What is Really Real? Leonard on Intentionality.
Understand that I broach this subject with great care. My fear of pomp is real. It's just that this book, 'Mastery' by George Leonard, has got me by the short and curlies and he keeps putting words and definition to the things that I wonder about.
Early on in this blog I talked about how abstract RAAM seemed to me. Sitting here, considering how the title of this post relates to all manner of things I also think about Cancer. Both RAAM and Cancer are abstract concepts to me. I can't imagine what either is or how I might react to being suddenly faced with one or both of them. Reading this section of the book last night brought some clarity and I realize that whether it be riding a difficult bike race, fighting a potentially fatal disease, writing a television series or recreating a famous Pete Mahovlich goal from the 1972 Canada-Russia Summit Series the abstract can, perhaps must, give way to something else and that something else is a fantastic tool for success, however you define that.
Leonard writes:
How do we explain the discrepancy between the mechanical and the imaged application?
He goes on to use, as an example, a technique he uses in aikido. It wouldn't make sense to talk about it here. Basically, however, he's talking about images he uses - three foot long fingers reaching down through the head to the spine to make a particular throw effortless. Though it takes much muscular effort to carry out, with the use of imagery it feels effortless. And he speaks of the seemingly 'miraculous' applications of the technique working only when the mental image is vividly clear. He continues:
Which brings us to the question of what is really "real." Is consciousness a mere epiphenomenon, as behaiourist B.F. Skinner would have it? Or is the poet William Blake right in suggesting that mental things alone are real? Or, if mental constructs and the stuff of the objective world are both real, though occupying different classes of reality, then what is the nature of the interaction between the two classes? These are large questions. Still, it's possible to say rather briefly (and obviously) that thought, images, feelings, and the like are quite real and that they do have a great influence on the world of matter and energy. Indeed, it's possible to argue that pure information is more persistent that what we class as substantial - or perhaps that both are at essence the same thing. "More and more, the universe looks like a great thought rather than a great machine," says astronomer Sir James Jeans.
He goes on to talk of how vivid Solomon's Temple can be when reading the Bible or Scarlett O'Hara and Anna Karenina when reading their stories. But this one is my favourite:
Your portable transistor radio is certainly real: you can feel it in your hands. But so is the wiring diagram for that radio, and so is that diagram as it evolved in the mind of the inventor. Which is more real? It's hard to say. While the underlying structure, the abstract relationship among the parts, is the same in all three forms, it can be argued that what is most abstract is most fundamental and often most persistent over time. The diagram or the mental picture will probably outlast the radio you hold in your hands. And these insubstantial forms have an additional advantage: if you want to make changes in the relationships of the parts, it's easier to do so in the diagram or the mind than in the three-dimensional radio.
What's the role of intentionality here? It's certainly involved in the transformation of that structure from one of its forms to another. This sort of transformation, in fact, is what the process of mastery is all about.
Thoughts, images, and feelings are indeeed quite real. Einstein's thought that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared eventually unleashed awesome power. The transformation of that thought into heat and percussion was a long and arduous process. Still, the thought, the vision, the intentionality, was primary.
"All I know," said Arnold Schwarzenneger, "is that the first step is to create the vision, because when you see the vision there - the beautiful vision - that creates the 'want power.' For example, my wanting to be Mr. Universe came about because I saw myself so clearly, being up there on the stage and winning."
Intentionality fuels the master's journey. Every master is a master of vision.
I've got nothing to say. Arnie said it all.
I'm going to sit with my eyes closed and find my 'want power.'
Early on in this blog I talked about how abstract RAAM seemed to me. Sitting here, considering how the title of this post relates to all manner of things I also think about Cancer. Both RAAM and Cancer are abstract concepts to me. I can't imagine what either is or how I might react to being suddenly faced with one or both of them. Reading this section of the book last night brought some clarity and I realize that whether it be riding a difficult bike race, fighting a potentially fatal disease, writing a television series or recreating a famous Pete Mahovlich goal from the 1972 Canada-Russia Summit Series the abstract can, perhaps must, give way to something else and that something else is a fantastic tool for success, however you define that.
