the emphasis placed on the True Will (as well as the projected advantages of operating from True Will) might inspire an individual to make discovery a high stakes event. It is natural for an individual to want answers.

Many, myself included, have attributed messianic and apocalyptic proportion to the discovery of the True Will. The perfectly innocent question, "What is my True Will?" suddenly becomes a demon of uncertainty that must be killed so that one can magically right their life and escape suffering forever in a lightning flash.

However, this demon of uncertainty (and egoic grasping towards the True Will) is predicated upon this yes/no logic. In my own experience, every possible answer I came up with to answer that question, "What is my True Will?" has not been good enough. There has always been some shred of uncertainty preventing my ego from attaining that 100% certain answer to whatever my mind posits to be my specific True Will. My ego gets very displeased with uncertainty and would rather not take action if it doesn't have everything already worked out. Rather than discover True Will in the things I already do, my ego mistakenly believes that I must be doing something else, something outside of me, otherwise I wouldn't be experiencing this uncertainty or the discomfort that comes with it.

Nonetheless, I have been told, and I have experienced that my True Will keeps on regardless of my awareness of it. But if only I could say, "Yes, this IS my True Will!" then my ego could rest and my life would just magically work itself out, right? My ego would love to believe that it is that simple, a change from one state of not knowing into the state of knowing like the flip of a switch. It foolishly believes that if I just flip that switch, I will never have to suffer again. Never mind that this is a subtle tactic the ego uses to give away autonomy. I know I am not the first or the last to experience this fantasy.

Any time spent on the path should demonstrate that this fantasy doesn't hold up against reality. The True Will, in my experience, appears non-local. It expresses itself in infinitely varied circumstances. Sometimes these circumstances appear completely out of left field and do not initially align with what my ego believes to be "me." Of course, the demon of uncertainty feeds on those expressions of True Will because they fly in the face of what my ego considers orderly, predictable, and easily simplified into binaries. So how does one integrate all of that without going insane?

Well, if we dispense with the idea that we can be 100% certain about our True Will in any given moment (since there is always a factor we cannot account for), we must also get rid of the idea that we are entirely 0% certain of our True Will at any given moment. Already, this rearrangement of our limitations has major implications. One can easily fall into the nihilism that RAW describes if we fixate on the loss of certainty. However, if someone decides to go in the opposite direction, then there is always some level of certainty we have in every situation. Since our goal is to act with more certainty (assuming that everyone else's ego also likes certainty), we might have a lot more data to work with in any given situation than what might be apparent. If it is our responsibility to act with certainty, then we have the opportunity to be responsible in every circumstance in our lives.

What does this imply further about the True Will? If the True Will "is" not the thing we do with utmost certainty, we cannot use certainty as a marker of True Will. Instead, since the True Will expresses itself in varying circumstances and varying degrees of awareness, the True Will must also follow probabilistic logic.

The True Will, then, becomes a specific set of probabilities (limited by our biological vehicle and material reality) that are likely to occur based on the expression of the Life Force in any given moment. Regardless of the situation I find myself in, every set of choices I come up with can be measured as more or less likely in alignment with True Will. Rather than place high stakes on one specific choice that is 100% certainly my True Will, I now have a range of motion I can choose from with relative confidence that it will align.

This blows the lid off the initial yes/no logic analysis I proposed at the beginning of this post. Suddenly, "What is my True Will?" no longer holds weight because the True Will no longer appears as an object that falls in the "True" or "Certain" category. True Will becomes infinitely more adaptable, fluid, attainable yet illusive, and even more non-rational. It is no longer one simple title, or action, or thought, etc., but rather a set of optimized potentials with varying degrees of likelihood to manifest LVX. The specific identity of the True Will no longer matters because it's infinite potential inspires more freedom. True Will holds a space between yes or no, and every situation an individual finds themselves in becomes a series of probabilities, "How likely is this choice I've settled on in alignment with my True Will?" It also dispenses of the messianic urge and apocalyptic stakes that come with the fear of acting outside of 100% alignment with the True Will.

What I believe this chapter of Quantum Psychology to imply about the individual "is" that awareness progresses from binary logic (I am doing my True Will, or I'm not doing my True Will) into probabilistic logic (I am making choices that are likely in alignment with my True Will). Furthermore, some of the highest levels of probability appear to function as if I acted with 100% certainty, showing themselves to be just as effective as 100% certainty (though less destabilizing when it turns out to inaccurate). This in turn lowers the stakes and dispels superstitious thinking.

Viewing the True Will as a force of potentials that are not real until brought into Assiah implies a Bell Curve of choices in every situation increasing potential freedom of movement and action not present in a "This IS True Will" dichotomy. When we dispel the need for 100% certainty, True Will no longer needs to be a specific form, and instead becomes a game of increasing confidence levels in choices to strengthen likelihoods and other probabilities. Someone can identify a different level or register of cohesion in their actions, a non-rational cohesion, that doesn't easily fit into a box. Disparate occurrences become chains of events that appear unified to the individual acting from True Will and largely chaotic to the other who has no knowledge of that individual's path.

In my opinion, once a certain amount of knowledge accumulates, probabilistic logic seems to be the only practical way of navigating an otherwise overwhelming existence. If we remain in binary logic, we risk insanity as we get lost in the infinite nuance that complicates our existence. The better we can assess those probabilities, the better we can make choices that align with our overall goal and path through the world.