Monthly Archives: April 2019

April 25 2019 – The Risk of Dismissing Progress and Ignoring Human Evolution

Leave a reply

Today’s Post

    Last week we looked a little more closely at the phenomenon of ‘indignation’.  While it might be understood as a normal and frequent response to the vagaries of the world around us, we saw how the rapidly growing new milieu of the internet can amplify subjective thinking as it compounds it by rapid validation of biases and negativity on a near universal scale.

We also saw how such fixation with the internet can lead to an insidious form of addiction, known as ‘motivational toxicity’, which appears as a deterioration in the ability of normal rewards (such as careers and sex) to govern behavior and requires ever increasing cycles of subjectivity, expression and reinforcement to receive the pleasurable effects of dopamine.

This combination of the internet as an enabling device for an addiction which skews our judgement and our increasing addiction to it can be seen as a danger to our continued evolution.  As we have seen, continuing our evolution increasingly requires that we understand it and cooperate with it.  Anything that undermines our ability to think objectively and cooperate with others bodes poorly for our future.

This week we will move on to looking at how we can understand evolution to be taking place today.

Instinct and Volition in Human Evolution

In this blog we have looked at many facets of both universal and human evolution in the light of insights from Teilhard de Chardin and others (eg Jonathan Sacks and Richard Rohr) as we have explored a concept of God that is couched differently from that traditionally expressed in the thousands of religions on our planet.  We have also seen, however, how Teilhard’s concept, which pursues a different approach to understanding the ‘ground of being’, is not only consistent with that of science but is quite compatible with the ‘basics’ of Western theology.  We have seen how such an insight permits the sweep of cosmic evolution, from the ‘big bang’ to the present day, to be seen in the context of a single current which raises the ‘complexity’ of its products from that of pure energy to that of consciousness aware of itself.

The existence of this current suggests that, with the advent of the human person, evolution will manifest itself increasingly less as a force which guides the inherent restructuring of simpler entities into those of richer and more complex forms, (such as atoms into molecules, molecules into cells, cells into brains, and brains into consciousness) and more as an ‘axis of evolution’ which must be consciously recognized and cooperated with for human evolution to continue.  In Teilhard’s view, human evolution becomes less ‘instinctive’ and more ‘volitional’.

Teilhard sees the first step of such ‘volition’, recognizing, as ‘articulating the noosphere’, quantifying the structure to which we advert as we go about our affairs.  Examples of such articulations can be seen in our many religions, philosophies and social structures (our laws).  In the several hundred thousands of years since the first ‘homo sapiens’ set about trying to make sense of his environment, human history (and to some extent ‘prehistory’) shows a vast variety of such ‘articulations’, with their underlying assumptions, beliefs and practices reflecting their diverse grasp of the underlying ‘nature’ of reality.  Such history also shows the profound ability of humans to ‘learn from mistakes’ as the world has grown more populated with the attendant crowding of people on a planet with decreasing open space.   Somehow, in spite of our collectively discordant understanding of ourselves and our environment, we have managed to thus far not only survive but thrive. 

Towards a Mature ‘Articulation of the Noosphere’

The past hundred fifty years shows an exponential increase in human welfare, as articulations such as those expressed in the ‘Enlightenment’ have come to be imbedded in our social structures.  While perhaps not being conscious of advancing evolution per se, or of even increasing the complexity of the human as a measure of advancing evolution, a simple but key underlying principle of such advance can be seen in the statement of Thomas Jefferson:

“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves.”

    This statement is the cornerstone of the increase in welfare that Norberg charts in his book, ‘Progress’.  However, Norberg carefully notes the necessary extension of Jefferson’s assertion for such increase in welfare to take place.  To achieve such a rapid increase in the level of welfare that he details, personal freedom is required for the innovation and invention that is necessary for understanding and surviving our mistakes.

In effect, while the Enlightenment might be seen as the point in history where our ‘articulation of the noosphere’ began to mature, the increase in human welfare since 1850 might be seen as the point in history that humans began to learn how to ‘cooperate with the forces of evolution’.  In this brief time frame, our grasp of our ‘complexification’ has taken a quantum leap.

However, as startling as such a sudden change in our evolution can be seen in Norberg’s nine metrics of recent human evolution, the continuation of this trend is not guaranteed.  If we don’t recognize first that such an increase in human welfare has actually taken place and second, that such increase reflects an increase in the evolutionary complexity of our species, we can tend to take a stance in which not only do we ignore it, we dismiss it and fail to recognize it as actual progress.  Such dismissal and denial will make it increasingly difficult to cooperate with it and thus extend our evolutionary progress.

