Entertaining and—yes—enlightening!
The title of this book is something of a joke. On one level the book is an elaboration on Michael Gazzaniga’s discovery in the 1970s that the verbal left brain “interprets” what the right brain experiences as well as rationalizes or denies any cognitive dissidence that might occur. The left brain tells the story; sometimes the story is true, sometimes it isn’t. I am reminded of the title of another popular psychology book recently published entitled, “Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)” by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. The subtitle of that book is “Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts.” Here Slippery Rock University psychology Professor Chris Niebauer is concerned with the flip side of their thesis, namely the “mistakes” of self-improvement and enlightenment or rather the impossibility of self-improvement and enlightenment.
On another level this book is a kind of tongue-in-cheek dissertation on the Buddhist idea of no-self, although Niebauer uses the term “ego” instead of self. We get a clear hint about Niebauer’s satirical intent from the drawing on the cover of a not exactly serene Buddha with his left eye comically popped open as he sits in meditation. The subtitle of the book, “How the Left-brain Plays Unending Games of Self-improvement,” highlights the fact that you can’t be something or somebody you aren’t. If you practice some form of self-improvement and you improve, well you were that person anyway and couldn’t have done otherwise. Niebauer’s real thesis is there is no such thing as free-will. There is no self; instead we are a collection of neurons and brain modules and flesh, blood and bone that act like swarm intelligence. We think we make decisions but in fact the brain modules come to a swarm consensus and act. We imagine that “we,” whoever we might be, made a decision and acted.
Another way to express the subtitle is to realize that what we do most of the time in our lives is rationalize, deny and pretend while imagining that we are acting. Another way of saying this is “We don’t do; we are done.”
The point about avoiding enlightenment and any kind of self-improvement is part of the joke. To repeat: how can you improve yourself in any way if you do not have free will? Indeed how can you improve yourself when there is no self to improve? And furthermore how can you improve yourself when brain modules are initiating the action, and improvement and enlightenment are illusions. This, by the way, is a very Zen kind of position. No philosophizing, no intellectualizing, no sutras to study and glean. Instead drank water, light fire, cook rice.
In reading the book there is a bit of jargon and some technical vocabulary to get used to such as “law of opposition,” “pattern perceiver,” “left-brain interpreter,” “neural representation,” etc. But Niebauer writes well and concretely for the most part (although he needs to work on the typos, missing words and missing apostrophes). I come from part of the tradition that he presents, that of Zen Buddhism, yoga and Taoism, and I’m familiar with the kind of terminology used there but not with that of contemporary psychology which is what Niebauer uses extensively. Instead of his “egoic” self, in Buddhism there is just self, or actually no-self. In yoga there is atman and anatman.
I wonder if part of the reason for some of the obscurity and cuteness of Niebauer’s expression is due to the disagreeable fact that few people including the institutions of society want to believe that there is no responsible self and that we do not have free will. It’s the kind of awkward truth that is socially and political incorrect since society demands that people be held responsible for their actions.
Now I happened to agree with most of what Niebauer has to say although I express these ideas in a different and more straight-forward way in my book, “The World Is Not as We Think It Is,” which naturally I recommend. I also write more tersely than Niebauer although perhaps not as cleverly. Niebauer is writing a symphony on a theme while I’m just interested in the theme.
A strange thing is that I almost didn’t read this book. I’m glad I did because it is paradoxically enlightening (despite Professor Niebauer’s best efforts!). He reinforced something that I learned some years ago that has given me comfort with, and insight into, the human condition. His “no improvement” mantra strongly suggests that we accept ourselves and reality as they are and live as much as possible in the here and now.
His sometimes inexact expression (at least to my mind) is what at first put me off. Here are four examples of what I mean:
One page one he asserts that the “me” that we are all familiar with doesn’t exist in “the way we were taught it does.” He adds, “Rather, there is only the thought that it exists.”
But I don’t think this is correct. Something more than the thought does exist. What doesn’t exist is our mistaken idea of the self; however something does exist that we see as the self, and that entity is made of atoms of various elements configured into something we call a human being which of course is part of a larger community and so on.
On page two he writes, “…nothing is really scary or problematic if you are in the now.” This makes sense only if we could actually exist in the now, that is in no time. Of course nothing could be scary or problematic since nothing could be discerned at all! In the eternal now there is no movement, no neurons firing, not even the movement of photons of light.
What really threw me off was his “law of invincible opposition.” He doesn’t define it but he gives many examples of the law at work. When you try not to worry, you worry more; nice people turn out to be nasty, and vice-versa; “if you are a jerk the world loves you. Love the world and one way or another, it will crucify you.” (p. 7) I think this “law” is far from universal and is indeed false for most people.
In another example he asks on page 49 “whether the images in a movie are in the film or rather on the screen…” and answers …”neither, they only exist when an awareness is watching…” However the images actually do exist independent of an observer. Their patterns of light and darkness can affect molecules in the air however minutely. What he should be saying I believe is that the interpretation of the light patterns toward some kind of recognizable meaning such as people walking on a beach or trains being blown up, etc. is in the mind of the observer.
This way of writing is probably just hurried or perhaps Niebauer is being cute. I can remind him that the left- brain interpreter is just an artificial abstraction, but that would not mean that it doesn’t refer to something real. What is real is the behavior of the neurons and modules in the left brain that direct us toward certain behaviors while avoiding others. Call it what you will. I call it left-brain module swarm intelligence (or sometimes lack thereof).
Some other issues and insights:
“Categorized” means in the context of this book and in Niebauer’s thought the opposite of a continuously, inter-connected reality. Realizing that everything is “one” is the opposite of seeing “categories” or differentiations. Categories are parts. They are things. They are nouns. Reality, which we can never experience directly, is infinitely connected. Reality is an event. Reality is a verb. We only experience a representation of reality as presented by our senses processed by our brains and nervous system.
In the chapter entitled “Myths as Grand Patterns across Time,” Niebauer talks about living in the moment without thinking about the past or the future. He notes, “Unless you are in physical pain, it is likely that your response will be nothing is wrong…There is nothing to fix, nothing to work on nothing to attain, no grail to search for and no place to go.” He adds, “In this practice we can experience the stillness of things being fine as they are.” (p. 59)
This is true, although not so easy to attain; in fact, what I find especially interesting is the fact that earlier in the book Niebauer writes that he failed at meditation or “didn’t get anything out of it” (p. 2) not realizing that the stillness of living in the moment is what meditation is all about, and in experiencing the pure moment without fear or pain or any kind of urgency, one experiences the bliss. The trick is to actually be aware of what you are experiencing and to stay in the moment.
Here’s a nice one: Niebauer mentions a “jerk” in front of you “going too slow.” (Precursor to road rage?) Then he asks, “Can you see it is just the universe dancing?” Ah, yes, we all need to just see the pure perception without any complaining, which brings me to this thought: Reading the chapter entitled “A Day Without Complaints” might lead to some good personal psychology, no complaining—maybe even self-improvement and enlightenment!
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”