Meditations of a Buddhist Skeptic: A Manifesto for the Mind Sciences and Contemplative Practice by B. Alan Wallace

B. Alan Wallace is among the foremost practitioner-teachers of Buddhism today. He reports “while brought up in a Christian household, and even though I found great meaning in the teachings of Jesus, some of the church’s doctrines made no sense to me”. (Kindle Locations 71-72). He grew up in California, Scotland, and Switzerland. He started as an undergrad at UC San Diego and then he transferred to Göttingen in West Germany, moving from an ecology major at UCSD to a primary interest in philosophy and religion at Gottingen, where he studied the Tibetan language and Tibetan Buddhism. Then, instead of finishing his degree (great message for the parents, no doubt), in 1971 (I’m just transitioning from high school to college), he heads to Tibet. For the next 13 years he studied and meditated in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition in India and Europe, and he came to serve as a translator for the Dalai Lama. After this phase of his life, he returned to academia to complete a degree at Amherst College in physics and philosophy of science. After another meditation retreat, he entered graduate studies in religion at Stanford University. He completed his doctorate, focusing his studies on “the interface between Buddhism and Western science and philosophy”. (B. Alan Wallace website). Since then he has taught, written a number of books for both academic and popular audiences, and he continues to teach meditation. Having read several of his works and now in the midst of listening to podcasts of his meditation retreats, I find him one of the most intriguing, no-nonsense, and persuasive teachers of Buddhism active today. 

This book, his most recent “academic” book (2011), addresses topics important to him. One of the attractive aspects of Buddhism to me and to many others, especially those of us coming from Western traditions, is its radical empiricism and willingness to undergo scrutiny. Wallace scrutinizes the Buddhist tradition, but the main target of his skepticism is Western materialism. Wallace is especially critical of academic psychology for its abandonment of the legacy of William James, who valued and promoted introspection as important source of data about the mind. (Indeed, James is obviously in intellectual hero to Wallace, as well as a great many others—including me.) Instead of following the lead of James, psychology turned to Watson’s behaviorism (no mind, just observable behavior), which was wedded to the ideas of 19^th century physics. Wallace is uniquely qualified to challenge the citadel of materialism from his background in physics and philosophy of science combined with his experience in Buddhism. 

While critical of Western materialism (we’re just stuff & consciousness a mere by-product of brain activity), Wallace unabashedly asserts the traditional Buddhist view, which includes an emphasis on mind and consciousness as more than just brain activity and where the paranormal (not magic) exists. Wallace makes these assertions as one who has been on the other side of reality from the majority of Western scientists and philosophers who adhere to the simple materialist paradigm. Wallace also notes the importance of ethical behavior in Buddhism and its effect on our perception of the world. This, too, contrasts markedly with the value-free attitude of Western science. Wallace discusses phenomena like “the placebo effect”, which Western science shunts aside without addressing the implications that physically inert substances can effect with body when combined with the non-physical world of information (even false information). Many in the West know to reject Descartes’s dualism of mind and body, but they attempt to go around it by going all body, no mind. But mind—as in the form of information—is a part of our reality. 

In addition to criticizing the materialists, Wallace also criticizes those who sell “mindfulness” as simply the practice of observing what passes through the mind. This is not Buddhism. Buddhist mindfulness involves mindfulness of right conduct, effort, and livelihood, among other things. It’s not just “whatever”, but an attempt to monitor the contents of the mind. 

All of this simply touches the surface of all that Wallace addresses and argues. His appreciation of the history and enterprise of Western science, Western philosophy and psychology, and traditional Buddhism make him a formidable author. Yet, for all of the depth of his analysis and argument, the book is well written and argued so that it’s easy to follow. In short, he’s an outstanding teacher whom I can’t recommend highly enough (this comes from listening to his podcasts as well). If you want to come into the deep end of the pool, you not find many guides as worthwhile as Wallace.

