Two Notions of Freedom
One idea I've been ruminating on lately is this: Buddha preceded Pavlov by 2500 years.
Pavlov performed his experiments on animals - which leads one to think that physiologists would be the folks most interested in his work. However, what makes the experiments so foundational in psychology is that are empiricial, and that they apply to humans too. To a psychologist - humans are animals, and conditioned in the same way that Pavlov's dogs are. And so begins the conflict between Sciencey-minded psychologists (Pavlovian disciples) and Artistically-minded psychologists (Jungian and Freudian disciples).
We all agree that addictions are very Pavlovian. If you are addicted to cigarettes, for instance, you hunt for the stimulus, and feel appopriately rewarded or disappointed if you don't receive it. Other co-arising sense stimuli (music, food, etc) can reinforce this desire. But Buddha observed that this "conditioned existence" (samsara in sanskrit), went well beyond individual addictions. It underlies every human activity, and it is the source of all suffering. Wouldn't it be desirable to not be conditioned by desire? To be free and spontaneous?
I think the common way we have of beating addiction is to focus our willpower. If you overcome your desires, the idea is, you become free. The Iron-Will sort of motif. And I think it's a very suitable way to beat individual addictions. The problem, I think, is that this isn't a suitable way to become completely, categorically free from conditioning. Why not? It narrows your focus, rather than expanding it. You become attached to the idea and practice of will itself. Free men have wildly differing willpower - instead, what distinguishes free men is their being sensitive, aware and accepting of all things that come and go through their mind and lives.
Pavlov performed his experiments on animals - which leads one to think that physiologists would be the folks most interested in his work. However, what makes the experiments so foundational in psychology is that are empiricial, and that they apply to humans too. To a psychologist - humans are animals, and conditioned in the same way that Pavlov's dogs are. And so begins the conflict between Sciencey-minded psychologists (Pavlovian disciples) and Artistically-minded psychologists (Jungian and Freudian disciples).
We all agree that addictions are very Pavlovian. If you are addicted to cigarettes, for instance, you hunt for the stimulus, and feel appopriately rewarded or disappointed if you don't receive it. Other co-arising sense stimuli (music, food, etc) can reinforce this desire. But Buddha observed that this "conditioned existence" (samsara in sanskrit), went well beyond individual addictions. It underlies every human activity, and it is the source of all suffering. Wouldn't it be desirable to not be conditioned by desire? To be free and spontaneous?
I think the common way we have of beating addiction is to focus our willpower. If you overcome your desires, the idea is, you become free. The Iron-Will sort of motif. And I think it's a very suitable way to beat individual addictions. The problem, I think, is that this isn't a suitable way to become completely, categorically free from conditioning. Why not? It narrows your focus, rather than expanding it. You become attached to the idea and practice of will itself. Free men have wildly differing willpower - instead, what distinguishes free men is their being sensitive, aware and accepting of all things that come and go through their mind and lives.
posted by Steve C at 5:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home