The Tenets of Cosmolosophy Continued: What is Savant?

[Jeff Vale]

The Tenets of Cosmolosophy Continued:
What is Savant?

I have another confession to make. As these tenets continue you will find me admitting to a great deal of ignorance (a new case in point was the reminder I got from Meleagar—who posts at the onlinephilosophyclub com. He reminded me of how “the ancient poetic understanding of 'Theme', where existence was understood as the physical representation of various themes that ultimately were all encapsulated by a single great theme” was another way to see what I was talking about in “Cosmolosophy and the Anthropic Principle.” And I have to say, his was a great deal more... well... poetic. In any case I do encourage you to check out his reply to “Cosmolosophy and the Anthropic Principle.” It really is a lovely re-statement).

The fact is, I'm not much of a scholar, or a great thinker. In fact, if you were to ask any of my friends you would find that I'm more than just a bit of a goof (if you ever doubt that, just ask me to put my thinking cap on. And yes, I have an actual thinking cap. The people whom I've worked for and with in doing software will attest to that). And yet I have managed to stumble over some very wonderful insights. Trust me when I tell you that I am the first one to wonder at how this is possible. And I think I have always been in touch with why as a feeling, but not as an articulated statement.

To understand why that is you have to know that I am more of a sculptor then a thinker. My stone is the English language. And when I chip away at it to form an expression it is through a very tactile sort of process of feeling out the form from within that stone. I barely understand intellectually a great deal of what I write, but I do feel it as a powerful force. And so I have come to have a great feeling for the notion of Savant.

I think that I have had some connection to this for a great part of my life. I've never been able to fully understand it until now. But now that I've stumbled upon the insights within Cosmolosophy I can see what might be an explanation. I think that, through the usual course of events, Savants are people who have a more limited structure of self, and as such, do a great deal less filtering of what permeates about them (there is also the distinct probability of there being a neurological component to this of course, but that is only to suggest a Savant having a bit more or less of what we have structurally. A component that either directly restricts the formation of self, or through the increase in stimuli, indirectly limits formation of self.) Because of that they are able to tap into the welter of experience that the entirety forms from the unimaginable number of crisscrossing rays of reality assemblage that make up its fabric. For me it is simply a question of how could it be otherwise. Does anyone really believe that ability (or experience retrieval) creates itself inside these people?

The bigger question here, of course, is how a person, say like me, who is (hopefully) possessed of a reasonably formed self could attain something approaching the same thing. And therein lies another wonderful insight. What this should suggest to us all is the notion that there exists the possibility of connection across the boundaries of our reality. Possibilities of connection we have hardly even begun to explore. It is also to suggest that what we call the intuitive leap (at least in some instances) might really be the closing (or bridging) of a gap more profound than we could possibly presently know.

It is all very humbling to be touching this stuff. I am a very, very lucky man (if you can't be good, at least be lucky, right?). And yet I know that there are many, many others who have achieved the same thing but are simply only aware of it as a feeling. I think, and I would like to suggest, that we need to put our heads together and figure out how this works and how we can tap into it to it to a greater degree. We truly are not alone in the Cosmos. There lies across the many boundaries of the many realities a universe of experience to take the breath away from every creative mind humanity has ever produced. And because of that, as we enter into a new millennium, we have it within our reach to embark upon an adventure of the mind that I am sure is beyond my capacity to describe. This is a probability that needs to be realized. It is one that will require changes so that we encourage Loving Structure rather than frustrate it. It will test our ability to see what “Make Believe” really is; namely making something and believing in it. It is a choice and it is there to me made.

[Belinda]

Jeff Vale wrote

Savants are people who have a more limited structure of self, and as such, do a great deal less filtering of what permeates about them (there is also the distinct probability of there being a neurological component to this of course, but that is only to suggest a Savant having a bit more or less of what we have structurally. A component that either directly restricts the formation of self, or through the increase in stimuli, indirectly limits formation of self.) Because of that they are able to tap into the welter of experience that the entirety forms from the unimaginable number of crisscrossing rays of reality assemblage that make up its fabric.

