The Human Antipathy to Change: The Mind's Search for Meaning

Take a look at this set of lines. What do you see?

Do you see anything? Or does it just look like random lines? A face maybe? Here, try this time.

Still nothing? Alright one more time.

What do you see now?

Is it the letter “E”?

Why do you now see a meaningful image while before you saw nothing but “just lines”? Aren’t these still just the same black lines on a white background? Yes, nothing has changed except the relative configuration of these lines. However, the configuration in this final image has symbolic significance because it is a pattern we have encountered before. Over time we have learned to associate this arrangement of lines with the letter “E”. It is important to remember that the lines in the final image are no less arbitrary than the lines in the ones before (think about how many different types of "E's" exisit E,E,E,E,E)  yet the final “E” seems to be the only recognizable pattern. In other words (or letters), this is nothing but an ‘e’lusion of the mind as it attempts to find meaning in a world that really just random lines.

To pvore tihs piont futrehr, I wlil bgien to tpye uinsg mexid up lteerts. Isn’t it aziamng? Eevn wtih all the ltetres out of odrer you can sltil raed the txet and unerandstd its’ manieng. Tihs is the mgaic of the mnid leadis and genemtlan. Low and bhelod the pwoer of mnetal costnrtucion! 

This example clearly illustrates that what we see is structured by the mind’s drive for a logical ordering of the universe. As the French anthropologist Levi Strauus put it, our thought patterns are highly disciplined intellectual structures designed to give the world coherence, shape, and meaning. What’s more is that our consciousness represents a selective simplification and ordering of nearly endless possibility. (Think about how many different ways those eight black lines can be interpreted.) Consciousness is a “reducing-valve” that protects us from being overwhelmed by the incessant onslaught of stimuli. Consciousness allows us to select, focus and make real a specific event out of a continuum of possibilities; otherwise we would be caught in an impossible deluge of potential configurations and constructs of the world.  Thus we are dependent on this editing process of mind to create a common denominator, an agreement which can cement us in reality.

This fundamental process of mind is the origin of our antipathy to change, the root of what I call “psychological inertia”. In a world that is characterized by change, we seek that which is familiar, stable, and unvarying to help us cope. That is why we can only see the letter “E” and are unable to accept the other configurations as equally valid or meaningful. Our mental construction of reality, our weltanschauung, is adapted to mitigate the inherent entropy of the universe. It is only through agreement upon a common worldview which we can have a subjective experience of consciousness, let alone a functioning society. In other words, our worldview is fundamentally based upon diminishing change and randomness to the point where a common “objective” reality can be upheld.

Every culture’s worldview is different; in fact every person’s worldview is different. I’ve barrowed the picture below to show how people with different worldviews arrive at different interpretations of the same image.   

If you had to describe what was going on in this picture, what would you say? Most Westerners, who are used to seeing boxlike architectural structures, interpret the picture as a family sitting indoors. They see the shape above the woman’s head as a window with a view of plants outside. However, when scientists showed this sketch to certain East African peoples, they all assumed that the shape above the woman’s head was a box or metal object that she was balancing. Moreover they thought the family was sitting under a tree since their culture contained few visual cues to indicate perpendicular walls. Whose interpretation is correct? I would aver that they both are.

Now let us consider someone under the influence of LSD. How might he or she see this picture? Would there be colors? Would the lines be moving and flowing into each other? Would people melt and reform into other shapes? The real question is whether such an interpretation of the picture is any less valid that what you or I see. Although my reality adjusted thinking tells me this is a picture of a family sitting in a room, this is just one interpretation of nearly limitless possibilities. For me this image is akin to the set of lines that form the little “E”, it has recognizable meaning. However, a person on LSD may see this picture as nothing more than squiggly lines with no associated meaning.This illustrates that regardless of what's on the paper, our minds are providing (or not) the meaning.

Since drug use provides us with a special case of consciousness, I'd like barrow the words of author Joesph Chilton Pearce as he comments on the topic in his book The Crack in the Cosmic Egg:

“ To shatter our working models of the universe does not lead to a ‘true picture’ of the universe…our concepts are to some extent arbitrary constructs, but to disrupt or dissolve them with drugs does not free us into some universal knowledge ‘out there’ in the great beyond. There is instead the loss of meaningful structures of agreement needed for communion with others. This can lead to the loss of personality definition itself…any worldview is a creative tension between possibility and choice. This is the tension that holds community and ‘real’ together. This is the cohesive force of our own center of awareness, the thin line between the loss of self to autistic disillusion on one hand, or slavery to broad statistics of the world on the other.”

