"Theory contamination" is a big problem in spirituality

What is real? This is one of the toughest questions to answer, because to a large degree, reality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. 

I'm mainly speaking about subjective realities here, the province of spirituality, religion, and mysticism. But to a lesser degree, objective realities, the province of science, also appear different to people with varying theoretical assumptions.

A classic example is observations of the motions of the planets in the middle ages. For quite a while it was assumed that Earth was at the center of what we now call the solar system, with the Sun and the planets known at the time orbiting Earth.

To make the observations fit with that assumption, Ptolemy and others came up with the notion of epicycles -- basically circles within circles that, with enough fiddling, could fairly accurately mirror motions of what was observed in the heavens. 

Of course, once the Sun-centered assumption took hold, the epicycles weren't necessary. Well, actually they were to some extent, since it was assumed that planetary orbits were circular, rather than elliptical as they actually are, so some fiddling still was required.

My point is that the interpretation of observations or perceptions rarely, if ever, take place in a theoretical vacuum.

The smell of coffee is much more appealing to someone who enjoys the beverage than to someone who can't stand the taste of it. How big a problem the number of undocumented immigrants entering the United States is depends on how valuable someone considers the immigrants are for this country.

In Thomas Metzinger's book, The Elephant and the Blind, which is about the experience of pure awareness reported by meditators, he speaks about "theory contamination" as being an issue for every scientific approach.

I'd add that it's an issue for non-scientific approaches also. It's really tough for a group of people to decide on a restaurant to go to when some of the deciders only eat organic food, others are vegetarians, and still others are on a paleo all-meat diet. How they value a restaurant depends on what food they prefer.

Metzinger writes:

In Tibetan Buddhism, pure awareness has long been beautifully described as "the natural state" (rang bzhin gnas rigs). The existence of a label like this may seem unremarkable, or it may be straightforwardly useful. But it also presents us with one example of a methodological difficulty, a major obstacle that every scientific approach has to face.

In chapter 2, I called it the problem of "theory contamination": Theoretical assumptions and belief systems may have strongly colored the reports that we received, and the conceptual instruments available to a practitioner inevitably shape the way she communicates her own experience.

We find many example of such contamination in this book. Our meditators spontaneously and more or less innocently use ancient concepts charged with implicit bias, like "suchness" (chapter 9), "emptiness" (chapter 17), "luminosity" (chapter 18), "witnessing" (chapter 19), "nonduality" (chapters 26 and 27), and "nonmeditation" (chapter 32).

Here's some of the conclusions Metzinger draws from the problem of theory contamination.

But if we adopt an intellectually honest and methodologically sound perspective, then "phenomenality" as such -- the subjective sense of appearance itself, the bare and nonconceptual character of "awareness" or "pure consciousness" -- is only a phenomenal quality too, just as redness, greenness, sweetness, and epistemicity are.

Today, the way to go is not to jump to strong metaphysical conclusions in a naively realistic manner, as if the structure of reality could be directly read from the structure of certain kinds of conscious experience.

Our new model of consciousness must not be constrained only by the phenomenology because other forms of evidence count as well. The elephant approach must involve a multiplicity of perspectives, because it is attempting to satisfy a whole range of constraints entailed by multiple levels of analysis.

Nothing is given here -- no direct form of inner perception. The directness, transparency, and experiential immediacy all belong on the level of appearances, as later reported verbally.

Hard to argue with. Color and taste, as Metzinger observed, aren't part of physical reality, but of human sense organs and brain. Some people are color-blind. Some people are able to taste flavors that others can't. (A professional wine taster, for example.) 

He's saying that experiences of pure awareness are similar. But here it isn't a physical perception that is experienced differently by various people, but the character of awareness or pure consciousness.

Most Buddhists will describe their experience in a different way than most Christians will. An atheist may describe their experience as an embrace of being, while a religious person may describe it as the presence of God.

Metzinger's quest, which he says will take much more research than he's been able to do so far, is to arrive at a phenomenology of pure awareness where the "actual" experience (a problematic word) is separated from the conceptual overlay meditators give the experience via theory contamination. 

It's a noble goal. I'm just skeptical that it's possible to achieve. But that's an assumption of mine which surely suffers from a form of theory contamination.

Comments

[Chodpa]

Hi there, I just wanted to say how much I'm enjoying your posts on Thomas Metzinger's book. On the basis of what you've shared I'm looking forward to getting it and exploring it. I appreciate very much what sounds like an effort to conduct research across many traditions, and exploring what this reveals.

