All posts by Robert M Ellis

About Robert M Ellis

Robert M Ellis is the founder of the Middle Way Society, and author of a number of books on Middle Way Philosophy, including the introductory 'Migglism' and the new Middle Way Philosophy series published by Equinox. A former teacher, he now runs a retreat centre in Wales, Tirylan House, and is in the process of creating a forest garden there.

Network Stimulus 10: Practice – The Integration of Desire

Health and well-being, Middle Way Philosophy, Practice

The next main meeting of the Middle Way Network will be on Sun 27th September at 7pm UK time on Zoom. This is the first of a series of three talks and discussions focusing on the nature of Middle Way practice: that is, how we can create the conditions for better judgement overcoming conflict in the long-term. We will be looking in turn at the integration of desire, meaning and belief as interdependent aspects of practice, linked to a potentially wide range of specific practices including meditation, the arts, and critical thinking.

There’ll be a short talk on practice as integration of belief, followed by questions, then discussion in regionalised breakout groups. Some other regionalised groups will meet at other times. If you’re interested in joining us but are not already part of the Network, please see the general Network page to sign up. To catch up on the previous session, on integration in general, please see this post.

There is already an introductory video (18 mins) on integration of desire as part of Middle Way Philosophy, which is embedded below. You might like to watch this for an initial orientation before the session. This is slightly longer than the other introductory videos we’ve had so far, but it goes through some key ideas carefully in a way that there probably won’t be time for in the stimulus talk. It is mainly about cake!

Here is the video from the actual talk on 27th Sept 2020:

Practice and the Integration of Desire

The integration of desire is a way of thinking about practice that can help us to bridge the gap that is too often assumed between our “biological urges” and our “values” or “better natures”. Too often, “ethics” has consisted in telling people to repress their desires in the service of a “higher”, sometimes socially-sanctioned, sometimes “rational” rule. In the longer term, this doesn’t work, because repressed desires have a habit of coming back and re-asserting themselves. That seems to happen just as much at the socio-political level (repressing other groups) as it does at individual level (repressing basic desires). We need a better model of moral practice than merely one of rule-following, and the integration model offers one. Such an alternative model can also be symbolically inspired in the stories of the Buddha by his recognition that asceticism (denying and repressing desire) does not work, and him turning instead to the Middle Way.

Meditation is probably also a basic practice in which we can directly experience how integration of desire is possible, at least on a temporary basis. Simply by relaxing our bodies sufficiently, we can sometimes put what at first seemed overwhelming conflicts in a bigger perspective. Other embodied disciplines, such as yoga or tai chi, may have a similar effect. However, to overcome conflicts of desire in the longer-term we need to also address fragmentation of meaning and conflict of belief, which are the subjects of the following two sessions.

Some suggested reflection questions:

1. Which kinds of desires do you most often experience as conflicting?

2. How could those desires be integrated?

Suggested further reading

Migglism section 4: ‘Integrating Theory and Practice’ and ‘Meditation’

Middle Way Philosophy 2: The Integration of Desire
For a summary of this book by section see this webpage. For full text see Researchgate.

For discussion of the issues in relation to Buddhism, see The Buddha’s Middle Way 1.e (on the Buddha’s renunciation of asceticism) and 6.c (on craving).

Network Stimulus 9: Integration

Middle Way Philosophy, Practice,

The next main meeting of the Middle Way Network will be on Sun 13th September at 7pm UK time on Zoom. This is the fifth of the series looking successively at five principles of the Middle Way (scepticism, provisionality, incrementality, agnosticism and integration), followed by three levels of practice (desire, meaning and belief).

There’ll be a short talk on integration, followed by questions, then discussion in regionalised breakout groups. Some other regionalised groups will meet at other times. If you’re interested in joining us but are not already part of the Network, please see the general Network page to sign up. To catch up on the previous session, on agnosticism, please see this post.

There is already a short introductory video (9 mins) on integration as part of Middle Way Philosophy, which is embedded below. You might like to watch this for an initial orientation before the session.

