I like this layer to your agency exploration very much. You write as if you are holding the realness of experience in your hands, examining it like one might a gyroscope you would very much like to not only describe but use right away and to good effect.
Many examples you’ve used are from Buddhism. I see in the overall framing though a lean toward process philosophy. That brought me to dust off some of my own explorations of Arthur Young’s Theory of Process. He was the inventor of the helicopter turned Theosophist. Curious, at least in passing, if you are familiar with his “rosetta stone” of meaning and characterization of the universe as reflexive? His free will discussion involves capturing a wildcat with three ropes!
I do have one push back. To the degree that self-as-relational carries the meaning of strictly or even preferably human-oriented activity, adequate framing for a truly dynamic self is then hugely problematic. You don’t say that explicitly, so perhaps you will clarify if human-oriented relating vibes most with your framing of “relational” here. If not, are you willing to cross the line and say that what you are describing of the no-self world implicates self as animistic along with everything else?
Earthstar, thank you for this generous and thoughtful response. The gyroscope metaphor is excellent! It’s such a clear and vivid representation of the balancing act here. There’s something precarious about holding the concept of agency with care, letting it stay in motion without locking it down. Your image gives language to that tension beautifully.
I’ve only read a little of Arthur Young’s work, but what I’ve seen caught my attention. I resonate deeply with his emphasis on shaping wisdom (not just knowledge) when it comes to understanding consciousness. The Geometry of Meaning has been on my to-read-next list for a while, and this feels like the right nudge to move it up. I’m especially curious about your mention of his “Rosetta Stone” and the wildcat metaphor as a way of visualizing free will under constraint. If you have reflections on either, I’d love to hear them when time allows.
Your pushback and question about self-as-relational is a meaningful one. I do believe that interaction and interconnection exists across the natural world. However, I don’t think all interaction necessarily implies agency. The flow of influence doesn’t seem to move in every direction equally. At least for now, I see agency as something that could emerge only in systems that meet a threshold for “life.” Not exclusively human, but also not everywhere, either. I admit that my view here leans on a biological (specifically cellular) framing, which I know carries its own limitations. But that’s where I find myself landing, pending deeper understanding.
When I’ve tried to explain this to my brilliant 10-year-old son, who recently asked, “What is life, and how do we know our definition is right?” I could point to the common characteristics of biological life. But his follow-up question (why that’s the right framework) was harder for me to address sufficiently. It was a good reminder that our categories might be practical, but not final.
I also want to clarify something based on your wording of the “no-self world.” You may not have meant it this way, but it stood out to me. I don’t see the “no-self world” as distinct from the “self” world. Despite the wording, no-self doesn’t deny or erase the self. It reframes it. The self is quite real… just like my thumb is real, but its meaning is relational. It only makes sense in context. The illusion isn’t that the self exists. It’s the belief that it exists independently.
I’m not sure this fully answers your question, but I hope it gives a sense of how I’m thinking about it. I’m so grateful for your reflections. They opened up ideas I hadn’t quite put into words until now.
On the subject of agency and Young’s (and others’) process work, and as you report in your inquiry with your son, adding the biological is often a useful way to extricate from the exquisite thinness of meaning-only idealisms. IMO important not for the reasons we tend to … well, reason.. but i’ll get to that. The usual way to reason about it is approached beautifully by Daniel Dennett through “intentional stance.” His example of a deceptively red stripped snake is richly nuanced and worth pointing to, almost as informative as a tethered wildcat!
Long and short is, I comprehend in Young's rosetta stone the Ontology of the Intentional Stance.
Is see the catch with both is this. With pure intentional stance comes a requirement, due to those with such a stance also self-identifying as reasonable if not occasionally uninformed, for engineered realism. This leads to the general shortcoming of process philosophies insofar as they stand on the back of the assumed and shared integrity of individual participants. Sticking with the human species in this regard is what generates philosophy! It’s realistically engineered listening.
Glenn this seems to me to resonate with you concluding that “we can’t expect to override the flow of causes and conditions” so it doesn’t make sense to respond with a desire (in the overall intention of one’s stance) to dominate. Instead stand intentionally in discernment.
And what of this strange reason I have for adding the biological when it comes to agency and underlying process? Something like the deceptive stripe of the unaware snake speaks to reality itself having integrity in such a was as to envelop its participants fully. Room for deceptiveness and lack of awareness do not tend to be the way humans (and maybe also other creatures with agency?) engineer social processes. But often to our dismay, it does seem to be the way the whole thing, living and non-living participants alike, actually hang together. So worth noting that humans intent primarily on intentionality are, through their resulting choices of logic and perspective, preferring force of reason to integrity of whole and blind force to insights on unpleasant matters.
I’m glad you like the gyroscope analogy! We are indeed clever beings and capable of creating from pure imagination and hard work so many wonderful things. It will be wonderful when it all hangs together in open light. Thoughtful agency that is also clever enough to discipline towards our wider shared nature is certain to be key to that.
Central to how one comprehends inner compass orientation in my reality cipher is HSR, or homeostatic self-remembering. Inner compass experience spans from soul to universal heart, with the self as moderator.
Linked below is my recent share of Soul-Universal Heart complementarity. The largest circle is HSR. MHF stands for morphic homeostatic field.
Is it agency what sets the agenda? Discerning (dynamically judging) amid ambiguities? Fascinating convergence to see it that way.
Interesting word parity there between agency and agenda!? I never noticed it before!
I like this layer to your agency exploration very much. You write as if you are holding the realness of experience in your hands, examining it like one might a gyroscope you would very much like to not only describe but use right away and to good effect.