Well describes the meaning of 'self'. However I don't see the connection between self as implied and what Jeff suggests in the next paragraph may happen, that some Savants can cross the boundaries of meaning between one self and another self:

What this should suggest to us all is the notion that there exists the possibility of connection across the boundaries of our reality.

True, Jeff has said that he is interested in the power of language, but as is well known , even the best of poets or the most precise of scientists cannot overcome the self's subjectivity.Indeed without the self's subjectivity there could be no human creativity which progresses in a synthetic Hegelian way but without any end point.Internet is a good example.

[Meleagar]

If we postulate that existence is an infinite set of vertices that describe meaning, and that local sets of self-refining/variating vertices are individiuals or localized meanings/stories; then one can say that "self" is not so much a description of what one is, but rather a description of what one is not.

For instance, if we write a story where we describe a character, but leave off their hair-color, the reader is free to imagine that character with any hair-color they wish - blond, red-head, brunette. The potential for all variations of hair color is available; but, as soon as the writer defines the characteristic of "blond", he hasn't added anything, because the blond characteristic was already available before the specificity; when the writer chooses a particular individual characteristics, all he/she has really done is describe what the color is not; potential has been removed for the sake of a specified individual characteristic.

Thus, the more defined the characteristics of the individual becomes, the less potential is available. Characteristics of the individual in terms of knowledge, the more specified their view of their existence becomes, the less potential is available. They continually add to what they and the world is not by refining their specificity of what those characteristics are.

Let's take the specificity of "how one learns"; if one knows that one can only learn how to do something by a certain route of effort, expert instruction and accredited study, then that is the route they must take, because that is how they have defined their potential as an individual.

But, how is it that individuals are born into this world and are artistic or mathematical prodigies? As you say, they are able to access abilities that seem to lie outside the self. Others who intuit, psychically foresee, etc. seem to share this ability to incorporate as an aspect of their self things that seem beyond the capacity of our normative concept of the basic limitations of "self".

But, we all perform magical feats that defy this particularized methodology of acquiring skills or performing desired feats; for instance, when and where did we learn how to operate our body? Where is the manual? How do we transform intent into the biochemical reactions that generate movement? We don't even have a steering wheel or a manual, yet simply by intending that our body do this or that it does so.

Our memory system is a holographic filing mechanism filled with an unimaginable amount of information. Do you know how that information is filed? Where? do you know the system or procedure for retrieving this information? Yet, with nothing more than intent we can immediately access holographic memories replete with sensory input.

Humans can also imagine new things. How is that possible? How can one so completely imagine a thing that doesn't exist to the point that they can draw a complete, detailed blueprint of something that will not exist for years? Can humans see into the future? If not, then what is the source of their detailed information? How are new things envisioned by a self that is characterized by what it is not?

It is when one undefines what they are not that they can incorporate more of the surrounding available potential. I suggest that "self" can exist on a virtually infinite scale of definition, from very few definitions to so many that one has become little more than a narrowly-defined machine. In many religions the process of losing or eradicating a strong sense of "self" is the path towards god and a more spiritual existence or enlightenment.

There may be many ways of opening up our connection to the talent and skill and understanding vertices that are available to us as humans and demonstrated by the savant; but they come with a cost, and that cost is the loss of those defining characteristics of self that might otherwise be necessary elements in the story we are telling.

If we are telling a tragic story about the death by terminal disease of a loved one, would it help or destroy that story if one of the characters could allow themselves the capacity to heal their dying lover? Wouldn't that entirely change the story? Would that character be the same character? Wouldn't that be a rather cheated ending if the author just pulled a spontaneous, miraculous healing out of his hat at the end of the story?

