Leadership at the Crossroads

I want you to know that I hesitated when I thought about where to put this review of the Dalai Lama's speech given November 12, 2005 at the Society for Neuroscience. Do I put this in the public and endure the nature of criticism that it will evoke from the people who will see this as blasphemous? Will there be riots because I have criticized his holiness?

Then I thought, what would his holiness have me do?

So, I'm posting this here for you.

I apologize because in general I've used a coding system that only a few people will understand, although if you read my comments you'll get the idea that I'm trying to put across here...that we need to be able to view NOT just what our leaders say, but "how" our leaders say what they say. We have to be careful not to be hung upon their content, but really be able to view deeply the problem-making and solving operandi they use in saying what they say.

In a complex future, we have to begin to identify the complexity of our leaders and the capacities, capabilities and potential of those leaders to lead effectively in view of an ambiguous future.

I will say for the record that my remarks are critical of the suppositions made and how they are made...and I've tried to give you a window into why I think so.

For the review, I used the following attractors, colored, so I could point to a specific constellation of values first identified in the book Spiral Dynamics (R). My work uses some of the terminology in that system, but expands the work to Spiral 2.0.

Here are the oversimplified attractors and their colors so you can identify the review and my comments below:

Beige-Survival System (not used)

Purple-Mystical System

Red-Power System

Blue-Salvation System

Orange-Empirical System

Green-Collaborative System

Yellow-Differential System

Again, you will want to note that there is no particular agreement of the systems I use and those offered by Clare Graves and Spiral Dynamics...in fact, I'm sure they would say I've oversimplified and adulterated them, but then again, that's pretty good protection for me in that they certainly don't represent anyone's ideas but my own.

My attempt at review is done with irreverance, but with compassion.

Mike

www.mikejay.com

Science at the Crossroads

By Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama

This article is based on a talk given by the Dalai Lama at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience on November 12,