Integration

Integration is the process by which conflicting desires, meanings and beliefs can be reconciled. It is central to the Middle Way, because it is absolute beliefs that prevent different desires being integrated and thus maintain conflict. We can see how absolutisation creates conflict in all sorts of contexts, from an individual trying to give up smoking to a global conflict between nations. In all cases, it is the ability to reframe the assumptions with which conflicting beliefs are based (as in the story of the two mules on the video), that makes it possible to reconcile these conflicts. A basic attitude is required of reconciling ourselves with our shadows (hated objects) rather than merely trying to eliminate them.

Integration thus forms the basic framework for Middle Way practice that can change our conditions of judgement over a period of time. There are three levels of integrative practice, each of which will be discussed in more detail in the next three stimulus sessions: integration of desire, that unites conflicting desires in the immediate situation; integration of meaning that makes it possible for conflicting selves or people to communicate; and integration of belief that questions our frameworks of assumption and seeks better, more adequate ones. Mindfulness, the arts and critical thinking provide examples of key practices at each level.

Some suggested reflection questions:

  1. Can you think of an example of a recent process of integration you have gone through, whether with someone else or just within yourself?
  2. Try to identify the different stages of that integration that has occurred in your experience, and whether it can be related to the process of the two mules.
  3. What are the desires, meanings or beliefs you find most difficult to integrate?

Suggested further reading:

Migglism ch.2, fifth section ‘Integration’

Middle Way Philosophy 1, section 6: summarised here, full text available here.

Middle Way Philosophy volumes 2, 3 and 4 give a much more detailed account of the different levels of integration. These can all be found in the Middle Way Philosophy Omnibus.

The Buddha’s Middle Way 3.g: Integration: The Wet Piece of Wood

Network Stimulus 8: Agnosticism

Middle Way Philosophy, Network Stimulus, Religion, Video

The next main meeting of the Middle Way Network will be on Sun 30th August at 7pm UK time on Zoom. This is the fourth of the series looking successively at five principles of the Middle Way (scepticism, provisionality, incrementality, agnosticism and integration), followed by three levels of practice (desire, meaning and belief).

There’ll be a short talk on agnosticism, followed by questions and discussion in regionalised breakout groups. Some other regionalised groups will meet at other times. If you’re interested in joining us but are not already part of the Network, please see the general Network page to sign up. To catch up on the previous session, on incrementality, please see this post.

There is already a short introductory video (9 mins) on agnosticism as part of Middle Way Philosophy, which is embedded below. You might like to watch this for an initial orientation before the session.

Here is the video of the actual network talk, followed by Q&A:



Agnosticism

Agnosticism is an aspect of Middle Way practice that is interdependent with scepticism, provisionality and incrementality, but involves the distinctive challenge of decisively resisting absolute beliefs on both sides. Once we recognise that we ‘don’t know’ and can’t know anything perfect or infinite, the challenge is that of not being either unnerved or seduced by those with absolute beliefs who will constantly try to either dismiss or appropriate any kind of Middle Way position. These absolute beliefs may be about God, or about a whole range of other claims of infinite scope. Resisting these absolute beliefs requires having confidence in our embodied experience as a basis of judgement, as well as the application of critical thinking skills.

Agnosticism, like scepticism, has been much misunderstood and straw-manned by many philosophers and theologians, who then influence others’ views of it. It has been unfairly associated with indecisiveness, when it actually requires a good deal of decisiveness. It has been appropriated by those on both sides, who use its arguments, but then over-extend them into a claim that it positively supports their own absolute position. Agnosticism about God’s existence has also often been appropriated by atheists, who conflate the mere failure to believe in an absolute with belief in the opposite, often by redefining the terms in a way that tries to make any Middle Way unthinkable.

Alongside the avoidance of belief in absolute claims, we can maintain even-handedness by also having a full acceptance of their meaning. This means that we can engage as fully as we wish with the archetypal power of absolute ideas, or of the images and concepts associated with them, as we encounter them in experience. In our attitude to religious traditions, a Middle Way thus allows us to combine a resolute agnosticism with a practical appreciation of all the valuable inspiration and practical guidance that can be found in these traditions. A further video exploring the distinction between absolute belief and archetypal meaning can be found here.

