Awareness
|
|
I do most of my writing in coffee shops. Last Sunday, I went to a new one.
Usually, I try to find the most discrete table in the coffee shop, preferably one that provides me with a vista of the entire room, and preferably with a wall against my back. In this particular venue, that table was located right beside the coffee shop's burnished front door, which swung both ways, inside and out. Like some such doors, there was a mechanism to hold the door in place, wide open, if it was pushed open to a certain degree.
It was a cold winter day, and whenever a customer opened the front door to the coffee shop, it released a frigorific draft that blanketed those tables clustered nearest to the door, including my own. The draft was far from insufferable, but it did create an astute drop in temperature, such that after an hour or so of my tenure there, I found myself wearing my jacket. By this time the shop was teeming with garrulous patrons, the remaining tables now fully occupied. Often, the door was swung out so far that the door mechanism kept it permanently open. Roughly one-third of the time, the person who had opened the door would look back, notice the door was open, and return to shut it. Yet two-thirds of the time, the door was left wide open, necessitating that I or one of the dozen or so other customers sitting nearby get up to close it, which despite the repetitious monotony of this action, was preferable to the alternative of subsisting in a perpetual, uninterrupted chill with the potential to envelop half the people in the room.
As I sat there, my interest was gradually drawn away from my writing pursuits at the time, and I decided to focus my attention entirely on the door, the draft, and the patrons. I observed the interaction for some time, and considered that for each person passing through the door, one of four scenarios applied:
(1) Some patrons, particularly children, either noticed they left the door open but chose to leave it open anyhow, or they did not notice they left it open. I suspect most of these young patrons lacked a personal experience of being caught in a cold draft in a crowded place, hence they could not consider the effects of their actions on others. For those who did not notice the open door, perhaps they either lacked sufficient knowledge of door mechanisms to realize that certain doors remained open if opened far enough, or they simply did not pay enough attention to the situation by checking to see if the door had remained open.
(2) Most adult patrons did not notice they left the door open. They were all clearly old enough to have acquired a personal experience of being caught in a cold draft in a crowded place, so I doubt they would have knowingly left the door open out of inconsideration for others. However, perhaps some of them lacked sufficient knowledge of door mechanisms to realize that certain doors remained open if opened far enough, and the rest of them simply did not pay enough attention to the situation by checking to see if the door had remained open.
(3) A minority of adult patrons, particularly teenagers and younger adults, clearly noticed they left the door open but chose to leave it open anyhow. These people must have possessed a sufficient knowledge of door mechanisms to realize the door might remain open, and looked back to check, but I wondered how many lacked a personal experience of being caught in a cold draft in a crowded place, an experience that may have prompted them to shut the door out of consideration for others.
(4) Roughly one-third of all patrons noticed the door would stay open, and returned to shut it. I postulated that each of these patrons knew what it was like to be caught in a cold draft in a crowded place, possessed a sufficient knowledge of door mechanisms to know that certain doors remained open if opened far enough, and were paying sufficient attention to the situation to look back and check to see if they had left the door open.
In my estimation, the actions of the people in group (4) were the most moral; allow me to explain.
Morality
Morality can be difficult to pin down.
In essence, morality is a measure of the "goodness" inherent in a single act or person. Thus, we could define a moral act by how much it confers "goodness" in the world. Likewise, we could define a moral person by how much their cumulative thoughts, decisions, and actions confer "goodness" in the world. To the purist, this loose definition is unsatisfactory, for it merely kicks the can down the road, forcing us to subsequently define what is meant by "goodness."
I should respond by stating that I agree, hence let us say that "goodness" is the degree to which an act or person benefits the balance of life. Yet once again the purist assails me, for I have kicked the can down the road again, and I am asked to define the words used in this new definition. Yet even the purist must realize that the failure lies not in what constitutes morality or "goodness" or any of these other words, but in the meanings and expectations we pin on the words themselves; so long as we remember that words are mere tags for the intentions, decisions, and actions they attempt to convey, we may proceed.
Many civilizations have sought a universal moral code that relays how a "good" person ought to think, decide, and act in any given situation. The ancient Greeks created virtues (paths to moral excellence), the four classic ones being sophyrosyne (temperance), phronesis (prudence), andreia (courage), and dikaiosyne (justice). Christianity embraced the virtues of faith, hope, and love. To the east, Buddhism describes the four brahmavihara (divine states), consisting of metta (benevolence), karuna (compassion), mudita (empathic joy), and upekkha (equanimity).
|
The Buddhist cousins of western virtues are encapsulated by the brahmahvihara. |
Yet problematically, while each of these constructs attempts to apply a universal set of morals, at the end of the day they are all subjective, with "goodness" conferred only in certain given situations. The classical Greek's temperance, or self-restraint, can be "bad" if it prevents someone from following through on a much-needed experience for future personal growth (even though the decision may seem risky, even reckless, at the time). The Christian's faith, defined as the expression of trust in a person or system without evidence, can be "bad" if exploited by that person or system for their own power-ridden agenda. Buddhism's benevolence, or loving-kindness towards all, can be "bad" if it prevents a person from fighting to protect something of great value to themselves and possibly the world, whether that be their own life, the lives of their family, or their life's work.