Our consciousness is rigged with a catch; namely that in order to survive we must limit our interpretation of events to give the world structuring, yet at the same time doing so negates one of the greatest human assets—the ability to imagine alternatives and creatively synthesize novel ideas.

Just because we have arrived at one "reality adjusted" mode of thinking does not mean it is the only valid  approach to conscious thought. Autistic savants and other creative geniuses typically lie at the boundaries of what we consider “normal” thought. But rather than ostracizing and marginalizing those who have adopted a less “agreed upon” configuration of reality, we should seek to learn as much as possible from their unique worldview. It is sad that one mode of thinking has come to predominate the globe when so many varieties of consciousness are possible.

To be fair, the rational, analytic mindset the has predominate the last few hundred years was and is an invaluable asset to our growth and evolution. It took us through an incredible period of science and empiricism which served humanity in countless ways. But as I have quoted before, the problems of the world today cannot be solved at the level of thought which created them. I'm almost certian we cannot take the next step towards a brighter future if we have people who cannot think outside the confines of their inherited worldview.

To truly evolve, we need to buck this trend of limiting our creative potential and push the boundary of what we consider possible. This is especially pertinent in areas of eduction, where most teaching imposes limits on what we think and know.  Tests will never stimulate creativity and innovation because the questions asked presuppose an answer congruent with the question, and most questions are closed-ended and retrospective in nature. Novel ideas aren't likely to arise when people's success is based upon their ability to answer within the established parameters. As a teacher, I don't want you to tell me what I want to hear; I want you to tell me what I've never heard before.  But the problems of today's educaiton system is a topic for another time, so i will resist the urge to mount my soapbox and return to the main discussion. 

A lot of ideas have been tossed around (since I'm prone to digress when excited), so let me reiterate the main point in different words. Our conscious mind is designed to see just one version of reality. The version of the world we see is a product of our genetics and our unique experience: our culture, our early childhood relationships, our values, our learned responses, our semantic knowledge, etc. The diagram at right illustrates our worldview as an onion with different layers that shape our perception and understanding of reality. This onion, which we’ve built up throughout the course of our lives, is the world as we know it; it is what we see and practice day by day. Moreover, it is how we know the world (i.e. how we relate to the thoughts and feelings that run through us.) This onion is our comfort zone, our familiar ways of being. And while our onion worldview will always be undergoing some mutation and change, there’s nothing more threatening than peeling away its layers thereby tearing down the matrix that grants us a first person experience of reality. To protect our onion (our worldview, our ego, our consciousness perception of reality,) we tend towards stasis over variance and seek to preserve the status quo rather than include difference and unfamiliarity. It is easier to accept the one story we've been told since birth than embrace a new one. This is self-preservation on the mental level.

This drive for self-preservation and stasis causes ways of being that I will outline below and hopefully discuss in greater detail at a later point.

·         The habit of wanting certainty: being more interested in the familiar than the unknown.

·         The habit of wanting to feel safe and secure. Although most of us could say that we feel most alive when taking healthy, creative risks, how often do hesitate and take the easier, less risky path. 

·         The habit of wanting to keep everything the same rather than evolving and changing. This entails a willingness to let go and step into the unknown, but too often we are afraid of what’s around the corner.

·         The habit of adhering to a familiar life even if it is unhealthy. On the flip side is the failure to pursue a more attractive future out of fear of uncertainty.

·         The habit of looking to the past when we confront new challenges and problems rather than opening ourselves up to new possibilities that are outside of things we’ve seen or considered before.

·         The habit of avoiding difficult truths that might hurt or disturb our worldview.

·         And perhaps most importantly, the habit of thinking small and short-term rather than thinking in a larger context. This is the habit of living an egocentric life driven by petty fears and desires rather than embracing a world-centric outlook that pursues our highest virtues.

The Human Antipathy to Change (part 2)

“How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?

 Just one, but the light bulb has to really want to change.”

 

Cliché light bulb jokes aside, we all recognize the truth in this saying. Significant and lasting change must be of our own making; otherwise we will revert back to our original mode of thinking/behaving once external pressures are removed. Take this image to the left as an example. Upon first glance you might see beautiful young women in a fur coat looking off into the distance. At the same time, others might tell you that it is actually an image of an old hag with a large nose and long chin. Sure, you might be able to force yourself into seeing the old lady. However, without a genuine internal change, you’ll continue to see the beautiful young women because seeing otherwise requires effort, energy, and reorganization--things that individuals and molecules alike tend to minimize at all costs. The inability to see the other meaning is nothing more than inertia at work in the mental realm.


