In my previous entry on models, I was exploring to some degree the limitations of all models: the ways in which they can reveal or expose tensions, but not necessarily guarantee that these tensions will be resolved. Years ago, I remember reading from H.G. Wells the idea that all of us live alongside a horse and a crocodile--referring, I believe, to different parts of the brain, one human, one mammalian, and one reptilian. What he was suggesting is that even if we have this perfect way of describing what happens in the brain or how it has evolved, this is not in any way meaning that the three 'parts' of the brain will start chatting amiably amongst the others! The fact of the matter is that it might very well go in the opposite direction, namely to divide the mind into artificial compartments, under the illusion that they were ever 'separate' to begin with. This can be quite dangerous, because it ends up being that we invariably prefer one component to the others.
To use an example, in Harris's book I'm OK, You're OK, there are three parts of interactions: Parent, Adult and Child. While the Parent refers to all those demands (shoulds) that we have accumulated since childhood, such as "All good people should go to university!". "Child" refers to the sense of wanting to be stroked, protected or reassured, in a state of dependence. The "Adult" is thought to be the intermediary of sorts, with the added advantage of rationality, ability to plan, and awareness of religious and moral traditions at its disposal. This model sounds quite good, but as I read it, I start to realize that most of the functioning that we would normally consider crucial to mature responsible functioning is coming from the rational adult. Somehow, it overlooks the complicated questions of what goes into the social construction of an adult being. Do adults just emerge spontaneously from age and cognitive development, or is there a role that certain kinds of socialization can have in the kinds of adults there are in the world? Is there only one stereotypical "adult" or are there many varieties of adulthood?
The more I start to dig into it, the less certain I am that there is such a thing as a universally understood "adult" that transcends all cultural differences and traditions. This model is quite fine in presenting a way to, again, mediate between the demands of inner parents and children, but beyond that, it leaves the field very much open to what would constitute mature adulthood. In this sense, the model has value, but it isn't necessarily comprehensive in terms of explaining all the conflicts that occur in adult life.
All systematic ways of thinking seem to have this limitation: they emphasize certain things that are challenges, but they are often vague when it comes to what the ideal happens to be. This is perhaps because good is always an elusive thing to define, and it's not so easy as simply removing 'bad' obstacles. From a contemplative perspective, most of the wholesome qualities one can embody are not positive things one acquires but are actually what are arrived at through a process of self-emptying and openness. To take one example: being 'good listener' is not something one acquires through some special mental act or concentration. Rather, it is a process of opening up to someone else's experiences with an attitude of non-judgmental awareness. If I try to consciously 'be a good listener', the concept itself (or the plan) actually becomes the object of my focus, which draws me away from the people with whom I am listening. Sadly, alas, this is also the case with most so-called 'virtues'--the more a person strives to cultivate them, the more they elude grasping, because they draw us away from the actions and relationships where virtue can truly manifest.
Harris, Thomas A. (1969). I'm OK-You're OK. New York: Avon
No comments:
Post a Comment