Some suggested reflection questions:

  1. What are the absolute beliefs that you need to be most decisive in remaining agnostic about?
  2. Are there some negative absolute beliefs you may hold that you need to separate from agnostic ones?
  3. Have you experienced the difference between strong and weak agnostic positions?
  4. Do absolute beliefs remain meaningful to you even when you avoid belief in them? How could you make them meaningful if they aren’t?

Suggested further reading:

Truth on the Edge  chapter 2

Middle Way Philosophy I: 1e: Distinguishing Negative Metaphysics from Agnosticism

The Buddha’s Middle Way: 3.f: Agnosticism: The Elephant and the Snake

Network Stimulus 7: Incrementality

Critical Thinking, Middle Way Philosophy, Network Stimulus

The next main meeting of the Middle Way Network will be on Sun 16th August at 7pm UK time on Zoom. This is the third of the series looking successively at five principles of the Middle Way (scepticism, provisionality, incrementality, agnosticism and integration), followed by three levels of practice (desire, meaning and belief).

There’ll be a short talk on incrementality, followed by questions and discussion in regionalised breakout groups. Some other regionalised groups will meet at other times. If you’re interested in joining us but are not already part of the Network, please see the general Network page to sign up. To catch up on the previous session, on scepticism, please see this post.

There is already a short introductory video (8 minutes) on incrementality as part of Middle Way Philosophy, which is embedded below. You might like to watch this for an initial orientation before the session.

Here’s the video of the actual stimulus talk and Q&A:

Incrementality

Incrementality is seeing things as a matter of degree rather than as an on/off switch. It is an important aspect of Middle Way practice, because it is one of the ways we can challenge absolute assumptions on either side. Absolute assumptions are framed as discontinuous alternatives between one thing and another, seen as necessarily the only way we can understand the situation. However, in human practical experience there is always another way of framing these absolute binary choices, which are imposed by our conceptual assumptions. We do not have to depose conceptual assumptions themselves (or the logic we use to relate them to each other) to do this, but merely use them more carefully, thinking carefully about the meaning of what we are talking about in experience rather than in terms of the concepts traditionally imposed on it.

Some of the most damaging and immediate examples of the negative impact of binary distinctions can be seen in arguments about race, nationality, or any other human group assumed to have a fixed boundary. Not only these, but even some of the most seemingly intractable binary assumptions that have become entrenched into our language and thinking can be reframed. God or his absence is one widespread example of this. Freewill and determinism, and mind and body are others.

The tendency to think in terms of necessary and absolute binaries is also often described as dualism or as false dichotomy. We also have many phrases in everyday thinking that show ways of avoiding them. We often talk about ‘black and white’ thinking versus ‘shades of gray’, or of things as being ‘a matter of degree’. ‘Incrementality’ can also be thought of as ‘continuity’, or ‘gradualism’. It also has much in common with ‘non-dualism’ if this is interpreted practically rather than metaphysically.

Some suggested reflection questions:

  1. Think of an example of an opposed pair of terms that you frequently absolutise. Can you work out how they could be incrementalised?
  2. How do you think incrementalisation might help you in a practical situation: for example, resolving a dispute?
  3. Do you still find yourself assuming there are some opposed terms that can’t be incrementalised? (This may require further philosophical exploration and discussion to be resolved)

Suggested further reading:

Middle Way Philosophy 1:1.d

Middle Way Philosophy 4: Section 4 discusses a whole set of different pairs of opposed metaphysical beliefs and how they may be integrated (see pdf of Omnibus edition on Researchgate).

The Buddha’s Middle Way 3.e: ‘Incrementality: The Ocean’ has more about the concept of incrementality in the Pali Canon and in Buddhism

Hiroshima at 75

Ethics, History, Middle Way Philosophy, Video, ,

The 75th anniversary of the first military use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima has been the prompt for London’s Imperial War Museum to commission a a special example of reflective art. Es Devlin and Machiko Weston were preparing an exhibition, but have now produced a remarkable video called ‘I saw the world end’, so we can access their work online instead. This video is well worth watching and reflecting on, so I will embed it below, and it will be followed by some further reflections from me. Is Hiroshima to be a prompt to further conflict, or for learning? Much depends on finding the Middle Way in relation to it. You can see more about the context of the video on the Imperial War Museum site.