So why is this “psychological inertia” so important; moreover, where does it come from? Well, Newton ascribed inertia as a property of matter back in 1687, and the last time I checked inertia still exists and we are just highly organized lumps of matter. Hence, there’s no reason inertia should not hold true for our thoughts and behaviors, especially if we accept the modern scientific paradigm that the brain is the physical seat and/or correlate of the mind (a quandary which is still hotly debated.) Nonetheless, there are many other reasons why our minds resist change, mostly having to do with the very function of the mind itself. So to help understand the nature of the beast in question please click the link and check out the famous turning dancer illusion .

What do you see? Is the dancer turning clockwise or counterclockwise?

Optical illusions like this are perhaps the best examples of how our minds shape reality: how our unique worldview adds that all-so-important layer of meaning to otherwise meaningless stimuli. The spinning dancer effectively shows us that our experience of reality (i.e. how we see the world) is more of an inventive synthesis than a passive intake of an objective “out there” world. In other words, what a thing is is to an unknowable extent determined or influenced by what we think it is. In the dancer example, the external stimuli never changes, yet a simple internal shift in thinking creates an entirely new reality, one where the women is spinning in the complete opposite direction!

Like in the young woman/old lady illusion, a change in what we see is caused by an unconscious paradigm shift, a Eureka! moment that restructures our representation of the world. I say unconscious because most of the framework which structures our reality is neatly tucked below our awareness, yet it is possible to bring aspects of this scaffolding into conscious deliberation.

Go look at the dancer again. Now look away for a moment and imagine her spinning in the opposite direction. Can you make her change directions? Can your formative powers of imagination will her into rotating to your liking? Doing so requires a top-down change of your mental precept, something that is difficult but certainly not impossible.

In his fabulous book “A Crack in the Cosmic Egg”, Joseph Chilton Pearce describes this phenomenon as Metanoia from the Greek word for conversion. He says,

“Metanoia is the process by which concepts are reorganized. It is a specialized, intensified adult form of the same world-view developing found shaping the mind of an infant. It proves to be the way by which all genuine education takes place…As we change our inherited representations of the world, the world we deal with changes accordingly.”

Metanoia is the intuitive, catalytic mode of consciousness that allows us to reshape our thoughts and behaviors; and if strengthened and enriched, it can provide the basis for transcending the logical confines of our culturally accepted world view and push our consciousness into new uncharted territories.


Pearce claims that  metanoia is the key to creative thinking. In fact he claims all great scientific discoveries from the illumination of E=MC2 to the double-helix postulate are a result of this freely-synthesizing aspect of mind which is untrammeled by harsh realities and cultural impediments.  In other words, most significant "discoveries" or breakthroughs have occurred via this opening of mind to encompass possibility beyond what is considered feasible by our reality-adjusted, social thinking. Only by transcending the logical barriers of our mental constructs can we introduce a new way of "seeing" the world. As I've said before, a new way of "seeing" is not only the end goal of personal change but is absolutely necessary if we wish move beyond the limitations of our inherited egocentric existence and evolve into higher levels of consciousness.

 The above discussion is meant to exemplify three things: Firstly that our first-person experience of reality is a synthetic process of mind, secondly that our mental constructs limit our interpretation of events to the exclusion of other possibilities (which is why we can’t see the dancer spinning both ways at once), and thirdly that these selective interpretations are arbitrary and can in fact be altered through metanoia, a process of radical reorganization. What does this all have to do with change? Well, as we asserted before, personal change is fundamentally a process of altering one’s mental landscape. Changing ourselves, our attitudes is simply a process of making the dancer rotate in a new direction. Of course large overarching change is more difficult to bring about because we are dealing with complicated, ingrained structures of mind; nevertheless, the fundamental process of reconfiguration is the same.

Hopefully, I’ve elucidated the influence of unconscious factors in how we perceive reality and shown the process by which changing our constructs of reality can occur. In the next post I will to go into more detail about why changing our interpretation of the world is so difficult. I ask and answer what makes our worldview so fundamentally averse to change, and what can we do about it.

Hypocrisy & the Human Antipathy to Change (pt. 1)

We are all hypocrites. Show me someone who practices what they preach to a “T”, and I’ll show you a hippogryph playing chess with a unicorn. There’s no avoiding hypocrisy; the chasm between what we say and what we do is an elemental part of the human condition. It is rooted in our split-mind: the bifurcation of reality between conscious and unconscious activity.

