by Greg Goode
Biswas-Diener urges us not to romanticize either one of these cultural styles. Either balance has its strengths and weaknesses. In individualistic cultures, loneliness can be a problem. In collectivistic cultures, people can be more materialistic because they see themselves to a greater extent through the eyes of other people, and status and status symbols rise in value.
The emptiness teachings do not privilege either balance. One needn’t be “Eastern” or “Western.” Rather, the emptiness teachings try to undermine the idea of an inherently existent self, regardless of whether it is construed in an individualist or collectivist way. In either way, the self can be recognized as empty while nevertheless being acknowledged as a useful fiction.
The usual Western ideas about the self don’t have to be problematic, as long as they are kept light and easy, not made too thick or substantial. A good way to avoid overly thickening the self is to become clear about one’s own assumptions about the self, and to make sure one thoroughly recognizes them as empty. For example, here are some values typically associated with an individualist culture:
The “I” is my identity.
Individual goals, such as initiative and achievement, are paramount.
Individual rights are seen to be the basis of group rights.
Personal independence is valued; this drive may be stronger than the drive to help others.
Being dependent on others can be seen as shameful.
Self-reliance is treasured.
If you are very interested in the emptiness approach while also valuing these notions of the self, there are ways you can see these values as empty and still useful. To be able to see these values as culturally influenced is already helpful. The fact that your own preference for individualism is not so much due to your personal choice but due to the “choice” your community made for you is an interesting point to ponder. You can also study the relation between culture and value. This helps you realize how values do not fall from the sky, but are dependent on other things. To realize this is to realize the emptiness of values. This realization makes values light and free, and just as valuable.
Conclusion
This middle way approach allows us to reap the benefits of having a conventional self, without incurring the suffering that comes with believing that the self truly exists.
As we will discuss in the final section, entitled “Living A Joyfully Empty Life,” the emptiness teachings do not dictate what kind of a conventional self you should embrace. Rather, what the emptiness teachings do is show how the conventional self is the only self there is, that there is no true self behind it. A self that is truly existent cannot be found, and is not needed in the first place! This realization of emptiness transforms the conventional self into something that is miraculously flexible, free and adaptable to conditions. No substantial self is ever born, and no substantial self will ever die. There is wonderful freedom and openness in this, as though nothing is impossible.
References
Hume, David (2000). A Treatise of Human Nature (Oxford Philosophical Texts). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., and Pearl, D. K. (1983). “Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act.” Brain, 106:623-642. See also Libet, B. (1985). “Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8:529-566.
Soon C. S., Brass M., Heinze H.-J., Haynes J.-D. (2008). Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 543–545.
Wegner, Daniel (2002). The Illusion of Conscious Will. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
CHAPTER 11 – DECONSTRUCTING PRESENCE
The target of refutation in this chapter is the privileged, foundational character that “presence” has in experience.
The notion of presence has served as an unassailable foundation in Western thinking. The world of experience is thought to be simply present to a living presence that is present to it. Presence thought of as the living present is analogous to the unmoving Cartesian subject. Presence comes to be thought of as the “I,” the self. This subject is supposedly oriented directly and face-to-face with experience. This presence and experience are two sides which are thought to be jointly co-present in a transparent meeting. This is thought to be how we experience the world. And yet, presence has been treated as unmovable, as independent of, and untouched by, the flux of experience. Many other categories of experience are held to derive from this basic presence, including the qualities of absence, diversity, difference, otherness and repetition.
Our approach is inspired by Jacques Derrida. In Speech and Phenomena (Derrida 1973) he argues that presence, instead of being independent of characteristics such as absence, diversity, difference, otherness and repetition, is actually constituted by them. Absence infects the very core of presence. Presence is not independent and foundational as is commonly believed. The condition of its possibility is the condition of its impossibility.
The appearing of the I to itself in the I am is thus originally a relation with its own possible disappearance.
Derrida (1973) (emphasis in the original)
How Does This Help?
When we think of presence as our separate, inner, subjective self that is independent of experience, we can feel separated, alienated and walled-off from the world and from others. And when the stability of this presence comes under threat, such as by disease or death, we suffer.
But when we see how presence is itself partly constituted by the experiences it meets with, we are realizing the emptiness of presence. This realization is able to reduce feelings of separation and alienation. The result is a greater feeling of connectedness. The heart opens to the possibility that the self is light, illusion-like and free, being dependent upon many other things. This realization also dismantles elitism, insularity and the walled-in feeling of the solitary Cartesian subject.