The pessimism that we have been addressing in the past few posts is evidence of such disbelief.  A critical way to insure continuation of our evolution is to better understand it, but a sure way to undermine it is to ignore, or worse disbelieve in it.

The Next Post

This week we took another look at the mechanism of human evolution, and how recognizing and beginning to understand it is key to the important process of replacing ‘instinct’ with ‘volition’ as we begin to consciously take the helm of our evolution at the same time that we are beginning to better understand the winds, waves and tides that constitute our ‘noosphere’.

Next week we will look a little more deeply into how universal evolution continues its rise of complexity through the human species as we get closer to understanding how we can begin to consciously respond to its agency.

April 18 2019 – How can Indignation Jeopardize Human Evolution?

Leave a reply

Today’s Post

    Last week we explored what goes on in our ‘thinking system’ as external stimuli is processed by the ‘lower brains’,  stimulating the neocortex faster than it can examine and evaluate the external stimuli to decide on a reaction.  We also saw how these stimuli manifest themselves in the form of ‘messenger chemicals’ or ‘neurotransmitters’ sent to the neocortex, many of which are experienced by the neocortex as ‘pleasurable’.

This pleasurable response to a negative stimuli is captured in our term for it, ‘indignation’.  When we disapprove of the actions of others, for example, we can feel good about it.

This week we will take a look at how this natural condition, known to thinkers for ages, can metastasize to new proportions in the milieu of the rapid, ubiquitous and near universal world of the internet. 

The Danger of Indignation Today

What’s different about such a common condition today, and how can it be seen as possibly undermining the continuation of human evolution?

David Brin, author and social critic, notes the “rising ideological divisions that are becoming more prevalent today, even to the point of “culture wars”, that makes it increasingly difficult to form coalitions to solve problems”. Today it seems that fewer groups seem capable of negotiating peaceful consensus solutions to problems.  Such an impasse is often driven by the irate stubbornness of a few vigorous leaders, especially if they are armed with the stamina and dedication of indignation, knowing, in Brin’s words,

“.. with subjective certainty, that (they) are right and (their) opponents are deeply, despicably wrong.”

   Last week we saw how the internet, with its various forms of social media, not only act as an amplifier for beliefs and assertions, but as a positive feedback mechanism which can enhance and reinforce biases, negativity and pessimism.

What’s involved in getting to this deeply dogmatic, self-centered and troubling state of mind?

Brin calls attention to studies that investigate reinforcement processes in the human brain, especially those involving dopamine and other messenger chemicals that are active in producing pleasure responses, such as those at the Behavioral Neuroscience Program State University of New York at Buffalo.  He refers to this physiology as “chemically-mediated states of arousal that self-reinforce patterns of behavior”.

Such self-induced arousal can be seen as “self-doping”, in which individuals have the power to trigger the release of psychoactive chemicals simply by entering into certain types of consciousness.  Typical types of such arousal include anger, or more specifically, ‘indignation’.

When such self-induced behavior becomes frequent it can become habitual, even to the point of addiction.

Such ‘self- doping’ of course is not limited to indignation. Researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital, using MRI, have examined the brain activity that occurs when volunteers won games of chance, and found that responses were very similar to those responding to cocaine.  Evidently, gambling produces a pleasant stimulus similar to cocaine.

Simple activation of brain reward systems does not necessarily constitute addiction.  We do this every time we hold our love ones, hear beautiful music, or even find the word which satisfies the crossword clue.  Those who practice meditation, also a self-induced state, also report the pleasure of entering into a meditative state.

Rather, the extreme control of behavior—exemplified by a deterioration in the ability of normal rewards to govern behavior (termed ‘motivational toxicity’)—is the distinguishing feature of an addiction.

Motivational toxicity is apparent when rewards which are normally effective in influencing behavior lose their ability to motivate.  This is typically seen in drug addicts when they neglect formerly potent rewards such as career, relationships and sex, and focus their behavior on the acquisition and ingestion of drugs.

So it appears possible to habitually pursue drug-like reinforcement cycles — either for pleasure or through cycles of withdrawal and insatiability that mimic addiction — purely as a function of entering an addictive frame of mind.  Such pursuit requires no mental discipline (such as does the practice of meditation) and produces much stronger sensation.  A sense of righteous outrage can feel so intense and delicious that those caught up in this emotional whirlpool actively seek to return to it, again and again.  It is not necessarily associated with one political outlook or another, as it seems to be a trait that crosses all boundaries of ideology.