That capacity is pretty much indistinguishable from magic; it's pretty hard to write a compelling story about magic with no rules or a character with no defining characteristics that one can count on from beginning to end of story.

[Jeff Vale]

Let me first say thank you both for taking the time to post thoughtful replies.

Let's start with Belinda's two main implied questions: What is the connection of Self to the crossing of boundaries of meaning? And: How can anyone overcome the self's subjectivity in endeavoring to make that crossing? Good questions indeed.

For my part, to start, I need to be clear (or as clear as I am able to be) about how I am using the important terms here.

Meaning is the process of associating various bounded elements into new structures which take on their own reactive, or interactive, potential (with their own new boundaries of effect). And it is important to remember that meaning is expressed differently depending on the scale of consideration (as in, say, a word, a planet, an electron, or light).

The self is the start of a singular point of reference. But in creating this singularity is the necessary divergence between perceived and perceiver. A separation, if you will, between interior and exterior phenomena. If you study a bit of developmental psychology you discover a fascinating process in this. Let me quote from "Bimodal Consciousness" by Arthur F. Deikman (from the Archives of General Psychiatry, 12/25/71 and reprinted in "The Nature of Human Consciousness" by Robert Ornstein, p. 70). In describing the attributes of the "action mode" as the human organism interacts with its environment he says:

"...For example, very early in life focusing attention is associated not only with the use of the intrinsic muscles of the eyes, but also becomes associated with muscle movements of the neck, head, and body, whereby visual interest is directed toward objects. Likewise, thinking develops in conjunction with the perception and manipulation of objects and, because of this, object-oriented thought becomes intimately associated with the striate muscle effort of voluntary activity, particularly eye muscle activity (Piage, 1954). Specific qualities of perception, such as sharp boundaries, become key features of the mode, because sharp boundaries are important for the perception and manipulation of objects and for acquiring knowledge of the mechanical properties of objects. Sharp perceptual boundaries are matched by sharp conceptual boundaries, for success in acting on the world requires a clear sense of self-object difference..."

I would maintain that it is the filtering inherent in this process of the vast wash of stimuli that we swim in that is the dual edge sword of practicality that makes survivability possible. It cuts through the welter to give us real adaptive advantage in this reality, but it also cuts us off from a great deal as well. This is the nature of objectification when the term becomes the thing being described.

Marshall McLuhan had a great example of this in one of his books (I forget which). He described the difference of how someone from an oral culture (less objectification) reacted to being presented with an artifact from a print culture (more objectification). In this instance it was a map of a section of jungle that a native tribesman had lived his whole life in. When shown this map, and after a bit of difficult explanation of what it was being depicted, he became quite angry. This was something akin to blasphemy. How could all of the paths and glades and streams where so much connection existed for him; organic connection to elemental processes that he felt deeply; spiritually. How could this possibly be reduced to such a lifeless abstraction? How could truly in the moment souls be OK with such a thing?

Meditation, and other forms of altered states of consciousness, strive very specifically to turn off the inner dialogue precisely to reengage this deeper connection. This is, in fact, why such states can be dangerous. Become proficient enough in meditation, or take the right psychoactive chemicals, and that loss of internal dialogue can disconnect your link to a self; what has been termed ego death. And if you're not able to let go, and try to cling to it fearfully, psychic damage can occur. Trust me on this kids. I've seen it happen. One of the most morally outrageous aspects of the 60's, in fact, was the notion that such chemicals could be party favors instead of the serious tool for exploration the developer of LSD thought he created.

The point of all of this is to suggest that these boundaries attempting to be crossed may well be created be the process that creates self; which is to say a process of abstraction that cuts us off from what a different state of consciousness might provide.