Meditations – The Emptiness of Presence
Mini-Meditation – This Room
Think of your presence in this room. Think of this room as an experience present to you. Your sense of presence is available to view, present at hand, here at zero distance from you.
Mini-Meditation – The Sense of Presence
In this meditation, take a slight step back and now think of the sense of presence that the room brought up. The sense of presence seems so present, so clear and so undeniable, that it may seem to be the basis for everything else. That is, it may seem like the background against which anything else happens. It may seem that other events or objects arise from this presence, but that this presence does not require those events or objects, but that this presence is pre-existent, and independent from them.
Mini-Meditation – Not Always Present
This sense of presence seems very basic and foundational. But take a moment to see how it actually isn’t always present. Sometimes other things are happening. You’re thinking about other things, or you’re walking or cooking or sleeping. But whenever the sense of presence arises, it feels simple, clear and present. Try to get in touch with this, how the sense of presence is often not there.
Mini-Meditation – Repeatable
Think of how this sense of presence is able to return.... Precisely because other experiences are intermittently present, this sense of presence is able to come back and back. It is repeatable. It arrives, and feels like the same presence each time. Think of all the times it repeats. All the times in the past. All the possible times in the future. Think even of all the times it seems able to come to others, not just yourself.
Mini-Meditation – Must Be Repeatable
Think about how this sense of presence doesn’t get exhaust ed in one appearance. It’s not like the aging Julie Andrews losing her voice on stage in Victor/Victoria. By itself, this sense of presence doesn’t have any qualities that make it impossible to reappear. The poss
ibility of re-appearance is built into it. In fact, if this sense of presence were not able to re-appear, it wouldn’t seem like a sense of presence in the first place.
If this sense were not logically able to appear ever again in history, it wouldn’t be regarded as a sense of something at all. But it seems very much like a kind of thing that can be repeated. In fact, you naturally think of it as something that is repeated. Repeatability is built into the very meaning of this sense of presence. In fact, this sense of presence in its fullness seems to be constituted by all of its possible appearances, however many or few. They are all regarded as instances of this same sense of presence.
Mini-Meditation – One at a Time
Out of all the possible repeated appearances of this sense of presence, only one appears to you at a time. Some are in the past, and some we expect to be in the future. When it does appear, it does so by appearing one at a time. The others are in the past or future. Think about how this seems altogether natural...
Mini-Meditation – Absence!
Think about what this means. Other than the present appearance, all the rest of the appearances are absent! If one is appearing, all the rest are absent. If one is not appearing, then all of them are still absent!
Mini-Meditation – Presence Constituted by its Own Absence
For presence to be what it’s regarded as being, it relies on absence. It relies on its own opposite. It relies on something that is as different and “other” as can be. Because of presence being constituted by its own non-presence, presence cannot be the basic, foundational bedrock of experience it is taken to be. It is constituted by a vast web. All experiences, concepts, thoughts, signs and words are the same – differing from their own presence, depending on their own absence, and deferred, never reaching completion. No appearance announces its identity as the final, ultimate stage....
Mini-Meditation – The Presence of the Present Thought
Contemplate the presence of a thought, feeling or sensation. Notice how it can’t be experienced as present unless it is also able to be thought of as absent before and after it appears. And notice the seeming distance between the act of observation and the observed thought (feeling or sensation) that seems to be present. It is almost as if you are observing the thought from somewhere else, which makes the thought at least a little less present. Contemplate how presence is not more basic than absence, but that they depend on each other.
Mini-Meditation – The Living Present
Previous mini-meditations were about a sense of presence. A sense is a coming-and-going experience. In this mini-meditation, we will contemplate presence itself. This presence is said to be not only what the senses indicate, but also what they are said to appear to.
Contemplate presence, the living present to which these experiences are said to appear. This living present is often taken to be the True Self, and to be your true nature and the foundation of all experience. The living present is thought of as the space within which present experiences appear. But the living present is either an appearing experience itself, or it is not. If the living present is an appearing experience, then the same insight applies to it as to the other experiences you have been examining. It is able to be present, and also able to be absent.
If the living present is not an experience, then it is constituted, defined and known by the experiences that do appear as sometimes present, and sometimes absent. Without any distinguishable and separable experience, the notion of a living present cannot arise and is not needed. And what about the gaps between individual experiences? During those gaps, there is also no direct evidence of a living present (nor any need for one). So in this way, even the living present is punctuated by the possibility of its own absences.