However, there is one proposed moral that comes very, very close to being universally applicable to any given situation, and that is The Golden Rule. If we combine the empathic and direct forms of the rule, it says this:
"Wish upon others as you would like to be wished upon. Act upon others as you would like to be acted upon."
So appealing in its simplicity! Yet as much as I love the Golden Rule, it is not a universal moral, for there are rare situations where even it fails, particularly when a person lacks an understanding of how the people around him prefer to be wished or acted upon, which may not always be the same as the way he prefers to be wished or acted upon. Such a situation is best exemplified by a traveller in a foreign land, in a foreign culture.
For example, the Australian traveller in Canada may not realize that Canadian waiters and waitresses rely on tips for a large portion of their earnings. Thus, the Australian may wish generous thoughts and confer generous discussion, which would be enough for him to confer "goodness" in an Australian restaurant where tipping is not practiced, but if he does not also confer a tip at the end of the meal in a Canadian restaurant, the overall interaction will probably be considered "not good" from a Canadian point of view, and the Australian perceived as a cheapskate.
Another example, consider the Canadian traveller in Vietnam who does not realize that some clothing items, such as shorts, are not acceptable in certain buildings, particularly temples. Thus, the Canadian may wish polite thoughts and confer polite actions, which would be good enough for him to confer "goodness" at a Canadian heritage site where wearing shorts is common (at least in summer), but if he attempts to enter the Vietnamese temple wearing shorts, the overall interaction will probably be "not good" from a Vietnamese point of view, and the Canadian perceived as rude.
Thus, even The Golden Rule is not a universal moral code, for it does not confer "goodness" in all situations; it has a flaw, and the flaw is that when a person lacks an understanding of what does and does not confer "goodness" on another person in a given situation, the rule fails.
It fails due to a lack of awareness.
Awareness
Back in 2005, during my final year in medical school, I spent more time wrestling with questions of universal morality and other philosophical matters than I did concentrating on my medical studies such that by mid-year, while trekking in the mountains of Patagonia, a revelation of sorts hit me, one that remains with me to this day.
The only truly universal moral is awareness, defined as how accurately one perceives their self (the collective instincts, emotions, and concepts that form one's experiences), the world (directly sensed and indirectly inferred aspects of reality), and the moment (everything occurring in one's immediate sensory environment, right now). Crucially, awareness is never-ending, and can never be perfected; no matter how aware a person becomes, they can always become even more aware.
|
Seeking awareness. |
To seek awareness means the following:
First, to seek to know thyself. To search for and identify the instinctual and emotional traits that define you, while also exposing your deepest and most cherished concepts to rigorous scrutiny, so as to construct an accurate inner model of your true self. Instinctual fears are not to be avoided, but identified and marked for future confrontation; they are doorways to be crossed, a necessary action if you are to further your true self. Experiences associated with so-called "mistakes" and "failures" are also valuable, for they become more correctly labelled as "feedback," which serves to amplify one's awareness even more.
Second, to seek to understand the world and its reality. To make long-term predictions about everything other than your self using your inner model of the world, which consists of all the predictive concepts in your brain, and testing them rigorously against reality so as to gauge their predictive accuracy. The best materials with which to build this inner model of the world are your own experiences, your trusted mentors, and trustworthy knowledge sources; for the last, practice selective ignorance to avoid incorporating too much distorted information (such as popular news) into your model. Rigorously test your brain's model of the world by acting on its predictions, especially your dreams, which may appear only as flashes - acknowledge their existence, believe in them fully, and follow them to their conclusion, regardless of outcome.
Third, to seek to be mindful of the moment, the now. To pay constant attention to the ongoing interaction between your self and the world, without ruminating over the past, or worrying over the future, while still bringing forth relevant experiences from your models of self and world that allow you to make and apply predictions about may happen next in the moment. Importantly, the predictions stemming from your models must not be substituted for the truth of the moment itself; if you impose your predictions on top of what you are actually sensing in the world, they become mere hallucinations, or perhaps delusions, such that a person senses, or perhaps believes, something is true when it is not. Rather, predictions should be made and applied in a concerted fashion, in accordance with at least some of the observed facts of the moment, so that they enhance awareness, not reduce it.
Thus, to seek awareness is to search for a greater perception and understanding of your experiences of self and your knowledge of the world, by perpetually creating and honing your brain's inner models of self and world, all while paying attention to the moment.
Perhaps the main potential criticism of awareness might be those people who, despite appearing intelligent and aware, choose to pursue an agenda of exerting power over others, in which case it could be pointed out that awareness is not a universal moral or way to spread "goodness." However, if we consider the life of any notorious dictator, while most may have been intelligent from a certain point of view, they all possessed either a warped model of self (often distorted by egotism), a warped model of the world (often distorted by extreme ideology), or a warped perception of the moment (often distorted by hallucinatory or delusional interpretations of reality). I would be hard-pressed to describe any of these people as moral, yet their lack of morality did not stem from a failing of any particular virtue, but in a severe lack of awareness of one or more of the self, the world, or the moment.
Every situation, no matter how paltry or ordinary, even one as trivial as walking into a coffee shop, is an opportunity to think, decide, and act on a higher moral level, to increase "goodness," to benefit the balance of life...
...to seek awareness.
Solace.
