A philosophical recipe

This is a little thought-experiment-recipe around theory, dead and living thinking, and past-static 'dead' thinking vs present-dynamic integrative and 'living' thinking and participatory awareness / self-science.

One of the most useful things I got from my master’s was right at the beginning, when they said in the introductory workshop ‘we are going to teach you a whole lot of theories, some of them very useful and powerful theories, but you need to always keep in mind what’s important. A craftsperson has their toolbox, and some of them are very nice tools - but what is important? It is you the enacter - are you able to find the right tools for the given context, and, how skillful are you at using them?’

That is how I have come to view theories in general - they are like powerful lenses, but a) where you point them is crucial; b) what they reveal is partial (limited to what they can see, within the assumptions they are constructed on) and c) much like a photograph (or x-ray, or any other tool), they are a snapshot in time - of the past, and limited to what was captured (this is a true but not complete representation of reality -it is partial).

But actually, despite the importance of where you point and the partiality of the lenses, the most important part is point c. We have constructed by now a higgledipiggledy (fragmented) set of views, that if wholly inhabited, are completely askew from reality. And nowadays in a ‘post-truth-world’ this already looks a bit like the stirrings of ‘a war of all against all’.

The issue is that we are inherently born with dualism as our start-point, and to truly get beyond it is no small task. Jean Gebser noted that all languages since the ancient Indian/Egyptian/Greek civilisations are inherently dialectic. This is not a bad thing, nor is the journey to now ‘wrong’, but it is a one-sided (and therefore limited) way to conceive and think, and we have reached the limitations of such thinking (a quick glance out into the world will confirm that).

The culmination of this one-sided imbalance is the ultra-secular, materialistic, pull of society driven by conventional morality - a massive set of elegant and powerful constructions, but that are unwittingly and (it seems) unknowingly built on sand. This sand is in some ways rooted in the taken-for-granted assumption that what is subjectively experienced by you and me, is completely separated from the objective world out there. Another way of describing it, is that we have forgotten that, even as we most stringently strive for and almost achieve objectivity, we are placing a human-derived assumption in front of reality.

If one takes Goethe’s starting point ‘the phenomenon is the theory’, it sounds actually quite congruent with the modern scientific perspective (which by the way is not quite the same thing as ‘the scientific method’) - and it is. However, Goethe’s epistemology (knowledge-finding-process) begins ‘up-stream’ of the Cartesian split, and, whilst the perspectives that are constructed atop this division are also utilised, but through this way of finding truth, keeping the focus on what is, we can evade slipping into mistaking the map for the territory (or the lens-derived view for the whole). Put another way, this encourages the cultivation of a true ‘learner’s stance’, and enables one to integrate what is subjectively experienced about phenomena of the world, and what is objectively measured. There are variations of the statement 'a conclusion is not the point at which you find the truth, it’s only the point at which the thinking stops', which I think can be nicely extended by Eric Hoffer's statement "In times of change, the learners inherit the earth, whilst the learned are beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists".

Goethe's view is not akin to post-modernism, which can a)only deconstruct (any theory-formation is an oxymoron to it's ontological and epistemological assumptions), and b) is itself still fundamentally formed in-relation-to the Cartesian duality that underpins all mainstream methods, from positivism and empiricism right through to interpretevism and subjectivism. Phenomenology, and perhaps nowadays the leading edges (which tend to be integrative) of these approaches to research, are starting to get close to this abyss that stands in front of our attaining 'living thinking'.

And if you think about it, life is constantly in motion. How can we build a true picture of reality if we rely only on partial snapshots?

How do we truly describe the phenomenon of life, of livingness? In contemporary education, if we want to teach about the dandelion and we go and read books or search the web, we get a lot of detailed pictures, diagrams and descriptions of the plant. Seldom are we taught to think of the plant as a thing in motion, a cycle. Even less are we invited to consider what is the difference between a living and dead plant? And, to learn about the dandelion, one has to experience it. Draw it, observe it with your feelings as well as thoughts. Start with a blank page, not a theoretical name. Grow it, eat it (if applicable). Explore it from as many perspectives as you can find.

I held that question as a teenager - what differentiates something alive from something that is not?, and have never found it to be answered in any way satisfactorily from the modern scientific perspective.