Since it undermines our ability to empathize with opponents, accept criticism, or negotiate practical solutions to problems, it undermines the mature discourse necessary to a healthy society.  Further, it skews how the world is experienced.  While the torrent of news today, and its incessant reliance on ‘click-bait’ content promote a sense of pessimism, motivational toxicity takes this level of pessimism to the point that the positive trends such as reported by Johan Norberg can not only be ignored, they must be seen as insidious ‘fake news’ designed to lull us into a untrustworthy sense of security.   Such an enhanced and reinforced pessimism increases the paranoia in which long-standing and successful social and political norms are no longer to be trusted.  In a society in which such pessimism prevails, the structure of democracy will not survive.

The problem with chronic dopamine release is not just the danger it poses to society at large.  As the cycle increases, brain receptors become desensitized and continued self-doping bring less pleasure.  As with any psychotropic drug, regular release of dopamine will in turn result in a craving for a larger release to feel the same ‘high’.  When this happens, the only way to achieve the high is to increase the rage and act out more; either verbally or violently.  This is how anger addiction is born.

As we saw last week, this cycle is further reinforced by the feedback power of the internet.   This sort of dopamine response is induced by the many ‘clickbait’ posts found on social media, and as the need for more production of it increases, the internet gladly ups the volume and content of negative and indignation-worthy content to accommodate.  At the same time, the skill of using the neocortex to modulate and minimize the stimulation is eroded.  The person becomes less and less capable of objective evaluation of the increasingly indignation-inducing posts.

The Next Post

This week we took a closer look at how anger, and its everyday manifestation of indignation can metastasize to new proportions in the mileu of the rapid, ubiquitous and near universal world of the internet, and how this can constitute new dangers to both personal and societal evolution.

Next week we will look into how this natural and common phenomena can turn into practices which can jeopardize our continuing evolution.

April 11 2019 – What’s Different About Today’s Indignation?

Leave a reply

Today’s Post 

Last week we began looking into the current wave of pessimism that seems to be embedding itself into our social fabric.  As Johan Norberg clearly delineates in great detail in his recent book, “Progress”, by almost any measure (and he cites nine distinct ones) we are living in an unprecedented ‘golden age’ of human welfare, but from the incessant negative chatter on Twitter, Facebook and the other faces of social intercourse, the world is increasingly seen to be heading to the dogs and our institutions can no longer be trusted.   The recent political trend toward nationalism in the West suggests a similar dissatisfaction with the current state of the state.  Does this trend suggest that an inevitable side effect of our collective evolution is the souring of our outlook?

This week we will take a closer look at this phenomenon.

Isn’t This Just More ‘Progressophobia”?

We took a look at the history of pessimism in the West last Fall, citing the historical trends of ‘progressophobia’ as reported by Steven Pinker, and briefly exploring the threads of pessimism woven into Protestant theology and Freudian psychology, but here we’re dealing with something quite different.  The pessimism we are now addressing, while containing overtones of the above influences, is much more intimate and prevalent, therefore more difficult to grasp.

Last week we identified an age-old condition of the human psyche, ‘indignation’ as complicit in this trend.  But we noticed that there’s nothing new about this mental state, simply a ubiquitous emotion we attach to disapproval of the actions of others, so why would we see this as a factor in today’s trend toward a deeper, more intimate, and potentially more dangerous form of pessimism?

The Amplification and Reinforcement Loop of Social Media

One thing that is clearly different today than in the past is the phenomenon of the internet.  Via this new technology, we are not only able to connect with many more other persons, our thoughts and opinions are available to thousands, and their approval, their ‘likes’, are instantly available to us.  Thus, social media is not only an amplifier of our opinions, it provides feedback which tends to reinforce them.

Russ Douthat, pundit for the New York Times, notes that in just a few years, the Internet as a new manifestation of our culture has morphed from a “just enough (interconnection) to boost economic productivity, encourage social ferment, challenge cultural gatekeepers, and give lonely teenagers succor” to “an addictive dystopia for everyone.”

Such reinforcement can easily boost our feelings of ‘being correct’, reinforcing our biases and diluting self-criticism.  This reinforcement cycle is very effective at supporting a ‘dogmatism’ in which every issue is painted in black and white, and addressed only at the extremes.  Indignation therefore works to different degrees, from the logical observation and simple disapproval of actions which we do not approve, to the extreme cited by David Brin, author and social critic:

“.. knowing, with subjective certainty, that you are right and your opponents are deeply, despicably wrong.”

   Even the most casual read of current social media shows the prevalence of such extreme thinking.  The proof of such a conclusion is only reinforced by the volume of ‘likes’ that flow back in and complete the reinforcement.