Many examples you’ve used are from Buddhism. I see in the overall framing though a lean toward process philosophy. That brought me to dust off some of my own explorations of Arthur Young’s Theory of Process. He was the inventor of the helicopter turned Theosophist. Curious, at least in passing, if you are familiar with his “rosetta stone” of meaning and characterization of the universe as reflexive? His free will discussion involves capturing a wildcat with three ropes!
I do have one push back. To the degree that self-as-relational carries the meaning of strictly or even preferably human-oriented activity, adequate framing for a truly dynamic self is then hugely problematic. You don’t say that explicitly, so perhaps you will clarify if human-oriented relating vibes most with your framing of “relational” here. If not, are you willing to cross the line and say that what you are describing of the no-self world implicates self as animistic along with everything else?
Earthstar, thank you for this generous and thoughtful response. The gyroscope metaphor is excellent! It’s such a clear and vivid representation of the balancing act here. There’s something precarious about holding the concept of agency with care, letting it stay in motion without locking it down. Your image gives language to that tension beautifully.
I’ve only read a little of Arthur Young’s work, but what I’ve seen caught my attention. I resonate deeply with his emphasis on shaping wisdom (not just knowledge) when it comes to understanding consciousness. The Geometry of Meaning has been on my to-read-next list for a while, and this feels like the right nudge to move it up. I’m especially curious about your mention of his “Rosetta Stone” and the wildcat metaphor as a way of visualizing free will under constraint. If you have reflections on either, I’d love to hear them when time allows.
Your pushback and question about self-as-relational is a meaningful one. I do believe that interaction and interconnection exists across the natural world. However, I don’t think all interaction necessarily implies agency. The flow of influence doesn’t seem to move in every direction equally. At least for now, I see agency as something that could emerge only in systems that meet a threshold for “life.” Not exclusively human, but also not everywhere, either. I admit that my view here leans on a biological (specifically cellular) framing, which I know carries its own limitations. But that’s where I find myself landing, pending deeper understanding.
When I’ve tried to explain this to my brilliant 10-year-old son, who recently asked, “What is life, and how do we know our definition is right?” I could point to the common characteristics of biological life. But his follow-up question (why that’s the right framework) was harder for me to address sufficiently. It was a good reminder that our categories might be practical, but not final.
I also want to clarify something based on your wording of the “no-self world.” You may not have meant it this way, but it stood out to me. I don’t see the “no-self world” as distinct from the “self” world. Despite the wording, no-self doesn’t deny or erase the self. It reframes it. The self is quite real… just like my thumb is real, but its meaning is relational. It only makes sense in context. The illusion isn’t that the self exists. It’s the belief that it exists independently.
I’m not sure this fully answers your question, but I hope it gives a sense of how I’m thinking about it. I’m so grateful for your reflections. They opened up ideas I hadn’t quite put into words until now.
First, happy father’s day Glenn!
On the subject of agency and Young’s (and others’) process work, and as you report in your inquiry with your son, adding the biological is often a useful way to extricate from the exquisite thinness of meaning-only idealisms. IMO important not for the reasons we tend to … well, reason.. but i’ll get to that. The usual way to reason about it is approached beautifully by Daniel Dennett through “intentional stance.” His example of a deceptively red stripped snake is richly nuanced and worth pointing to, almost as informative as a tethered wildcat!
I won’t go into intentional stance in detail and just hope you/readers are able to infer enough from the use of words in their ordinary senses rather than specialized terms in the example. If not and you want more, check here, where I have timestamps and notes on “Counterfeit People” 2023 interview with Dennett (https://earthstarone.notion.site/Counterfeit-People-Daniel-Dennett-June-2023-d0b183fb25574a5a8391dc68b2621c85?source=copy_link)
Long and short is, I comprehend in Young's rosetta stone the Ontology of the Intentional Stance.
Is see the catch with both is this. With pure intentional stance comes a requirement, due to those with such a stance also self-identifying as reasonable if not occasionally uninformed, for engineered realism. This leads to the general shortcoming of process philosophies insofar as they stand on the back of the assumed and shared integrity of individual participants. Sticking with the human species in this regard is what generates philosophy! It’s realistically engineered listening.
Glenn this seems to me to resonate with you concluding that “we can’t expect to override the flow of causes and conditions” so it doesn’t make sense to respond with a desire (in the overall intention of one’s stance) to dominate. Instead stand intentionally in discernment.
And what of this strange reason I have for adding the biological when it comes to agency and underlying process? Something like the deceptive stripe of the unaware snake speaks to reality itself having integrity in such a was as to envelop its participants fully. Room for deceptiveness and lack of awareness do not tend to be the way humans (and maybe also other creatures with agency?) engineer social processes. But often to our dismay, it does seem to be the way the whole thing, living and non-living participants alike, actually hang together. So worth noting that humans intent primarily on intentionality are, through their resulting choices of logic and perspective, preferring force of reason to integrity of whole and blind force to insights on unpleasant matters.
I’m glad you like the gyroscope analogy! We are indeed clever beings and capable of creating from pure imagination and hard work so many wonderful things. It will be wonderful when it all hangs together in open light. Thoughtful agency that is also clever enough to discipline towards our wider shared nature is certain to be key to that.
Central to how one comprehends inner compass orientation in my reality cipher is HSR, or homeostatic self-remembering. Inner compass experience spans from soul to universal heart, with the self as moderator.
Linked below is my recent share of Soul-Universal Heart complementarity. The largest circle is HSR. MHF stands for morphic homeostatic field.
Is it agency what sets the agenda? Discerning (dynamically judging) amid ambiguities? Fascinating convergence to see it that way.
Interesting word parity there between agency and agenda!? I never noticed it before!
https://substack.com/@earthstarone/note/c-121925796