I hope I have clarified - I am not knocking science, or saying that it is bad. But to rely wholly on constructed (snapshot / past - ‘dead’) knowledge/thinking, is evidently not working out too well, both in terms of answering the deeper questions of life, and in terms of what we are doing to each other and the planet (ourselves).

If there is a ‘finished product’ of this little recipe experiment, it is to leave with the notion of developing ‘self-science’. On a more basic (but very powerful) level this involves experimenting with what we are in control of (food, friends, intellectual/emotional inputs, etc etc). Extending this, we can start to bring ourSelves into thinking about things, beginning to participate with more than just logic (our feelings, imaginations and intuitions cans tart to guide where we employ the logic-lens) - and always, like any true scientist, holding our current certainties up to the scrutiny of reality.

In terms of what other thinkers have written or said about such things, Steiner calls it ‘living thinking’ (among other things), Jean Gebser calls it ‘integral consciousness’ and ‘post-dialectic thinking’, and in a way all these speak to different aspects of this new consciousness that humanity seems to be emerging into. Thinking is alive - creative, focused, carried by the force of will, but also open, integrative, finding questions more than answers, synthesising the qualities of different philosophical and even being-ness categories (e.g. non-human perspectives such as nature or spiritual beings). Post dialectic - beyond the dualism that is built right into the building blocks of all modern (post Greek/Indian) languages and thinking.

Living thinking implies dead thinking - and that is exactly the kind that we are struggling to emerge from - hallmarked by certainty - I know, for sure. Rigidity, often inhabiting singular perspectives (positions, ideologies, paradigms etc). Stuck in validating through others’ authority (as opposed to thinking through the truth of things, in relation to what others have found). It’s not that what we are emerging from is ‘wrong’, it is rather becoming eclipsed by a new way, or form of thinking. In both Steiner’s and Gebser’s views, we necessarily moved away from connection with the spiritual world in order to gain individuality, freedom, dialectic thinking (and the scientific method(s)), and now we can reconnect with this ancient connectedness - not going backwards, but as Gebser suggests, reconnecting with our ever-present-origin.

Around 10 years ago, I had an experience. A moment, difficult to put into words. Connected, is the closest I can think of. Totally profound, and yet totally ‘normal’. What I can relay is the changes I went through following this. As both a culmination of things that had been developing, and as a ‘discontinuous leap’ in my consciousness, I had gone from being unable to focus (often feeling like I had thick cling film in front of me), forgetful, painfully shy, depressed, self-depreciating - to becoming confident, focused, able to string long thoughts together, creative, and resilient (beyond what I previously could even conceive was possible)..

In my work I went from cook to entrepreneur to consultant, and in study from twice college drop-out to PhD student and lecturer. Since then, I have had periods of ‘falling off’, back into previous modes, and periods of developing further - The insight I formed during my masters - integrity is where I get my power from’, very much applies to this. If I move out of that walk/talk congruence, I am no longer connected to that part of myself.

Overall the trajectory being that the new consciousness has become ever more ‘normal’ (rather than a fervour I would sometimes find myself in), and grounded. Central to this development seems to be morality. Through a combination of getting to know myself ‘as a behaving personality’, and searching for truth out in the world (especially where can I get certainty from), a complete transformation of me has been enabled. Through holding myself to my values (and keeping an eye on the gap between espoused vs in-use ideals), I find the fuel for focus and developing strong will power.

Back to the analogy of the craftsperson and their tools - in becoming a skillful craftsperson (especially in the realm of working with people), often the biggest obstacle is ourselves, our assumptions, shadows and not-fully-conscious ego.

The journey out into world-knowledge, and the journey into self-knowledge ultimately become one, and it becomes apparent that these new ways of thinking are very much needed in-service, in order to find solutions for our current issues that truly transcend the thinking that created them.

A central theme I am taking forwards in this regard, is regeneration. Specifically, with my organisation development leanings, I am exploring 'what is regenerative culture?'

*the brownie is a chilly chocolate iteration of 'Melvin's naughty brownies' that used to feature in the very special and much loved Hathersage Social Club, made when I was finally writing my master's thesis.

Originally published on linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/philosophical-recipe-melvin-jarman-wz0ke/?trackingId=uBRjU4y7TRWATkUK3cG1vw%3D%3D