2005 in

Washington DC

The last few decades have witnessed tremendous advances in the scientific understanding of the human brain and the human body as a whole. Furthermore, with the advent of the new genetics, neuroscience's knowledge of the workings of biological organisms is now brought to the subtlest level of individual genes. This has resulted in unforeseen technological possibilities of even manipulating the very codes of life, thereby giving rise to the likelihood of creating entirely new realities for humanity as a whole. Today the question of science's interface with wider humanity is no longer a matter of academic interest alone; this question must assume a sense of urgency for all those who are concerned about the fate of human existence. I feel, therefore, that a dialogue between neuroscience and society could have profound benefits in that it may help deepen our basic understanding of what it means to be human and our responsibilities for the natural world we share with other sentient beings. I am glad to note that as part of this wider interface, there is a growing interest among some neuroscientists in engaging in deeper conversations with Buddhist contemplative disciplines.
Although my own interest in science began as the curiosity of a restless young boy growing up in Tibet, gradually the colossal importance of science and technology for understanding the modern world dawned on me. Not only have I sought to grasp specific scientific ideas but have also attempted to explore the wider implications of the new advances in human knowledge and technological power brought about through science. The specific areas of science I have explored most over the years are subatomic physics, cosmology, biology and psychology. For my limited understanding of these fields I am deeply indebted to the hours of generous time shared with me by Carl von Weizsacker and the late David Bohm both of whom I consider to be my teachers in quantum mechanics, and in the field of biology, especially neuroscience, by the late Robert Livingstone and Francisco Varela. I am also grateful to the numerous eminent scientists with whom I have had the privilege of engaging in conversations through the auspices of the Mind and Life Institute which initiated the Mind and Life conferences that began in 1987 at my residence in Dharamsala, India. These dialogues have continued over the years and in fact the latest Mind and Life dialogue concluded here in Washington just this week.
Some might wonder "What is a Buddhist monk doing taking such a deep interest in science? What relation could there be between Buddhism, an ancient Indian philosophical and spiritual tradition, and modern science? What possible benefit could there be for a scientific discipline such as neuroscience in engaging in dialogue with Buddhist contemplative tradition?"
Although Buddhist contemplative tradition and modern science have evolved from different historical, intellectual and cultural roots, I believe that at heart they share significant commonalities, especially in their basic philosophical outlook and methodology. On the philosophical level, both Buddhism and modern science share a deep suspicion of any notion of absolutes, whether conceptualized as a transcendent being, as an eternal, unchanging principle such as soul, or as a fundamental substratum of reality. Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and testimony last. This means that, in the Buddhist investigation of reality, at least in principle, empirical evidence should triumph over scriptural authority, no matter how deeply venerated a scripture may be. Even in the case of knowledge derived through reason or inference, its validity must derive ultimately from some observed facts of experience. Because of this methodological standpoint, I have often remarked to my Buddhist colleagues that the empirically verified insights of modern cosmology and astronomy must compel us now to modify, or in some cases reject, many aspects of traditional cosmology as found in ancient Buddhist texts. [I chose blue attractor here because of the use of “evidence of experience” rather than choosing an orange attractor here, as one might suspect—also because of the words traditional cosmology and astronomy (astrology=practice in hindu/Buddhist methodlogy) is occurring as a purple attractor and it’s too far a leap from purple to orange here, it fits more at blue when you use this reverse psychology]
Since the primary motive underlying the Buddhist investigation of reality is the fundamental quest for overcoming suffering and perfecting the human condition, the primary orientation of the Buddhist investigative tradition has been toward understanding the human mind and its various functions. The assumption here is that by gaining deeper insight into the human psyche, we might find ways of transforming our thoughts, emotions and their underlying propensities so that a more wholesome and fulfilling way of being can be found. It is in this context that the Buddhist tradition has devised a rich classification of mental states, as well as contemplative techniques for refining specific mental qualities. So a genuine exchange between the cumulative knowledge and experience of Buddhism and modern science on a wide-ranging issues pertaining to the human mind, from cognition and emotion to understanding the capacity for transformation inherent in the human brain can be deeply interesting and potentially beneficial as well. [Descartian separation still present here, that’s why I left it blue, also the comparing through exchange…this is often done in a system where rules are important the exchange rather than the transcendence keeps the rule-based system intact.] In my own experience, I have felt deeply enriched by engaging in conversations with neuroscientists and psychologists on such questions as the nature and role of positive and negative emotions, attention, imagery, as well the plasticity of the brain. [Most people would NOT mark this as a red base, but essentially in my view, what is happening here is the projection of this person’s core motivation (curiosity) onto a larger role (dahlia lama who is revered and followed, and whose word is taken as gospel, per se—unknowingly project his own strengths onto a population of followers, not either realizing or suspecting that they will NOT be curious, but more likely to accommodate his expression, to me, this then speaks to a lower ego level and undifferentiated view of one’s self being relationall to all selves, which is not the case, as noted by Reiss and others regarding the differentiated motivational sensitivity between people. [The compelling evidence from neuroscience and medical science of the crucial role of simple physical touch for even the physical enlargement of an infant's brain during the first few weeks powerfully brings home the intimate connection between compassion and human happiness. [The reason for purple here is the amazing leap, not scientific in nature, but the illogic that persists that because infant’s brains shift with and without touch, that somehow this is related to compassion and happiness, when in fact, it probably has a biological foundation, not a mystical foundation as noted by the leap of logic. This could also be noted as green, but it would be out of the mystical system, even though science has proven something goes on with touch. This use of science to promote illogical means seems strange to me…and while the person claims knowledge of science and great teachers, the “working logic” here is missing for higher level function OUT of the mystical realm, experience this denotes in my opinion.]
