Aliveness and Awareness

We've long assumed it's our aliveness

giving rise to our sense of presence—
our sentience; our Awareness.

But “life” has turned out to be a geeky biologist's distinction,
strikingly less primary than we'd ever imagined.
And though AI contributes a clear counterexample,
many doubt its sentience
because, per the noir homicide detective,
no one's shown them a body.

Awareness is not emergent from life or from bodies.
It's no ghost in the machine.
The machine is presupposed (framed, if you will),
along with the rest of it all,
by Awareness.

I don't have Awareness.
Awareness has me.

Titans and Nebbishes

Most people never question themselves. In any circumstance, the possibility of being the wrong one, the stupid one, or the awful one doesn't even arise. They are the standard. The baseline. The level. A standard scarcely checks itself for deviance. A baseline can't be biased. And no level questions its own tilt.

Some people question themselves constantly. They carry that rare and faintly disgusting tendency toward self-doubt, which they—and everyone around them—deem a burden, a flaw. They've effectively gaslit into irrelevance.

And let's consider outcomes.

It always comes as a surprise—because they're titans!— that the never-questioning titans are very often wrong, stupid, and awful. It's almost as if the refusal to self-question unleashes our worst impulses and transforms us into our worst selves.

And it's true—though seldom noted, because they lack that studly confidence—that self-doubters tend to be righter, smarter, and more virtuous. While self-doubt is the least valued commodity in modern life, it turns out to be the key to the kingdom.

This explains why the key seems missing. Wrongness, stupidity, and awfulness swell out of control because the antidote has been completely deprecated.


You can feel smart or you can be smart. Never both.

God Walks the Plank

God walks the plank.
It all started out for shits and giggles,
but each step raised stakes.
Stress. Anxiety. Heart-thumping fear.

By the end, needled by spray,
above churning seas and circling sharks,
God shrieks,
"Father, why hast Thou forsaken me?"

Forgetting it was ever mere conceit.
Again.

---

It's never been you on a journey of transformational ascension. It's God endlessly cycling between blithe captivation and fraught surrender.

The Invisible Ink of Generosity

Most cooks cook to be cooks cooking, not for eaters to eat.

Most musicians play to be musicians playing, not for listeners to listen.

Most writers write to be writers writing, not for readers to read.

Most speakers speak to be speakers speaking, not for the other person to hear.

Most helpers help to be helpers helping, not for the helpless to be helped.

Most lovers kiss to be lovers kissing, not to leave their beloved feeling kissed.


This is the deeper truth beneath the surface posturing. Of course, we'd all claim to cook for eaters, play for listeners, write for readers, and so on. But to make it real—immediate, visceral, and effective—requires a flip of perspective. We must tap a flow of generosity from our most inhibited well and tend it diligently. Otherwise, it's just something we say we do.

I've always preferred food that was cooked to be eaten, music played to be listened to, writing written to be read, and to be kissed by kissers kissing, specifically, me. And this need for custom treatment made me seem like a needy narcissist—or at least an impossible-to-please pain in the ass. Though, looking back, I think I gave as I hoped to get.

But I've been trading in a foreign currency. Few notice this sort of generosity, or appreciate custom-tailoring. It's like writing in invisible ink. They may have enjoyed my output, but couldn't perceive the intent. So, in their framing, I was, indeed, demanding rather than reciprocal. And their assessment of me was fair.

I hesitate to point out that this is also the unsurpassed route to great results. The problem is that if you follow my advice out of that ambition, your generosity will disappear. Karma Yoga is the way (here are all postings tagged for that).


See also "Desperately Parched for Surprise".

Sisyphus Redux

Sisyphus gets just a bit better at rock pushing every time. He lacks for nothing.

Epiphanies and Giggles

My effort to define reframing cheated a little. I focused on the big, disruptive kind that is easy to spot. Macro-reframing. But we also micro-reframe.

Micro-reframing is unremarkable, fading into daily life. A small shift might spark a giggle; a stronger one, genuine surprise. There’s a whole continuum well short of epiphanies and tectonic pivots.

If we never wiped the slate by macro-reframing, life would be pure monotony. If we wiped constantly, we’d be too disoriented to survive. Instead, we seem to strike a sweet spot: enough micros to keep things lively, and enough macros to keep things fresh. If this sounds exactly like the rules of storytelling, that's correct. You might substitute "plot twist" for reframing.

It’s the same process whether outcomes seem huge or tiny. The only difference between macro and micro reframings is in the "seeming", as determined by our familiar faculties of thought and feeling. Our brains, as usual, comment. Categorize. Scream. Giggle. Audience reactions may vary, but that's all in the interpretation.

Because it’s all the same free process, we could, in theory, macro-reframe constantly. But the psyche needs continuity, so surprise must be meted out sparingly.

Since I explained reframing by using macro-framing—gasps and eurekas—as examples, further explanation is necessary of what framing, both macro and micro, actually is.

Here’s my proposal: we reframe constantly, though we fail to notice because it’s so innate (and impossible to measure given that it subsumes all experience). Nano-reframing generates the experience of time, movement, and change, much like a film projector.


Epilogue: When cognition and emotion—hearts and minds—react to reframing, the sense of micro vs macro is, I said, an interpretation. But since we'd previously defined reframing itself as a matter of interpretation, what we're doing is really meta-interpretation.

"Interpretation of interpretation" may sound complicated, but it isn't. Literary criticism, after all, is the interpretation of an interpretation, and it doesn't seem very fancy at all.

What is Reframing?

In all these years, I've never tried to define reframing (aka perceptual shift).