And as for Belinda's last question I would say this. I don't think it is a case of needing to overcome subjectivity. As the physicist John Wheeler pointed out, the subjective observer is required to resolve probability; which is only another way of saying that what light is is subject to how it is observed (a photon in one context, but a wave in another). It think this will always be the in the nature of elemental truth. What is really required is the willingness to let go of things held too firmly fixed from time to time (and attempt to just be; as in fully resonant with all that impinges upon us without classification). Knowing full well the risk involved with such a thing. This was what I was trying to describe in "What is the secret of the Mountain?" What might be received is the unfiltered truth of other association assemblers. Perhaps not so much new pieces of subjective realization as new ways to make the associations (a kind of self assemblage template that Savants can make use of without the need of conscious volition). New ways to see patterns that have value in our here and now. If my life has been an example of anything, I think it is at least that.

[Belinda]

I agree with Meleagar's description of self and not-self as far as the end of his paragraph #4.("their potential as an individual.")

Yet, with nothing more than intent we can immediately access holographic memories replete with sensory input.

I understand that there is scientific evidence that our motor neurons act a split second before we consciously form an intent.

Wouldn't that be a rather cheated ending if the author just pulled a spontaneous, miraculous healing out of his hat at the end of the story?

It's generally regarded that magic of this sort makes for a poor plot.This is because if magic of this sort exists it is so uncommon that to make up a plot that depends upon magic is to tell an untruth about life.

Humans can imagine new things because they can synthesise bits and pieces of experience into something new, rather like someone making a new patchwork design?

There may be many ways of opening up our connection to the talent and skill and understanding vertices that are available to us as humans and demonstrated by the savant; but they come with a cost, and that cost is the loss of those defining characteristics of self that might otherwise be necessary elements in the story we are telling.

I agree that self is a necessary base for individuals to have so that they can compare and contrast not-self bases.If selves were ever to disappear then such individuals would have ceased to be individuals.If one self among selves disappeared then that individual would die for lack of ego self.

In many religions the process of losing or eradicating a strong sense of "self" is the path towards god and a more spiritual existence or enlightenment.

Typical of the eastern religions which are less individualistic and more fatalistic than the Abrahamic religions.

If we take Jesus as an example of western religious teaching he did teach as Meleagar says. However it is clear to me that the self that Jesus recommended getting rid of is that variety of ego which is characterised by cringing fear and opportunism, and not that variety of ego which is characterised by love that defies all opposition.

**** Thank you very much Jeff Vale. I understand all you have written in your #4 and hope that my replies to Meleagar endorse that I have understood and agree with what you have written.

[Mickie]

“The truth will be found in a concert of many voices”. I can’t remember the source of this quote but I think it applies to this interesting and complex discussion. I really appreciate the intersections with the humanities and spirituality. We are in essence grappling with the Mystery of Life and much of this Mystery is unseen. This is a discussion that just by asking questions leads and opens us to greater possibilities. Each idea leads to more questions.

The thinking mind wants to “know” and have finite answers. Everything should be logical and explainable. We find a certain “security” and safety in knowing the answers. There should be a bottom-line. I wonder how much we have limited our overall development by some of our “finite” beliefs. How much do we limit ourselves when we decide something must be either/or? How much of life is really and/both?

It seems to me that it is in our imaginations, within our intuitive selves and our heart/spirit (I struggle for common terms to express this process of mystery) that move us to create beyond what is “now” in a variety of ways. Some of the manifestations are material. Others are filled with the possibility of what can be. The manifestations of these (words, art, story, explorations, revelations, visions, or whatever form inspiration takes) can be “bridges” connecting the now, which we live, with what can be when we act from unconditional love (compassion)…. This is a powerful energy that moves to create in ways that honor connection. The outcomes are often unknown because it interacts with other energy and then more energy. It is not an easy life journey to be a “bridge”, but that may be ours to do if that is what is most alive within us and if we are to honor that.

Can we be self and no-self (Self with a capital S) at the same time? Does no-self mean that I no longer am? Or could I be more of who I am? Are those we may consider to be enlightened ego free? How can we know the inner world of another? Is there a certain energy that flows within and from them? How do we feel when we are in the presence of one who lives from compassion and connection?