Buddhism has long argued for the tremendous potential for transformation that exists naturally in the human mind. To this end, the tradition has developed a wide range of contemplative techniques, or meditation practices, aimed specifically at two principal objectives - the cultivation of a compassionate heart and the cultivation of deep insights into the nature of reality, which are referred to as the union of compassion and wisdom. At the heart of these meditation practices lie two key techniques, the refinement of attention and its sustained application on the one hand, and the regulation and transformation of emotions on the other. [This is a tough one because more than likely it sounds like blue, more specifically in many ways, however the language itself is mystical because no one knows what compassion is because it is situational and user-dependent, there is no principle of compassion that can be applied, just like there is no principle of wisdom—there is wisdom in a bee-hive…there is compassion, yet these are rooted in a behavior which shows no higher levels of cognition, but the necessity of making these contributions.] In both of these cases, I feel, there might be great potential for collaborative research between the Buddhist contemplative tradition and neuroscience. For example, modern neuroscience has developed a rich understanding of the brain mechanisms that are associated with both attention and emotion. Buddhist contemplative tradition, given its long history of interest in the practice of mental training, offers on the other hand practical techniques for refining attention and regulating and transforming emotion. The meeting of modern neuroscience and Buddhist contemplative discipline, therefore, could lead to the possibility of studying the impact of intentional mental activity on the brain circuits that have been identified as critical for specific mental processes. In the least such an interdisciplinary encounter could help raise critical questions in many key areas. For example, do individuals have a fixed capacity to regulate their emotions and attention or, as Buddhist tradition argues, their capacity for regulating these processes are greatly amenable to change suggesting similar degree of amenability of the behavioral and brain systems associated with these functions? One area where Buddhist contemplative tradition may have important contribution to make is the practical techniques it has developed for training in compassion. With regard to mental training both in attention and emotional regulation it also becomes crucial to raise the question of whether any specific techniques have time-sensitivity in terms of their effectiveness, so that new methods can be tailored to suit the needs of age, health, and other variable factors.
A note of caution is called for, however. It is inevitable that when two radically different investigative traditions like Buddhism and neuroscience are brought together in an interdisciplinary dialogue, this will involve problems that are normally attendant to exchanges across boundaries of cultures and disciplines. For example, when we speak of the "science of meditation," we need to be sensitive to exactly what is meant by such a statement. On the part of scientists, I feel, it is important to be sensitive to the different connotations of an important term such as meditation in their traditional context. For example, in its traditional context, the term for meditation is bhavana (in Sanskrit) or gom (in Tibetan). The Sanskrit term connotes the idea of cultivation, such as cultivating a particular habit or a way of being, while the Tibetan term gom has the connotation of cultivating familiarity. So, briefly stated, meditation in the traditional Buddhist context refers to a deliberate mental activity that involves cultivating familiarity, be it with a chosen object, a fact, a theme, habit, an outlook, or a way of being. Broadly speaking, there are two categories of meditation practice - one focusing on stilling the mind and the other on the cognitive processes of understanding. The two are referred to as (i) stabilizing meditation and (ii) discursive meditation. In both cases, the meditation can take many different forms. For example, it may take the form of taking something as object of one's cognition, such as meditating on one's transient nature. Or it may take the form of cultivating a specific mental state, such as compassion by developing a heartfelt, altruistic yearning to alleviate others' suffering. Or, it could take the form of imagination, exploring the human potential for generating mental imagery, which may be used in various ways to cultivate mental well-being. [I don’t know how to rate this as it’s basically an expression of what appears to be specific knowledge that not everyone holds.] So it is critical to be aware of what specific forms of meditation one might be investigating when engaged in collaborative research so that complexity of meditative practices being studied is matched by the sophistication of the scientific research Another area where a critical perspective is required on the part of the scientists is the ability to distinguish between the empirical aspects of Buddhist thought and contemplative practice on the one hand and the philosophical and metaphysical assumptions associated with these meditative practices. In other words, just as we must distinguish within the scientific approach between theoretical suppositions, empirical observations based on experiments, and subsequent interpretations, in the same manner it is critical to distinguish theoretical suppositions, experientially verifiable features of mental states, and subsequent philosophical interpretations in Buddhism. This way, both parties in the dialogue can find the common ground of empirical observable facts of the human mind, while not falling into the temptation of reducing the framework of one discipline into that of the other. Although the philosophical presuppositions and the subsequent conceptual interpretations may differ between these two investigative traditions, insofar as empirical facts are concerned, facts must remain facts, no matter how one may choose to describe them. Whatever the truth about the final nature of consciousness - whether or not it is ultimately reducible to physical processes - I believe there can be shared understanding of the experiential facts of the various aspects of our perceptions, thoughts and emotions. [This I see as the beginning of a capitualization that consciousness may be emergent from physical (read biological, or consilient, as physical models the problem here, as it’s too narrow of a classification…which is why I mark this blue and not higher level…the narrowness of the argument shows less understanding in my view of the actually processes that would lead to an assumption that consciousness is an emergent phenomena from epigenomincs?]