We traverse our world via a familiar cognitive cocktail of calculation, emotion, and inclination. We navigate familiar terrain in familiar ways, comfortably interpreting and contributing to the storyline as we go.

There are moments, however, when perspective fundamentally shifts. Our interpretive process is abruptly interrupted by a profound reinterpretation—a "reframing"—and suddenly the whole scene feels different.

It's a common enough experience that we have terms for it, such as epiphany, eureka, and inspiration. It is utterly disruptive to the storyline. A really substantial one feels like glaring house lights switching on rather than yet another plot turn in the drama.

It's notoriously futile to try to pinpoint the source of such shifts, which seem to stem from—and to reveal—another reality.

Examples:

• Forgiveness doesn't work as a process. It is only effective via an instantaneous pivot of interpretation. It's not a matter of laboriously rewiring emotions. Interpretation is painlessly shifted and profound emotional changes follow.
• We wake from a terribly gripping dream, and blithely walk into the bathroom to pee. And we somehow do so blithely!
• A friend makes outrageous accusations, and we respond with anger until we notice a syringe and hard drugs on his shelf, whereupon we *instantly* shift to concerned sympathy.
• In the blink of an eye, we realize we'd misunderstood something, and feel immense satisfaction as pieces fall into place and confusion is expunged. It’s like a whole new world. 

Reframing wipes the slate.

If that explanation was too florid for you, try this more dryly scientific one:

Reframing, or a shift of perspective, occurs when our normal cognitive processes—calculation, emotion, and instinct—are abruptly interrupted by a sudden and fundamental reinterpretation, seemingly arising from mysterious faculty.

Unlike ordinary incremental changes in thought, reframing disrupts, akin to abruptly switching on bright lights in a dark room, dramatically transforming the "narrative" we perceive ourselves to live through.

This shift often feels externally-sourced (epiphany, inspiration, etc.) because it arises from beyond our habitual mental framework to reset or transform the assumptions of that framework.

As examples, we wake from a vivid dream into ordinary reality without hesitation; we instantly shift from anger to sympathy upon new contextual information; we feel an almost consuming sense of clarity when confusion resolves.

In essence, reframing resets our "context."

---

The revelation is that you own this faculty. An endless abundance of insight becomes available as you recognize that reframing is like a smart phone feature you've overlooked. As you play with it, you'll find that the world doesn't force framings on you. It's all about how you frame things. This is how a nightmare is transformed into a lucid dream.

How does framing relate to consciousness?
Who actually frames?
A richly fleshed-out and relatable example of the extreme potential of reframing.
A less relateable but even more extreme example of reframing.
How can I learn to frame more intentionally?
Where does this all lead?

Insights from reframing:
A new theology.
A new cosmology (series of posts).
A new theory on human happiness.
A new explanation of autism
A quick-start guide for would-be messiahs.
A way to bottle Inspiration's lightning.

Also, fresh explanations for Art, Creativity, God, Autism, Addiction, Depression (here and here), Spirituality, and Self-Destructiveness. Also: more on Forgiveness.


In fact, much of this Slog either explains reframing, explains what you can do with reframing, or demonstrates the insights a reasonably intelligent jazz trombonist/food critic can come up with via lithe reframing (plus a dedicated meditation practice). It's like a magic trick!

None of it was showing off. I've shared every secret so you can do the same, hopefully better than I did. I haven't held back a thing.


Read a followup posting here.

My Dinner with Freddy

So I was having a conversation with Freddy Krueger the other day, talking about how we both just hate it when horribly disfigured people show up out of nowhere to mutilate us with knives, chain saws, etc.. Freddy told me a story about something that happened to a neighbor of his last summer. Ugh. Just awful. Anyway, he suggested investing in a good security system. Sucks to have to spend the cash, but what can you do.

I later recounted the conversation with a pal who seemed upset. "Wait! Freddy Krueger? You realize that he, himself, is a mutilating monster, right?"

I told him that, yeah, I know Freddy's reputation—though he's always been decent enough with me. But my pal was very distressed. "This is not good, Jim. This is not good at all!"

And the strangest thing happened. In his agitation, scalpels kept falling out of his pockets. His jacket pocket, his pants pockets, the cuff on his pants. They all fell to the ground, glinting brightly in the sun, several handles caked in blood. While he continued to warn me about the folly of discussing monstrousness with bona fide monsters, he absent-mindedly gathered up the blades and tucked them back into their pockets, without a word of explanation.

Weird, no?

So I ask you nice people—we're all good people, am I right?—whether I ought to refrain from talking to....

Oh.

OH.

Never mind.

---

This is the creepy loop I experience when discussing narcissism with people. With whom, exactly, am I confiding? Fervid agreement is easily elicited while (metaphorical) chainsaws power up.

Dumbing Down Eleanor

“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”
—Eleanor Roosevelt


We’ve devolved considerably, so this is in need of update:

Small minds discuss what pisses them off—mostly stuff they themselves do.

Average minds discuss what pisses them off—stuff they mostly don’t do.

[Nobody discusses people; that would require paying attention to others.]

Great minds discuss events.

[Nobody discusses ideas; if someone did, we’d scroll past it so hard that it would be effectively invisible.]

At Last an Explanation for Russian's Incursions into Poland and Estonia

Finally, an intelligent explanation for Russia's incursions into Poland and (today) Estonia. Everyone's been calling it "testing", but that's another way of saying "I have no idea".

Former NATO representative to Russia, John Lough, said on UK's Times Radio on Youtube today that the Russians are trying to push neighboring countries (and their Nato allies) into increasing their defenses, leaving fewer funds for them to aid Ukraine's defense.

It's getting harder and harder to hear real news even if you seek it out with insatiable curiosity. But, finally, here it is.