How separate are we if the energy that flows within each of us also flows between us? Is there more than one type of energy? If so do they all flow from one source? Where does my responsibility for my energy end? If thoughts are energy and I create with my thoughts what exactly is my responsibility? Is it possible no matter how we resist action for us not to affect one another?

As I wrote the above it occurred to me that, terms, metaphors and stories help to describe that which is unseen and yet at the same time if held too tightly they can again create limitations which echoes Jeff when he wrote “What is really required is the willingness to let go of things held to firmly fixed from time to time….”

[Jeff Vale]

Mickie:

These are great questions. They are lovely precisely because you are moved to ponder them more than simply seek answers. I certainly don't have "answers" now in the general sense. But I do love the journey of considering the possible linkages to the many elements mentioned in your post. Could there be any doubt about why I have learned so much from you over the years. Thank you for this post. It's going to give me a great deal to chew on.

Added: 5/11/2010

Mickie:

So much of what you stated in your reply simply asks gently for reflection and contemplation, but there are a few paragraphs that have prompted me to respond. I have taken the liberty of taking those blocks of text out and pasting them in here with my response following.

Can we be self and no-self (Self with a capital S) at the same time? Does no-self mean that I no longer am? Or could I be more of who I am? Are those we may consider to be enlightened ego free? How can we know the inner world of another? Is there a certain energy that flows within and from them? How do we feel when we are in the presence of one who lives from compassion and connection?

I think that there is never a time when we have “no-self,” unless there is a complete psychotic breakdown. What we can achieve, however, is a kind of free fall state. The various techniques of either meditation, or chemically created states of altered consciousness, in turning off the inner dialogue, put us in a place where we are precisely opening up to experience without filter. It is not that we have done away with the singular point of reference, but that we have simply suspended it for a time, thus allowing ourselves to sort of float freely as pure receivers. Doing this without fear, putting our faith in who we are, somehow allows this free floating state to occur without psychotic breakdown. We let go for a bit, float freely, and then reemerge with a new integration of self and the wondrous entirety that surrounds it. That, at least, is the ideal. And I can't help but feel that, in doing this, we become stronger in our sense of self. In a sense, I think, this is the necessary transcendence of self that allows us to touch the greater divinity that is the entirety.

As far as ego is concerned, I don't think that it ever goes away in regular consciousness, nor should we want it to. Having an ego is an important part of what directs us; of what prompts us to strive. That ego is taken to extremes is more a reflection (all puns intended) of the narcissism of our culture, and another (as you might say) fear based expression of hording (attention and adoration becoming a kind of currency all its own). A life lived in balance only seems to create someone who has little, or no, ego. Make no mistake. These people still strive mightily, but they do so in ways that simultaneously give, receive and make. These are the kind of people who achieve but resist the temptation of glory. Who are large in ways that have a measure only in dimensions of the heart, just as they are strong in ways that hardly encompass muscle. You sense this in these people but never feel intimidated by them for they always have a figurative arm around you for assurance and inclusion. They are never certain, always struggle with doubt, but somehow find a way to keep faith with the ideal of the transcendent connection and the notion of balance itself.

How separate are we if the energy that flows within each of us also flows between us? Is there more than one type of energy? If so do they all flow from one source? Where does my responsibility for my energy end? If thoughts are energy and I create with my thoughts what exactly is my responsibility? Is it possible no matter how we resist action for us not to affect one another?

I really love this paragraph. Boy are there some big questions here.