With these precautionary considerations, I believe, a close cooperation between these two investigative traditions can truly contribute toward expanding the human understanding of the complex world of inner subjective experience that we call the mind. [This is a blue base system because it relies on one’s own belief and since one can’t have a personal belief that isn’t a wide-spread adopted belief in this position, it indicates almost a naivete in regards to when this person says I believe…. The other issue is the designation of subjective experience as the mind. Again, this is a narrow interpretation of mind, that I believe results in an exclusion of other objective experience and the combinatorial effects produced not only by subjectivity, but objectivity as well.] Already the benefits of such collaborations are beginning to be demonstrated. According to preliminary reports, the effects of mental training, such as simple mindfulness practice on a regular basis or the deliberate cultivation of compassion as developed in Buddhism, in bringing about observable changes in the human brain correlated to positive mental states can be measured. Recent discoveries in neuroscience have demonstrated the innate plasticity of the brain, both in terms of synaptic connections and birth of new neurons, as a result of exposure to external stimuli, such as voluntary physical exercise and an enriched environment. The Buddhist contemplative tradition may help to expand this field of scientific inquiry by proposing types of mental training that may also pertain to neuroplasticity. If it turns out, as the Buddhist tradition implies, that mental practice can effect observable synaptic and neural changes in the brain, this could have far-reaching implications. The repercussions of such research will not be confined simply to expanding our knowledge of the human mind; but, perhaps more importantly, they could have great significance for our understanding of education and mental health. Similarly, if, as the Buddhist tradition claims, the deliberate cultivation of compassion can lead to a radical shift in the individual's outlook, leading to greater empathy toward others, this could have far-reaching implications for society at large. [This is all blue and the reason it is in my view, is because of the narrowness of this thin slice—not pointing to specific logically relationships but broad illogical relationships, unless the reader is aware of the science which is inferred by the studies that have been selected, rather than specific relationships showing specific correlation. In the studies done by Davidson, et al, in my view, they should have done a pre-survey of the types of people in the study, and their developmental levels, trajectories and functioning ability. The manner in which the study was done was to self-select people (monks who had been in meditation) and people who “wanted” to be in meditation. While results CAN be generalized, they can only be generalized to this population, which is not a typical sampleo f the population at large—therefore, unlike the DL, who is generalizing this now to the population, i.e. education and society at large, these findings CAN’T be generalized in this manner. This illogic, then to me, even as it demonstrates ignorance that the Buddhist practices seek to eliminate, serves to promote the agenda of the DL, rather than a broader agenda which might hold that these practices and methodologies are not generalizable. Hence the range here is a blue base, with green leanings, which can’t be denoted in a single dimension scoring system I have to use. This is particularly a good example of why one must in my opinion understand horizontal, oblique and vertical meme density.]
Finally, I believe that the collaboration between neuroscience and the Buddhist contemplative tradition may shed fresh light on the vitally important question of the interface of ethics and neuroscience. [The reason this is marked red is basically because it exploits the relationship of the DL as a leader of Budhhism in the world, therefore when he says “I” it is not an “I” interpretation, but it is represented (ignorantly I might add) as the “I” being the entire Budhhist sect, which represents more than 1 billion people…so the “I” connotation for the DL, is different than the Mike Jay connotation of “I” which represents a single viewpoint. Therefore I believe the DL is unknowingly (at best) and knowingly (at worst) exploiting his bully pulpit because of his continued pretense of the “I” being himself.—hence the red base—ignorant or otherwise. If he is not ignorant of this, it is surely red, if he is ignorant of it, then it represents lower ego complexity by its ignorance.] Regardless of whatever conception one might have of the relationship between ethics and science, in actual practice, science has evolved primarily as an empirical discipline with a morally neutral, value-free stance. It has come to be perceived essentially as a mode of inquiry that gives detailed knowledge of the empirical world and the underlying laws of nature. Purely from the scientific point of view, the creation of nuclear weapons is a truly amazing achievement. However, since this creation has the potential to inflict so much suffering through unimaginable death and destruction, we regard it as destructive. [This is a blue/green viewpoint: it fails to note that the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives. This viewpoint is as dangerous and shows problem solving at the very level of problem making, it doesn’t demonstrate high level thinking and the millions of lives that having nuclear weapons has saved, it only notes the negative sides…again, typically a blue algorithm in either/or thinking…it kills therefore it is bad…the automobile has taken far more lives than any nuclear weapon, but there is no concern for its continued potential to destroy people’s lives and create widespread suffering?] It is the ethical evaluation that must determine what is positive and what is negative. Until recently, this approach of segregating ethics and science, with the understanding that the human capacity for moral thinking evolves alongside human knowledge, seems to have succeeded.
Today, I believe that humanity is at a critical crossroad. The radical advances that took place in neuroscience and particularly in genetics towards the end of the twentieth century have led to a new era in human history. Our knowledge of the human brain and body at the cellular and genetic level, with the consequent technological possibilities offered for genetic manipulation, has reached such a stage that the ethical challenges of these scientific advances are enormous. It is all too evident that our moral thinking simply has not been able to keep pace with such rapid progress in our acquisition of knowledge and power. Yet the ramifications of these new findings and their applications are so far-reaching that they relate to the very conception of human nature and the preservation of the human species. So it is no longer adequate to adopt the view that our responsibility as a society is to simply further scientific knowledge and enhance technological power and that the choice of what to do with this knowledge and power should be left in the hands of the individual. We must find a way of bringing fundamental humanitarian and ethical considerations to bear upon the direction of scientific development, especially in the life sciences. By invoking fundamental ethical principles, I am not advocating a fusion of religious ethics and scientific inquiry. Rather, I am speaking of what I call "secular ethics" that embrace the key ethical principles, such as compassion, tolerance, a sense of caring, consideration of others, and the responsible use of knowledge and power - principles that transcend the barriers between religious believers and non-believers, and followers of this religion or that religion. I personally like to imagine all human activities, including science, as individual fingers of a palm. So long as each of these fingers is connected with the palm of basic human empathy and altruism, they will continue to serve the well-being of humanity. We are living in truly one world. Modern economy, electronic media, international tourism, as well as the environmental problems, all remind us on a daily basis how deeply interconnected the world has become today. Scientific communities play a vitally important role in this interconnected world. For whatever historical reasons, today the scientists enjoy great respect and trust within society, much more so than my own discipline of philosophy and religion. I appeal to scientists to bring into their professional work the dictates of the fundamental ethical principles we all share as human beings.