Leonard writes:
How do we explain the discrepancy between the mechanical and the imaged application?
He goes on to use, as an example, a technique he uses in aikido. It wouldn't make sense to talk about it here. Basically, however, he's talking about images he uses - three foot long fingers reaching down through the head to the spine to make a particular throw effortless. Though it takes much muscular effort to carry out, with the use of imagery it feels effortless. And he speaks of the seemingly 'miraculous' applications of the technique working only when the mental image is vividly clear. He continues:
Which brings us to the question of what is really "real." Is consciousness a mere epiphenomenon, as behaiourist B.F. Skinner would have it? Or is the poet William Blake right in suggesting that mental things alone are real? Or, if mental constructs and the stuff of the objective world are both real, though occupying different classes of reality, then what is the nature of the interaction between the two classes? These are large questions. Still, it's possible to say rather briefly (and obviously) that thought, images, feelings, and the like are quite real and that they do have a great influence on the world of matter and energy. Indeed, it's possible to argue that pure information is more persistent that what we class as substantial - or perhaps that both are at essence the same thing. "More and more, the universe looks like a great thought rather than a great machine," says astronomer Sir James Jeans.
He goes on to talk of how vivid Solomon's Temple can be when reading the Bible or Scarlett O'Hara and Anna Karenina when reading their stories. But this one is my favourite:
Your portable transistor radio is certainly real: you can feel it in your hands. But so is the wiring diagram for that radio, and so is that diagram as it evolved in the mind of the inventor. Which is more real? It's hard to say. While the underlying structure, the abstract relationship among the parts, is the same in all three forms, it can be argued that what is most abstract is most fundamental and often most persistent over time. The diagram or the mental picture will probably outlast the radio you hold in your hands. And these insubstantial forms have an additional advantage: if you want to make changes in the relationships of the parts, it's easier to do so in the diagram or the mind than in the three-dimensional radio.
What's the role of intentionality here? It's certainly involved in the transformation of that structure from one of its forms to another. This sort of transformation, in fact, is what the process of mastery is all about.
Thoughts, images, and feelings are indeeed quite real. Einstein's thought that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared eventually unleashed awesome power. The transformation of that thought into heat and percussion was a long and arduous process. Still, the thought, the vision, the intentionality, was primary.
"All I know," said Arnold Schwarzenneger, "is that the first step is to create the vision, because when you see the vision there - the beautiful vision - that creates the 'want power.' For example, my wanting to be Mr. Universe came about because I saw myself so clearly, being up there on the stage and winning."
Intentionality fuels the master's journey. Every master is a master of vision.
I've got nothing to say. Arnie said it all.
I'm going to sit with my eyes closed and find my 'want power.'
posted by Christopher Bolton at 5:18 AM
1 Comments:
A mirage is real, but it is fleeting. As is everything material, thoughts included. Einstein found a corner of the truth, but it was only that. He knew it and was duly humbled by all that he could not perceive. He spent many of his days walking in nature, meditating on its perfect design, knowing well it was the creation of an intelligence and power far greater than we could possibly imagine with our limited minds. All of the stuff here is real. It is all rising, staying a short while, then dwindling away according to natural laws, natural cycles. There is no essential difference in realness between the design and the final product. They are just different forms of material energy, but material energy nonetheless. Neither will endure. Nothing material does. The mind is real albeit temporary as well. Its thoughts and related byproducts are also real. But like a mirage, they are always fading away, some quickly, some slowly. What is truly amazing to me is that we give the mind and whatever it says today so much weight when it’s so inconsistent! My mind tells me something completely different than it told me yesterday and yet I still listen to it as if it’s the highest authority in the land. It’s gotten me into so many stupid situations I can’t even count! No doubt, the mind is a slippery fucker and it can take a person on many wild and painful rides. Bottom line is: we can’t think our way to enlightenment. It just causes a great big headache. Real, lasting knowledge is too big for and beyond the mind. As for mastery: The real master is one who is free of the desire to be master. A real master knows that ultimately, it is up to God.
Post a Comment
<< Home