It is even clearer in our social and political activity.   Opponents are demonized, cataclysmic consequences are predicted from their proposals, pronouncements are structured to insure a maximum of outrage, conspiracies are spun and reinforced, and it is all amplified and reinforced through the power of the internet.

Why Should It Feel So Good to Feel Bad?

There are several studies that can be found on the internet that show the direct relationship between anger, indignation and rage, and the increase in activity of dopamine and other pleasure-inducing ‘messenger’ chemicals in the brain.  Several of these studies show that, for those who frequently give in to rage (an extreme form of indignation), “nothing makes them happier than getting angry.  Rage can actually feel quite exhilarating.”  The pleasurable sensation at work in such feelings is generally ascribed to the effects of dopamine.

The secretion of these drugs is no longer a mystery.  It is generally understood that the production of these ‘neurotransmitter’ drugs emanates in the ‘lower’ brains (those formed earlier in evolution), and is therefore common to all vertebrates.  Their importance to evolution is also clear: they provide pleasurable feedback to activities essential to survival and therefore continued evolution.  While much pleasurable feedback stems from the body itself (sex, eating, etc), dopamine provides pleasure from just thinking about such activity.  Since some activity which insures survival requires anger (defensiveness), it is not surprising that anger should activate the production of these neurotransmitters.

Since these ‘messenger chemicals’ are provided to the neocortex brain, the center of objective reasoning, there can be competition between the pleasurable sensation invoked by the neurotransmitters and the objective process of reasoning which tries to establish the appropriate response to the external stimuli which set off the response to begin with.

I may initially respond to a casual comment from a friend with the sensation of anger arising from the vagueness of the comment.  “Have I been insulted?”  This sensation arrives at the neocortex much quicker than it can process the appropriate response.  “What exactly was said?  What is he intending?  Should I be angry?”

One way to look at the skill of such neocortex activity required for the appropriate response is to recognize that as we grow,  the lower brains begin to stimulate our neocortices long before they are mature.  The neocortex is generally considered to mature by age twenty, but we are embedded in the often confusing context of families, friends, and schools for most of those twenty years.  If our environment is consistently filled with fear, anger and danger, the influence of the ‘lower brains’ on our eventual neocortex skills will be much stronger than if we are more surrounded by affection and safety.

I have suggested several times in this blog that one of the critical skills necessary for our continued personal evolution is that of using our neocortex brains to modulate the stimuli of the lower brains.  Here we can see such a process clarified in neurological terms.  Other human thinking processes also are clarified as well, such as thinking with both sides of the brain to avoid dualisms, and thinking objectively to avoid egoism.  In both cases the neocortex is required to ‘ride herd’ on the stimuli rising from the lower brains in order to manage a perspective which is appropriate to the objective reality which is at the base of the external stimuli.

That said, how can we quantify the ‘evolutionary risk’ of ‘indignation’?  What difference does it make if we allow ourselves the pleasure of basking in the glow of our neurotransmitter activity?

The Next Post

This week we took a look at how our instinctive responses to things we disapprove of can be pleasurable, and how there can be a conflict between such ‘knee jerk’ reactions and reactions more appropriate to the external stimuli.

Next week we will look into how this natural and common phenomena can turn into practices which can jeopardize our continuing evolution.

April 4 2019 – What’s New About Today’s Unprecedented Pessimism?

Leave a reply

Today’s Post

Last week we began to take a look at what first seems to be a new ‘dualism’, which, when set against all the traditional dualisms we have examined (spirit/matter, this life/the next, sin/grace, damnation/salvation) first appears as just one more.  As we saw, the hard edges of such dualisms begin to crumble into a ‘spectrum of the real’ when we hold up the universal evolution perspectives of Teilhard, Rohr and others.  As we saw with Jonathan Sacks, such dualisms simply represent an unbalanced approach to reality in which one side of the brain dominates our thoughts by prioritizing, for instance, such things as empiricism over intuition or intuition over facts.  From Sacks’ perspective, such dualisms simply represent the difficulty of “thinking with the whole brain”, and begin to resolve themselves as we become more adept, for example, at looking at both sides of an issue.

Is this new negativity, this pushback against reasoned discourse which reveals itself in such deep and  coarse sociological divisions as can be seen in today’s politics and social media, just one more ‘dualism’ which can be resolved by applying Teilhard’s evolutive hermeneutic?  Or is it quite different, and indicative of a deeper, more insidious and therefore stronger threat to our continued evolution?

This week we will peer more deeply into this modern phenomenon.