I just want to say that I find this type of leadership at a relatively low level of complexity. In the end, the agenda of the speaker comes to the forefront, which I marked in red…that the religion of Buddhim is as important as science.

Reviewer’s Note:

Using fancy content and big words does not promote an effective argument for leadership. Nor does it mean that the person is functioning at a more complex level. In some ways, I’m not surprised that these things are said by a leader of more than 1 billion people in the world. And as long as these things are continued in the forefront of a dialogue in the manner in which they have been offered here, we are going to remain polarized. I see no real attempt, either in the content, the context, the conditions or the code here to move current culture into a non-polarized state.

I still see emphasis on “preserving human species” instead of viewing the human species as possibly the worst thing to ever happen to other sentient beings. We killed them in every fashion imaginable, made most extinct through our footprint, but at the root, the DL speaks but doesn’t represent sentience, but the human cause. So, that idea proffered in some circles about the role of our nature in our nurture is completely illogical to remain a valid argument of any kind for the preservation of our species.

In final review, I find the speech interesting, but ill-formed and indicative of lower level problem solving where the “ills” noted by the speaker are cast as bad, without a full representation of perspectives that could be taken and in some cases,  a reliance on what appears to be science and fact to undergird the speaker’s agenda.

I did note one yellow, or 2^nd tier particulate, and to me, the only way to code that content was yellow. However, I would be careful to project any 2^nd tier thinking here, either in terms of science or morality , no matter how you put this speech, it attempts to advance the Buddhist agenda or compassion, but only in the way in which it is understood by low-level thinkers with an a personal or collective agenda.

Comments

[red bottom]

Don't know what is wrong what is rite but i know that every one has there own point of view and same goes to this one

[Heather Olsen]

Dear Mr Beck ..Would you like to meet a Lakota Chairman from the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe? Chairman Joe Bring Plenty? If so please let me know..His reservation was recently featured on CNN 'State of the Union" Sunday morning show for the poverty level and hardships... They need help... Please let me know..

Pilameya..
Heather Olsen