Zen, revision of

Wonderful as Buddhism is, it implies an observation about consciousness (at least, Alan Watts informs us so) that I think is wrong. The implication itself has some depth though, and could use some talk antecedent to segue.

There are, in a vague, blurred sense, two different forms of ‘knowledge’ (as it is defined by Buddhism through Alan Watts [though awareness would be my preferred word]); conventional knowledge, which is abstracted knowledge — ideas that are pulled from the outside world into theoretical constructs, the divisionary lines that we imagine unto the world through our brains; and peripheral knowledge, a more ‘felt’ experiencing of the world, where things are hardly defined, hardly conscientious, but free for a more direct view – the world seen interpenetrated and without presupposed boundaries.

So far as ancient epistemology goes, this is good stuff. I like it, but I will disagree, and request update if I am to adopt any therefore conjectures which might follow it.

The problem is how we define knowledge/awareness. In ancient times, we were still conceiving of the mind as a conceptual entity in itself, and not something consisting of various, evolved annexes of accidental cooperation — but such assumptions won’t fly today. Immediately springing to the mind of any cognitive contemporary is that these two forms of knowledge/awareness can be vaguely assigned to different parts of the brain, only one of which we would today consider having faculties that give us the ability to “know something”.

Conventional knowledge, as proposed, seems to correspond to what we see happening in the cortex — an advanced system that that runs nearly all of our experience modeling software, including logic, including math, language, and most probably our own concept of ourselves (this last concept being the most fowl to our truest state of mind, which must be vanquished should nirvana occur).

Peripheral knowledge seems to be more laden in the limbic system of the brain – a system which controls emotions and how those emotional motivations network into the cortex and back down into lower areas. Both the cortex and the limbic system are integrated into each other.

So, the processes of both forms of knowledge/awareness that Buddhism defines is a mixture of both.

Because of the reticulating nature of the brain, advocators of peripheral knowledge would be out of line to deny function of self in the cortex, while conventional knowledge tends to ‘wrestle’ with the feeling side of the house, attempting to edit temporal information so to fit presupposed models. We could sum it up to say that while the Western logistician would tend to ignore outside information in bias, the Easterner too has his own fault, by denying the use of the Westerner’s same mental instruments, unwittingly constructing simulations of reality.

I’m not suggesting that these two forms of thought are conflicting processes that divide the brain into some sort of cognitive war to define how you think. I’m suggesting that the concepts of these dual paths towards reality should be revised, so that Zen can continue on with an anatomically informed philosophy on its goals, and the Westerner can agreeably grasp onto that of Zen which he likes.

The Zen idea, as alluded to, is that peripheral knowledge, since it does not assume artificial boundaries on the outside world, is more “true” to reality –

(It is annoying, I know, to interject mid-sentence like this, but I think that I would really be doing you a favor that I have not had done for me, by defining what ‘more true’ is, as it seems to be frustratingly contradictory to the relativism of Eastern philosophy. Whenever you see such a word as ‘true’ pop up in this context, think not that the author (should they be smart) is suggesting that there is an objective ideal to be grasped – rather think of it as an abbreviation for as non-biased of an experience that is capable to one’s perception. Hardly a revealing of ‘truth’ at all, but since we all seem to use the word anyway, a bit of understanding should sate the frustration.)

– and conventional knowledge less true for implicit reasons. Consciousness, according to many Eastern philosophies, is a form of conventional knowledge. To Zen, one’s own mind is not ‘one’s own,’ but rather no-one’s. The distinction of self as opposed to other things is a fallacy, which one many have grown incredible reliance on, but fallacy nonetheless. I’m tempted here to absolutely praise such a fantastic insight, but I’ll hold going purple for just this time.

Conventional knowledge is expanded on as an abstract library of theoreticals that can never corner the infinitude it blindly chases. Any distinction or dissection of the universe denies its true nature of interconnection.