Jung and other depth psychologists have called the split of consciousness from unconsciousness the culprit of all human troubles, the “fall” in mythological terms. Everything from our impulse purchases to cheating on our diets exemplify our inability to shake-off the unconscious emotional urges that lay below the limen of awareness. Think about how many times we did something we know we shouldn’t have done or simply said yes when we really meant no? The answer is more often than we’d like to admit.

I recognize that there are many situations where we feel coerced to act a certain way, or at least the circumstances makes choosing another alternative impossible. However, even if we had the freedom to choose otherwise, would we? I’m not so sure and if you keep reading, you might agree. Also please note I’m using “we” since I am in no way above such insincere behavior. Moreover, I am convinced that most of us want to change in all the right ways. We want to be good people. We don’t want to be a slave to our primitive drives. We want to be transformed; and as a result, all this hypocrisy makes us uncomfortable.

Author Joesph Chilton Pierce describes the situation as an “underlying desperation in us, unstated and inchoate, that is nothing less than a split mind’s realization of its split world.” We long for a way out, yet we typically remedy this situation by lying to ourselves, feigning authenticity, and repenting when our behavior seems out of line. Sure this might assuage some negative self-talk and ameliorate cognitive dissonance, but does it really accomplish anything? No, the heart of the situation remains unchanged.

Let me use myself as an example. I have proselytized the need to live by one’s principles, be more real, more genuine. I’ve even touted myself as a free-spirit, open to experience, willing to go beyond a personal ego-centered worldview and embrace a globally-minded compassion. While my friends and family probably take my words to heart, little do they know that despite my self-assured talk, the very next moment I go and cower in my insular routine perpetuating all the things I say I’m not. We often make highfalutin claims about the things which we find ourselves most unable to change. Meanwhile our hypocrisy stares at us like a white elephant in the room.

I feel we make excuses that life is too busy, too complicated, and too problematic to do the inner work necessary to bring about change. We assume that if all the external obstacles to self-actualization are removed, we would soar into our fullest potential. Moreover, we take the misguided attitude that such hypocritical behavior is inescapable in today’s society.

A few weeks ago at my University’s conference on forging an ecological mindset through literature, the lunch break consisted of red meat on Styrofoam plates. I thought to myself “this is all wrong”, but what could I do? I could just not eat. Problem solved. But of course I gobbled away since ignoring a table full of free food would break with every survival instinct I have. I justified my behavior by saying that the next time I would act perfectly in accordance with what I know and believe to be right. Though I might say this with an air of certainty, deep down my heart is unconvinced—this is the realization of the split-mind: hypocrisy manifest.

I’m sure every one of us has had a similar experience. Whether it be a small thing like throwing a piece of litter into the street or a large thing like learning to act less selfishly, we all have personal issues we wish to improve. So I ask, what is holding us back from making the changes we want to make, from wholeheartedly adopting the worldview we wish to uphold?

What is holding us back? The answer to the question is plain and simple: it is not “them” or society, but ourselves, our ego, our unwillingness to let go of what is familiar, comfortable, and easy. This is the stark truth most of us are unable to accept.

We wish to shift to locus of control to an external power, but in reality we are the only ones to fault. For when it comes to achieving our higher self-evolution, most of us don’t want to change. Sure, we want things to change: we want to feel better, be happier, and have an easier life. But we do not want to have to change our deep habits of being, our habits of relating to others or identifying with the thoughts and feelings that run through us. Very few of us want to let go of the familiar ways of being and behaving that we’re accustomed to. Why? Simply put, because we do not want to get out of our comfort zone.

We all want to do what is best for the environment, for humanity, for the planet; but will you exchange your car for a bicycle? No. Will you give up your favorite food because farming it creates ecological havoc, emits greenhouse gasses, and causes needless animal suffering? No. Will we only change if the pain of not changing becomes worse that the pain of change itself? Yes.

I use the ecological example not because I’m a tree-hugging eco-nut, but simply because it clearly demonstrates how our desire to change typically cedes authority to a greater desire for maintaining comfort. Bringing about true fundamental change in our behavior, our worldview, is an extremely difficult process requiring extraordinary effort. Some people, I dare say, are even incapable of such change, having not the interiority or knowledge necessary to begin reformulating their behaviors and beliefs about reality. Others who have the genuine desire to change still may never achieve the transformation they desire because there is a host of other factors keeping our behavior and worldview static.

Change is uncomfortable, awkward, and perhaps even painful; but I believe it is absolutely necessary if we want to progress and thrive. As Einstein famously said, “the significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.” We need a new way of thinking and a thorough understanding of the human antipathy towards change. In the coming posts I hope to expound in greater detail the dynamics which inhibit deep-seated change and theorize a new path for evolving past our “split-mind” archaic way of life.