One of the things I find most helpful about the video is the way that it combines two perspectives, above and below the line. These can be seen as Western and Japanese, bomber and victim, but they are much more than that. For the most part they use very different sorts of language. Those above the line are scientific and universal: they think in terms of abstract generalities, either in terms of the science that produced the bomb or the justifications that launched it. Below it, however, there is only immediate overwhelmed experience and emotional response: the response of the right hemisphere of the brain that is desperately trying to respond to new experience, rather than the left hemisphere that marks the language above the line. Above the line, too, the language is often passive (rather like academic language, avoiding personalisation), but below the line, the bomb happens to real people in a real situation.

I have been reflecting on the ways that the helpfulness of our response to Hiroshima depends very much on whether we are prepared to straddle that line. A common response for anyone with a degree of sensitivity and compassion today is just to be enormously shocked by what happened, and to immediately feel the bombing to be a monstrous and inhumane action that must never be repeated. As long as we remain with that human experience of what happened and have sympathy with the immense suffering that occurred, we are likely to go on feeling like this. However, if we instead enter the world of the people above the line, we find a very different experience: one of abstract reasoning in which technologies are developed for what are sincerely believed in as humane ends, for the purposes of resisting Fascist regimes that were capable of even greater calculated cruelty than any that might have contributed to Hiroshima. We are in the world of utilitarian reasoning, in which the end justifies the means, and the lesser evil averts the greater one.

The challenge of practising the Middle Way in relation to this topic, as I see it, is to extend our awareness both above and below the line, not prematurely rejecting one tendency above the other, but rather putting them both into as large a context as we can manage. As a former ethics teacher, I have organised debates about the justification of Hiroshima between students, and am aware from this how quickly the whole issue can become over-abstract, as it becomes merely a matter of proving a moral theory, rather than maintaining our sense of what extreme human suffering is actually like. At times it can seem like an insult to the sufferers to debate their fate in the abstract – yet we necessarily do this all the time, whenever we give a specific situation the wider context of its relationship to other situations. At the point of judgement on medical resources, for instance, the suffering of a patient requiring an enormously expensive treatment can no longer be the only thing we consider. We start having to weigh it up against the further suffering that may result by not spending that money on other needful causes. Getting caught up completely below the line can be just as limiting as being caught entirely above it. We have to try to be amphibious, however difficult that may seem.

The utilitarian reasoning for Hiroshima ran along the lines that greater suffering might well result if the Allies continued to fight the war against Japan by conventional means. Japan was deemed unlikely to surrender before the end of the huge bloodbath that a conventional invasion of Japan would have required. The use of nuclear weapons, however, was intended to force a rapid Japanese surrender without this. Of course, such reasoning depends on the accuracy of our assessment of our actions and their likely effects, but in wartime it is very difficult to avoid such reasoning. Similar thinking had already been employed in the war against the Germans when the decision was taken to conceal the fact that the Enigma Code used by German communications had been cracked. Many Allied lives were thus lost in the short term that could have been saved, but in the cause of an ultimate victory. Remarkably, this strategy worked.

So, in my view, we cannot simply dismiss utilitarian reasoning. Utilitarian reasoning is capable of saving the world, and may have already done so. At the same time, we cannot rely on it exclusively, without constantly renewing our wider experience of both the practical and the emotional impact of our actions. However, helpful utilitarian reasoning depends on honest and accurate assessments of the effects of our actions of a kind that are all too rare in practice, taking into account even unknown unknowns as far as we can. Utilitarian reasoning can also be held responsible for much of our past treatment of the environment, and the insufficiently foreseen rebounding effects this is now having on us. There are no single abstract moral theories that can give us all the right answers in any situation, only a toolbox of different responses, and the potential to cultivate the kind of awareness and provisionality we need to use that toolbox wisely. I do not think that we should now try to answer the question of whether Harry Truman’s judgement was right or wrong, because it is our own judgements now that we need to take responsibility for, not his. However, the practice of trying to understand both sides of the question offers valuable resources to us even today.