But an analogy I continue to be dismayed about is when Buddhism attempts to conclude about what happens when the mind attempts to understand itself. Alan Watts, in erudition, lists much evidence that claims Zen and such consider the mind attempting to understand itself is like ‘a knife attempting to cut itself’. I think this is wrong. I think that the mind can understand itself conventionally in just the same way as the mind might understand the rest of the universe. There is always the Buddhist-detailed flaw of conventional knowledge, we know, but the mind is not a snake attempting to bend around and devour itself, a knife trying to cut itself, or whatever else. I’ll even go one further: I think the mind can also combine peripheral and conventional knowledge to gain great insight – an enlightened ego – a proposal alien to Zen, maybe displeasing to it, but in theme as well, I think. I’ll spend the rest of this writing breaking down how a new anatomical understanding of the brain/mind lets us not be so at woe in using models of the world around us as a way to understand it in a more insightfully interpenetrated way.

Let’s return to how combined the faculties of the brain are. Our limbic system, which connects out to the cortex, helps to decide how biased our cortex will be. This works by networking synapses to different locations and patterns in the cortex by strengthening and repeating bonds that start in the limbic system. The more we are emotionally driven towards a certain action, the more likely that next time we experience “that emotion,” then “that action” or “that thought” will follow. A person who is not aware of this, and is uncritical of their emotional biases, ends up being an overly reactionary person, and in times of emotional trouble tends to be much less likely to think clearly.

If you can master your emotions, so to speak, you gain a much greater variance of thought through your emotional networking. This seems to be a large aspect of what is meant by peripheral knowledge – the lucidity to not be fueled into an emotion-cognitive reaction loop. By loosening the reigns of our theoretical knowledge and allowing a flowing, ‘all feelings accepted’ limbic to cortex connection, we become more freer to flow in our thoughts.

Another part of peripheral knowledge seems to be to break down models in the cortex that are ‘more conventional,’ such as a traditional sense of ego. If you could accomplish both an emotional lucidness, and prepare yourself with wise, flexible models, you’re probably there, at nirvana.

Obviously, talk about anatomy puts conventional knowledge quite close to peripheral knowledge. Both forms of knowledge/awareness rely on exactly the same parts of the brain, and in similar ways as well. The difference, while we can not be anatomically certain about it yet, is most probably in the nature of the synaptic structures we create through different philosophies of using our minds, and it is probably a difference of the slightest elegance, which no layman brain observer would see at all. A person with a peripherally dominant mindset is a person whose mental faculties are set to apply conventional knowledge techniques (cortex residing models) towards building versatile, emotionally open ways of navigating the world. A person with a conventional mindset gears his cognitive powers towards constructing specific, emotionally driven ways of navigating the world.

In short, The conventional man goes through life emotionally driven, modeling his awareness specifically – he has an emotion based reward system in place. The peripheral man goes through life not particularly driven at all, but simply reacting with a great peaceful lucidity.

Now I suggest a synthesis of the two: an anatomically aware individual should be able to, at his own discretion, create wanted models that must inevitably be constructed through limbic/cortex networking, and through patience and practice also create the emotional versatility he desires. This sort of individual can empirically and rationally investigate the world, and use our Eastern gifts of peripheral perception to experience it as purely connected to the universe that a human mind allows.

This third sort is possible precisely because we know that we have a brain which operates different hardware at different places and times, and does not compute itself or the world around it in some simultaneous fashion. The Eastern philosophers were probably right by reasoning away dualism, and with it the false convention of separating things into arbitrary entities – but they were wrong to think so quickly about the mind. The mind can “cut itself,” because the mind is more than just one conventional entity – it is made of innumerable parts which all go into creating the experience of a human, and it is this advantage that allows the human to both deeply grasp the world — as well as their own perspective — through investigation, and then let go of itself as “one” as well.

The scientific person can then go about his understanding, and with such easy fundamental revision as provided through anatomical underpinnings, still connect beautifully with ancient teachings. Zen at heart does not change; what changes is the richness it may allow itself.