I'd like to think that we are not very separate at all. One of the recurrent dreams I have had for quite a long time is connecting with someone on a level that has no boundaries; some kind of Tantric (there is an aside here that is quite fascinating. I urge you to check out these two links: #1:Tantra --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra #2: Shakti--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti) union where two souls blend as one. How we go about discovering the ability to complete this type of link I am by no means sure of. I do think it is possible though. In fact, I have to believe that it is possible. I have to believe that this is the way we were meant to connect with each other. It is a type of union that occurs several times in my “The Light of Creation” story (as another aside, I should mention that I am going to write a further tenet on connection. It is going to be angled around how the movie Avatar affected me. I have the blue ray disk of this movie and I have not been able to finish watching it. I got about halfway through when I had to stop. I'm sure you're aware of it; a not very subtle depiction of “greedy resource rapers” not only not understanding the indigenous people, and what their land means to them, but not understanding just how abstracted and unconnected they as a people are. The movie is a metaphor for me for just how magical connection should be and it broke my heart to be reminded of what I don't have. Odd as this might sound, I would love to try and watch it again if you could find it possible to watch it with me. We wouldn't have to watch it all the way through mind you. I understand that the last part gets fairly violent as the natives are forced to defend themselves. I would hasten to add, though, that the world depicted is beyond beautiful; especially in high def on my plasma big screen. Of course that only adds to the ache you feel from this being something you watch from the outside looking in. What are you going to do, right?).

As far as “types of energy” are concerned, I would say this. The differences we perceive in energies are like the supposed differences between empty space and matter. They seem different only because we are perceiving different kinds of transfer (which are interactions at the various scales of consideration) from the vantage point of our reality. Structure, energy and transfer are all parts of each other, and all part of the makeup of the entirety. That they are bounded in given ways, and manifest particular properties at different times, is an artifice of what we, and our reality, create together moment to moment. In one sense, of course, they are real and have practical consequence. And in another they are not real at all.

[prodygi]

I have found this thread, like the other Tenets of Cosmolosophy threads, fascinating, and even if I don't quite understand all of it, I have been stimulated to thinking about things I normally wouldn't.

So, just to share some of those thoughts:

Jeff Vale said:

attempt to just be; as in fully resonant with all that impinges upon us without classification

I would like to learn some meditation techniques. It would be nice to be able to experience life without having to classify everything as a pain, a joy, a nuisance, etc.

Jeff Vale:

Become proficient enough in meditation, or take the right psychoactive chemicals, and that loss of internal dialogue can disconnect your link to a self; what has been termed ego death

(I don't want to get that good at meditation though!)
How would you describe someone that had suffered 'ego death'? Would the person still know that they were a distinct and separate individual? Would they still be able to function in life? I guess I first need to learn what 'ego' actually means...


When you say:

A component that either directly restricts the formation of self, or through the increase in stimuli, indirectly limits formation of self.

Is that "component" (the filtering apparatus) the same as 'structure of self'? And is the 'structure' of self, something separate and in addition too, 'self'?
Instead of there being what I called a 'filtering apparatus' that we have but Savants are missing (or that we all have, but at differing degrees of effectiveness), instead could there be something that Savants have that overrides the 'filtering apparatus' that we are missing?
(That question isn't coming out the way I want; it's probably something we all have, something that works at differing 'intensity' levels.)

Everybody must have slightly different versions of the filtering apparatus in their brains. These versions may differ from one another in the percentages of stimuli allowed to filter through in a given time. The apparatus may work like a sorting machine at the Post Office and some versions have differing numbers of 'quick sort' classifications (or bins) that the apparatus can choose from to quickly sort the incoming stimuli into until there is time for further reflection. Differing reaction times where some people could be slower at the sorting but more accurate where others might be quick but prone to more error. (where maybe something like this could happen: if you're in the Dr. office about to get a shot, as soon as any slightly appropriate stimulus comes in, you cry out and may even feel the pain from the prick of the imagined needle; the incoming stimulus having been classified wrong; placed in the wrong bin.)

Different versions could explain why some things are more readily noticed by some people and not others. A red car may always catch your eye where I hardly ever notice them.
Why some people think sushi tastes good and others don't. I could probably go on and on but I don't think that I should explain Everything all at one go!