On Cognitive Dissonance
Have been busy lately, and not so much time to think. Which is good I guess, because my brain is spinning... You take it too much information to handle and it explodes your framework, your "grid" for classifying and dealing with the world. It's exhilarating at first, and then it gets exhausting, because every new fact/opinion about the world has to be considered in relation to every other contradictory fact/opinion that I've read or heard, and not just slotted neatly into its place or rejected if it doesn't fit.
I'm not really bothered about it, because having that framework isn't worth the cognitive dissonance of contemplating anything that contradicts this grid. This way, I get to think about whatever I like, from whatever point of view I find most interesting, and I'm not bound by it. Maybe it's a relic of my old scientific materialism, but once in a while I start thinking along the lines of "but what's REALLY the underlying reality?" and then the bottom falls out of my mind. That's when I have to focus on something shallow and inane, like web comics and candy, until the void goes away.
I don't know what framework could ever work for me. I guess, growing up in a family of scientists, I have a hunger for "how" answers. At the same time, my research in philosophy and my years-long investigation of religion have left me with a thirst for "why" answers. I also like to think of them as "because" and "so that" answers. For example, life exists on earth "because" atoms combined into molecules and finally into self-replicating proteins and strands of RNA in Earth's oceans. But life exists "so that" it can glorify God (or whatever). The first kind of answer is specific, and could have been different, i.e. life might have taken a different evolutionary path so that humans would have scales and wings. The second kind of answer is eternal and universal. Ken Wilber would say that the first is a "right quadrant" answer, i.e. exterior and objective, and the second is a "left quadrant" answer, interior and subjective. In any case, I find that most schools of thought (except for Ken Wilber's Integral theory and a few others) focus more on one type of truth.
It's hard to connect the two, and I find that most people tend to polarize. My brother, for example, is pure scientific materialist: he's an atheist and believes that reality is deterministic and free will is an illusion. My best friend, on the other hand, lives purely on her intuition and emotions and believes that God regularly violates the laws of nature to create miracles and heal people. I find my brother's viewpoint unprofitable: so I don't really have free will? Are the thoughts I'm thinking right now an illusion, too? What is the point of believing that my whole subjective experience doesn't really exist, and that I have no influence on anything? And my best friend's point of view just feels messy and disorganized to me. Why would any God create laws just to violate them?
To me, it seems like my brother lacks curiosity and my best friend lacks critical thinking. Neither of these is something I can "turn off." I'm reminded of a quotation from a Robert Heinlein novel: "You can bask in the warm fire of faith, or stand in the cold wind of reason, but you can't have both." Who says you can't have both? I want both. I'll never be happy if I have to choose one or the other.
And then there's morality, which sort of falls under philosophy and religion but has less to do with ultimate perfect causes than with messy interim solutions. It seems like the older I get, the angrier I am at the state of the world. Climate change, the oil running out, children starving, wars, ethnic cleansing, stupid ignorant people in America... I guess part of me is angry that here I am, living in a nice house with running water and electricity and 3 floors, paying my way through school with a fun easy job. I'm angry that I'm better off than 95% of the world, but in my day-to-day life I live abundantly, just like everyone else. I argue passionately with my brother and sister, whose litany seems to be that "yeah, life's unfair, but nothing ever changes so you might as well enjoy your side of things." And my mother: "People die in revolutions, you know." I guess ultimately I'm angry that I'm young and idealistic and sheltered and naive to think that I can make a difference. But I don't want to end up in cynicism and apathy either. I guess I just hate human nature right now, because it feels like out of all of our problems, that's the one we cant solve.
And no, I don't know how to link that with being a born-again Christian, or a nursing student, or a kid fascinated by science. I don't know what the rest of my life is going to look like, because I don't know what I believe.
I'm not really bothered about it, because having that framework isn't worth the cognitive dissonance of contemplating anything that contradicts this grid. This way, I get to think about whatever I like, from whatever point of view I find most interesting, and I'm not bound by it. Maybe it's a relic of my old scientific materialism, but once in a while I start thinking along the lines of "but what's REALLY the underlying reality?" and then the bottom falls out of my mind. That's when I have to focus on something shallow and inane, like web comics and candy, until the void goes away.
I don't know what framework could ever work for me. I guess, growing up in a family of scientists, I have a hunger for "how" answers. At the same time, my research in philosophy and my years-long investigation of religion have left me with a thirst for "why" answers. I also like to think of them as "because" and "so that" answers. For example, life exists on earth "because" atoms combined into molecules and finally into self-replicating proteins and strands of RNA in Earth's oceans. But life exists "so that" it can glorify God (or whatever). The first kind of answer is specific, and could have been different, i.e. life might have taken a different evolutionary path so that humans would have scales and wings. The second kind of answer is eternal and universal. Ken Wilber would say that the first is a "right quadrant" answer, i.e. exterior and objective, and the second is a "left quadrant" answer, interior and subjective. In any case, I find that most schools of thought (except for Ken Wilber's Integral theory and a few others) focus more on one type of truth.
It's hard to connect the two, and I find that most people tend to polarize. My brother, for example, is pure scientific materialist: he's an atheist and believes that reality is deterministic and free will is an illusion. My best friend, on the other hand, lives purely on her intuition and emotions and believes that God regularly violates the laws of nature to create miracles and heal people. I find my brother's viewpoint unprofitable: so I don't really have free will? Are the thoughts I'm thinking right now an illusion, too? What is the point of believing that my whole subjective experience doesn't really exist, and that I have no influence on anything? And my best friend's point of view just feels messy and disorganized to me. Why would any God create laws just to violate them?
To me, it seems like my brother lacks curiosity and my best friend lacks critical thinking. Neither of these is something I can "turn off." I'm reminded of a quotation from a Robert Heinlein novel: "You can bask in the warm fire of faith, or stand in the cold wind of reason, but you can't have both." Who says you can't have both? I want both. I'll never be happy if I have to choose one or the other.
And then there's morality, which sort of falls under philosophy and religion but has less to do with ultimate perfect causes than with messy interim solutions. It seems like the older I get, the angrier I am at the state of the world. Climate change, the oil running out, children starving, wars, ethnic cleansing, stupid ignorant people in America... I guess part of me is angry that here I am, living in a nice house with running water and electricity and 3 floors, paying my way through school with a fun easy job. I'm angry that I'm better off than 95% of the world, but in my day-to-day life I live abundantly, just like everyone else. I argue passionately with my brother and sister, whose litany seems to be that "yeah, life's unfair, but nothing ever changes so you might as well enjoy your side of things." And my mother: "People die in revolutions, you know." I guess ultimately I'm angry that I'm young and idealistic and sheltered and naive to think that I can make a difference. But I don't want to end up in cynicism and apathy either. I guess I just hate human nature right now, because it feels like out of all of our problems, that's the one we cant solve.
And no, I don't know how to link that with being a born-again Christian, or a nursing student, or a kid fascinated by science. I don't know what the rest of my life is going to look like, because I don't know what I believe.