Christian Life 41 - Self-Centeredness

For just at a year and a half now -since Marsh of 2024 - I've been repeating that everything about Western ideology is wrong, but I don't think I've explained myself in this regard particularly well, or, at least, I haven't explained in such a manner so that the typical Western thinker (and, by "Western," we essentially mean "Euro-American") might understand my meaning.  Today, I shall attempt to correct this oversight, and, in so doing, attempt to demonstrate the connection between the three different topics so far discussed in this blog (atheism, ecclesiology and Christian life).

Let us begin our examination with the acknowledgement of a fact so basic that it is rarely examined and even more rarely discussed: that the human brain, in being self-aware, is also, by its very nature, self-centered.  I shall be using the phrase "self-centered" frequently throughout this thesis, and it is important that the reader note that I do not use it in any pejorative sense.  I merely point out that we do not necessarily perceive the world as it is, but rather how it seems from our own individual perspectives.  Without specific training, we never venture outside our own heads, no more than our own bodies.  This is perfectly natural: the brain is designed to respond to the world rather narrowly, focusing on the person, job, or stimulation immediately before us while ignoring any number of other stimuli.  Consider a stroll through the airport terminal.  We are so focused on finding our departure gate that we completely ignore the P.A. announcements, the goods on display in the various shops, the aromas coming from the restaurants and the hustle and bustle of our fellow passengers.  This is, to a large extent, a survival mechanism; the ability to focus our attention on the saber-toothed cat in the grass while ignoring the monkey in the trees helps keep us alive.  Nor do we concern ourselves with saber-tooth cats that may be threatening our cousins two counties over with the intensity of the one threatening us and our children right here, right now.

Both Eastern and Western ideology begin with an acknowledgement of the self-centered nature of the human brain.  They diverge on how they value that nature.  In Western ideology, such as stoicism, skepticism, epicureanism, rationalism, humanism, naturalism, and materialism, this self-centered nature of the brain is considered normal and good, a tendency to be pursued and cultivated.  In Eastern ideology, such as Taoism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (as well as minor Eastern beliefs such as Baha'i, Druze, Jainism, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism) this self-centered nature of the brain is seen as bad and to be overcome by the individual.  I'm not sure when this divergence first emerged. Perhaps it was as early as the appearance of Cro-Magnons in the area now called Europe and their ability to overwhelm the Neanderthals they encountered, thus producing a sense of superiority.  It was certainly well-embedded by the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans.  There are a number of ramifications to this difference in beliefs, most too subtle for the average busy Westerner to even notice, much less acknowledge.

The most obvious objection to my insistence of the fallacy of Western ideology comes in the area of science.  At first blush, science should be the antidote for self-centeredness, forcing us to see the universe as it really is, not how we perceive it.  Now, at this juncture I remind the reader of my appreciation for science (and one specific scientist in particular).  My qualms do not stem from science or the Scientific Method, but rather from our recent and very Western application of the term.  First, we tend to think of science as an exclusively Western construct and create a rather self-centered postulation around this idea, completely ignoring the fact that the Arabs and Chinese were making huge scientific advances when Europe was still almost entirely illiterate.  It's not too great a stretch to say that, if not for the Crusades and the voyages of Marco Polo, Europe would still be in the Dark Ages today.  Second is the notion that science - or rather scientism - has supplanted theology in the Advanced Mind.  There is no reason that I know of why pure science and philosophy (i.e. religion) cannot coexist amicably as long as each is willing to drive it its own lane.  Just as our ancestors' attempts to use philosophy and religion to answer scientific questions predisposed them to superstition, our modern attempts to use science to answer religious questions predisposes us to nihilism.  In reality, nothing in either discipline precludes findings in the other. Third is the tendency of science to renege on many of its more extravagant promises.  Some gentle readers may be old enough to recall the DuPont slogan "better living through chemistry."  Well, with 70 years of hindsight at our disposal, we can now safely say that the blessings of chemistry in our daily lives have been, at best, mixed.

As for the application of the foregoing to the topics thus far considered in this blog, it is exactly this tendency to nihilism that serves as a hallmark for modern "scientific" atheism.  This modern Western idea that any idea that cannot be addressed by science simply doesn't exist renders itself antithetical to the very nature of the Scientific Method.  It is a completely self-centered idea even as science is proclaimed to be the method by which we expand beyond our self-centeredness.  Sadly, this self-centeredness has permeated even the church and, as a result, many Western Christians cannot fathom the depths of meaning behind the concepts of self-denial and self-annihilation, much less act on them.  Since so many Christians don't comprehend this, the church itself has come to omit these concepts from its teachings, and our entire ecclesiology has suffered as a result.  The Western church has largely become one more social club from which to choose, and one that is viewed by many an outsider as being less desirable than others, and not without some justification.

Fortunately, the same brain that sees the world through a lens of self-centeredness also provides for its own counter.  Despite the assertions made by corporate America, the concept of multi-tasking is a myth.  Much research has shown that the human brain can only concentrate on one thing at a time (E. Hutchinson in Nature Reviews among many others). Even sans scientific research, one can easily prove this to oneself.  Take a moment and pay careful attention to your feet.  Notice how they feel.  Consider the tops of your feet, the bottom, your toes, etc.  Achy?  Smelly?  While doing this, count backward by sixes starting with 100.  I'd almost be willing to bet cold hard cash that you either lost count or forgot about your feet long before you reached 76, perhaps before you reached 88.

When we force our brains to shut off and allow us to focus on something as simple as our breathing, as we do in our meditation practices, we find our brains rebelling almost immediately.  First, it ties itself up trying to decide what a "normal" breath is.  Shall I try to breathe more deeply?  Long or short breaths?  Should I pay attention to my chest or my belly?  It takes training and practice to teach our brains not to attempt controlling our breaths but to simply witness them, almost as if it was someone else breathing.  This ability of breathing exercises to force our brains out of their self-centeredness is why even this simple form of meditation lowers blood pressure and heart rates, reduces stress and makes us more aware of things outside ourselves.  And the more we practice, the more we advance toward more comprehensive forms of meditation, the more we can apply this awakening of the peripheral world to other areas of our life.  Eventually - and, for many, this takes years of practice - we can learn to live in this extended state permanently.  Science can explain why this works, but only philosophy/religion can help us fully achieve it.

 

Pax