Presence depends on absence, by depending on appearances that are sometimes present and sometimes absent. If living presence depends on its own opposite, then we don’t conclude that it is nonexistent. Rather, we see that it is empty. It is empty because it is not self-sufficient, independent, fundamental, prior, original and foundational as it is usually taken to be.
Discussion
We think different things about what the nature of presence depends on. For example, we may think that (a) the nature of presence depends on some sort of transcendent presence that gives it meaning and value, such as an ideal or Platonic Form. Or we may think that (b) the nature of presence depends on the sum total of repeatable concrete instances of presence. But in either case, presence is actually depending on absence. If (a), then the present depends on an absent ideal or form, since what is transcendental doesn’t actually appear. If (b), then the present depends on absent instances of presence. In each case, presence depends on absence.
Therefore, absence characterizes presence. Presence cannot be what it is without absence. As Derrida might say, absence is the condition of possibility of presence, and also the condition of its impossibility.
Therefore, presence is not basic, foundational or independent as has been assumed. Presence depends on its opposite. By realizing this, even intellectually, we have realized the emptiness of presence. If we take this presence to be the self, then we have realized the emptiness of the self.
Further Meditations on the Self
Your Assumed Self
Think of what you normally take yourself to be. See how it is characterized by various signs, experiences, ideals, definitions and requirements. See how these are all repeatable. They occur by coming and going, by having come and gone, and in their ability to come again in the future. In this way, all experiences, thoughts, words and signs in general depend on their own absence. They are never fully there. They are also able to appear to someone other than yourself inter-subjectively. They are not independent or foundational, but empty because of relating to other things.
The Self is Not Enclosed
Notice how your very dependence on absence carries you outward and bursts the bubble of the self-enclosed self. It carries you towards other experiences and other people, whose identity and selfhood also depend on absence in the same way yours does. In this lack of foundation, everyone is the same. Notice how this realization of sameness opens the heart and may even produce a sense of compassion, commonality and community.
CHAPTER 12 – LIGHTENING UP YOUR SOCIAL WORLD
The targets in this chapter are:
Essentialism about gender, race, emotions, self and mental states
The objectivity of scientific knowledge, truth, the real and the good
Grand narratives.
This approach is inspired by the work of Kenneth Gergen, Michel Foucault, Ian Hacking, Thomas Kuhn and Jean-François Lyotard.
Social constructionism studies the ways in which many phenomena in our life are the result of social activities rather than being given by God or nature. When we see things with an eye towards their social and historical factors, they seem less inevitable and more open.
For example, by seeing how different cultures in our world have very different views, values, practices and self-understanding, we become more sensitive to how these things depend on culture. Then, these things seem less like they were dictated by nature or divine will.
For social constructionism, truth is seen as what “passes for truth” rather than as being something objective. As truth evolves and develops from human social practices, it is shaped by the interests of people. Those interests and the resulting truths can privilege one social group at the expense of another. Unmasking how truths develop and serve interest groups, and how they maintain societal power structures, is a form of ideological critique which often results in a call for social change. Quite often, there is a strong personal or social emancipatory element in social constructionism.
Even seemingly innocent truths, such as the natural sciences, can be shown to be created by social processes among scientists. What gets the stamp of “truth” can depend on rivalries among research groups, interests of funding agencies and so on. As Thomas Kuhn has shown, scientific progress is
driven by paradigm shifts that are often incommensurable with what prevailed before, for instance the shift from Newtonian physics to relativity theory to quantum theory. Thus there is no basis upon which to claim that science is converging towards an objectively truer description of reality.
For example, we might believe that current science gets the world more or less right, whereas Ptolemy, 2000 years ago, who claimed that the earth was the center of the universe, got it mostly wrong. We may smile at those ancient guys and all the stuff that they didn’t know. But given the rapid developments in science and the future major paradigm shifts to be expected, how do we think people in 500, 1000, or 2000 years will look back at us? Will they smile at us for all the backwards, disproven scientific theories that we staunchly believe today?
I (Tomas) have liked science since I created a few little explosions with a chemistry set, as a boy. I was fascinated by astronomy, evolution, and what psychologists have to say about human life. Eventually I became a scientist myself. Science focuses on what can be empirically proven, and society grants it the authority to speak about all sorts of things ranging from the perfect marriage to solving economic problems of the third world. It’s very easy to believe in science too much and check your own intelligence at the door. Looking back, I was quite a faithful believer in science. As a counterpoint to established ways of reasoning, hypothesizing and conceptualizing, emptiness teachings provide an enormous empowerment to think for oneself. I love the answer given by the Tibetan teacher Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche when students hammered him with questions about reality: “Your guess is as good as mine.”