For what it's worth, and not having read the book and got the full context:

"Theoretical assumptions and belief systems may have strongly colored the reports that we received, and the conceptual instruments available to a practitioner inevitably shape the way she communicates her own experience.
We find many example of such contamination in this book. Our meditators spontaneously and more or less innocently use ancient concepts charged with implicit bias, like "suchness" (chapter 9), "emptiness" (chapter 17), "luminosity" (chapter 18), "witnessing" (chapter 19), "nonduality" (chapters 26 and 27), and "nonmeditation" (chapter 32)."

My sense here is that the various concepts in the traditions are, at their best, used as pointing out instructions. They then directly point out various facets which are illuminating and beneficial. Another way to put it is that whilst there is a core here around pure awareness, but there's also a variety of aspects to this which can be usefully recognised. As an example, the emptiness aspect that Dzogchen points to is not quite the same as the luminosity aspect. But they are not separate, or different either. There is utility in recognising both aspects, and further utility in recognising their non difference - their nondual nature.

So for sure the conceptual apparatus used in those pointing out instructions will colour the way someone reports. But they may also represent important and useful aspects which have recognised. They are not just bias in the sense of saying it's my way, and not your way. But rather are subtle pointers to how this extraordinary and yet utter ordinary pure awareness can be recognised in full.

Maybe my response is addressed in the book?

[Ron E.]

I also would query much of what comes out of traditional and contemporary spirituality – and some findings in science with regard to reality. The observation of the planets for example. Sure, Ptolemy made the mechanics of the motion of the planets fitting his assumptions and his theories from his observations was wrong. But it was only in trying to conceptualise the mechanics that his ideas were unfounded. What is not disputed is the realities of there being an observable sun, moon and planets that can be sensed and experienced.

The sun and planets, like trees, people, wind and the sun’s warmth can all be sensed – and these are our realities. Yes, I know that our brains interpret reality – all to do with managing our survival – omitting what is not needed etc. And other creatures, again depending on their particular brains and nervous systems interpret reality to their particular ends but, however the world about us appears that is our reality, the only one we know and inhabit.

And this reality is, as far as I can ascertain, is in a constant state of flux, a series of processes, of coming and going. Perhaps it’s this impermanence that we try to fix with our attempts to ‘pigeon hole’ existence, to come up with comfortable ideas and beliefs, and yes, more pertinent to the spiritual beliefs and practices than science.

What can we know? What is real for us humans? And, what is Metzingers pure awareness? Perhaps Toliffson is pointing to it here with her here/now approach where she says: - “This moment is utterly simple and straightforward, totally obvious, completely unavoidable, effortlessly being just exactly the way it is, however that is. It may be painful or unpleasant, but there is nothing confusing about the present moment until we start thinking.”

And dear old J. Krishnamurti often said regarding ‘Choiceless Awareness’: - “Our fear is not of the unknown, but of letting go of the known. It is only when the mind allows the known to fade away that there is complete freedom from the known, and only then is it possible for the new impulse to come into being.”

[Brian Hines]

Chodpa, you're correct. We all have concepts that affect how we see the world. As you said, those concepts can point the way to phenomena that we might have missed otherwise, so aren't inherently bad in themselves. it's only when concepts become so favored, so strong, that they obscure reality, when concepts become a problem.

A few posts back I shared a quote from the book about how describing an experience of pure awareness through the lens of a concept denigrates the actual experience itself. Meaning, what was experienced personally or directly is viewed as less important than how the experience can be viewed conceptually. That's how spirituality can devolve into dogmatism -- when concepts are defended at all cost, despite one's experience not matching up with the concept.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

"That's how spirituality can devolve into dogmatism -- when concepts are defended at all cost, despite one's experience not matching up with the concept."

Posted by: Brian Hines | August 07, 2024 at 10:24 AM

What, and who's experience?

You've shared that you saw some lights once upon a time when you practiced the RSSB method.

Then you said that it could have only been a part of your imagination.

But that's for you. The teaching of Charan Singh said that this could happen, in the beginning, or initially. But that wasn't all was it? What lights were supposed to happen after the flashes?

Did you read that? So if there is more according to Charan Singh Ji. Then why stop meditating after you acknowledge the initial part in your own experience. I mean if you, and hundreds of others saw some lights flashing during meditation, how does your doubt become ours? Because you stopped short of your promise to Maharaj Ji?

Why do I got to believe your lack of even knowing what lights come next as my new Atheist dogma?

I'll tell you what comes next;

The threshold

[Themathisntmathing]

Karma Theory is a Ponzi Scheme. https://youtu.be/1QkZcdCDJJg?si=NTYTM-vvP1Fu7muE <—

[Chodpa]

Hi again, I just wanted to add that I've now got the book and am deep into it. It's truly fascinating reading, and a very interesting perspective thrown back from a rather unique source.

Thanks once again for sharing this book.