The Persistence of Indignation

There’s obviously nothing new about ‘indignation’.  Indignation is simply the emotion we attach to disapproval of the actions of others.  It is well described in our earliest forms of literature, as is the different actions and sensations that it incites in us.

We have addressed in this blog the many ways that our ‘triune’ brain affects our perceptions and provide stimuli to our actions, but to summarize:

The ‘reptilian’ brain resides in the brain stem, and was the first brain to be formed in the animal family.  It controls the most basic animal functions, such as breathing (even when we’re unconscious).  It is also responsible for ‘fight or flight’ stimuli, letting us know when we’re hungry, and as an impetus for reproduction.  In its ‘fight or flight’ stimuli it warns of danger to insure our safety.  As such, it is the root of many of our ‘negative’ emotions, such as fear and anger.

The ‘limbic’ or ‘mammalian’ brain is more recent, ‘layered’ on top of the ‘reptilian’ brain, and is more responsible for emotions and sensations of pleasure that come from being socially connected.  The ‘reptilian’ brain provides the instinct to procreate, but the young are left to hatch from untended eggs and are left on their own to mature.  The ‘limbic’ brain introduces a post-natal period in which the young are nurtured until some degree of autonomy is attained, in keeping with their more complex neural systems and the resultant longer gestation periods.  Such ‘social’ instincts are not only essential to the maturation of the individual, but go on to provide (in the higher primates) the structures of society in which individuals can override the ‘individual survival’ stimuli of the reptilian brain in favor of the ‘survival’ of the family or social group.

The ‘neocortex’ brain is the most recent of the ‘brain layers’, and the most complex.  It introduces the ability to have knowledge of our awareness, and to process this knowledge independently of the stimuli produced by the lower brains.

All three ‘brains’ are capable of ‘self-medication’.   Apparently, all three levels of the brain are capable of producing such chemicals as dopamine and other messenger chemicals that are active in mediating pleasure response.   This is evolution’s way of rewarding activity which is consistent with the brain’s awareness of its surroundings and productive of activity which increases the individual’s evolutionary potential.  Our days are filled with such sensations, from the reward our brain provides when the solution of the morning crossword pops into our head to the pleasure of a close relationship.

But, like all things in the human evolutionary spectrum such a natural and necessary flow of neurological energy can work to ends less appropriate to the continuation of human evolution.

The Danger of Indignation

As we have stated, there are few subjects easier recognized than indignation.   It is commonly experienced in our increasingly fast-paced culture, which seems to require a nearly endless increase in patience and forbearance to survive with any equanimity at all.  No matter what accommodation we have achieved with our constantly changing mileu, the next day will require even more.

At the same time, we are subjected to an endless barrage of data, much of it irrelevant and difficult to sift in ‘real time’.  We are often called on to take actions the consequences of which are unknown.

One seeming effect of such a kinetic existence is an increase in the friction between persons resulting in being thrown into increasingly close proximity and requiring increasing tolerance if social balance is to be maintained.

As the social critic, David Brin, observes:

“We have entered an era of rising ideological division and a “culture war” that increasingly stymies our knack at problem-solving. Nowadays, few adversarial groups seem capable of negotiating peaceful consensus solutions to problems, especially with opponents that are perceived as even more unreasonably dogmatic than they are. This cycle is often driven by the irate stubbornness of a few vigorous leaders. After all, the indignant have both stamina and dedication, helping them take high positions in advocacy organizations, from Left to Right.”

   The resultant ‘culture war’ that Brin identifies can be clearly seen in today’s news: the ‘we vs they’ nature of immigration debates, the tendency to ‘demonize’ opponents on the left or right, and the inability to arrive at consensus on any subject, as if the middle of the road has somehow become the edge of oblivion.

The statesmanlike attributes of empathizing with opponents, accepting criticism, or negotiating practical solutions to problems, so prized by the framers of our constitution, seem to be in scant supply today.  History shows that without them, the state lurches into a one-sided approach to everything, which no matter ‘left’ or ‘right’ eventually becomes unresponsive to democratic norms and destructive of individual and collective freedom.

The rapidly changing nature of our society, with its current trend of tightening our bonds through ever more immediate connectivity, can act as a media for both improving our grasp of reality in such a way as to enhance our reaction to it, and at the same time as a media for increasing our pessimism that evolution is actually moving us forward.  What is it about this current phenomenon that makes it so risky?

 

The Next Post

This week we looked a little closer at how human ‘complexification’ seems to require human compression, and how if we fail to understand this and put it into perspective, our continued human evolution as entities able to ‘think with both sides of their brain’ seems to be at risk.

Next week we will look more closely at what seems to be going on inside our heads as we deal with the risks of indignation.