Sweet Tooth: A Novel by Ian McEwan

 Sweet Tooth is my second Ian McEwan novel, having read Saturday (item #21) a couple of years ago. I must say I’m taken with these two works, and I’m not quite sure why. The prose is solid and sensible, not showy or intrusive. The characters are mostly ordinary persons, neither remarkably good nor evil. In the course of reading this book, which attracted me because of its espionage setting and my prior good experience with McEwan, I asked if it was worth going forward after I was well into it. Not that the writing wasn’t good. But the central character (the narrator) wasn’t doing anything all that intriguing or engrossing. Yet I couldn’t leave it. I’m glad I didn’t give it up. McEwan built the suspense slowly and subtly, and while nothing spectacular happens, we receive regular doses of insight from the characters. It’s almost a sleight of hand trick. In the end, we have quite a cleaver and provocative dénouement that worked for me. 

The setting of the novel is Cold War, 70’s-turbulent Great Britain. Domestically, the country is a mess. Yet its secret service, MI5, yearns to remain a part of the Great Game of fighting Communism. This backdrop works well for anyone who remembers those times (even here in the States): spiked oil prices, unions, tired leadership, betrayals (Fourth and Fifth Men) were all a part of the scenery for any personal drama in those times. To all this add the turbulence of a young woman finding her way in the world. Serena Frome (rhymes with plumb) is the center the action. She’s an effective and perceptive narrator without betraying her limitations. She gets pulled into the secret world of MI5 after having grown up the daughter of an Anglican bishop who's tucked away in the countryside. She moves through the world by fits and starts, neither superlative nor lacking in basic good sense. Her problems, however, mount as she becomes involved with an author whom she meets as a professional target. The basic perfidy of spying and espionage—even of the friendly sort—inevitably takes a toll on her. 

I won’t go further, but if you’re looking for an adult read, one that constructs a world set in the not-too-distant past with characters with whom you can sympathize, then this book is for you.

Bounce: How Champions Are Made by Matthew Syed

I have to say that Bounce was a bit like taking a refresher course, having already read Geoff Covlin's Talent Is Overrated, Daniel Coyle's The Talent Code (entry #6), and Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, all three of which Syed acknowledges as worthy predecessors. So I didn't learn a great deal new from reading Bounce. But a refresher, with some new information added, is worthwhile, and so I found this book. I should also note that all four books draw on the pioneering work of academic psychologist Anders Ericsson.

If you want to develop a talent or a skill, practice deliberately (with a focused intention) for 10,000 hours, and you'll have gone a long way toward achieving your goal. Throw in outstanding peers and quality coaching, and you'll really go far. This formula for success replaces that idea that some are simply "talented". None of these authors gives much credence to genetics. It's about learning. Deliberate practice—practicing to improve specific skills and to cure weaknesses-is what allows real learning and significant improvement. Drive a car with no special thought to the matter and you'll be the same driver after 10,000 hours of driving. But do it in deliberately challenging ways and environments with the intention of improving and you could be the next Mario Andretti. (I know. I date myself.)

Seyd does go into some topics that his predecessors didn't, such as placebo effect, in other words, the power of belief. (Although he doesn't delve into it, the placebo effect raises some really interesting issues about the mind-body relationship and causation.) I also enjoyed his chapter on "choking", which any athlete or other performer has experienced. What it amounts to is that we "think" when we shouldn't. We try to teach the centipede to walk when it should (and does) just walk. This ties in to the power of ritual in performance, which is another fascinating subject full of bizarre anecdotes. As an old jock, I can attest to the power and command of rituals. In the last section, Seyd touches on drug enhancement, what's good and fair and human and what isn't (not clear) and genetics (are blacks better runners?). On the latter topic, Seyd takes down the idea that blacks, specifically sprinters from west Africa via  the U.S. and Jamaica and distance runners from Kenya (and later Ethiopia) have any special genetic endowments. It's simply the outlier effect—chance, environment, reward, opportunity, etc.—that makes all of the difference.

It was a fun, easy, and instructive book, valuable for anyone who has to perform. Like us humans. 

Buddhism & Modern Psychology taught by Robert Wright for Coursera

After years of listening to lectures from The Teaching Company that I enjoyed greatly while driving here and there, I decided to give my first MOOC (Massive Open On-Line Course) a try. I opted for Robert Wright's course on Buddhism & Modern Psychology taught from Princeton, where Wright holds a position. My long-running interest in Buddhism & my acquaintance with Wright led me to this choice. Wright is not a traditional academic (I don't think that he holds a doctorate), but he's written a lot of interesting things and has been active on the internet with bloggingheadstv.com/wrighshow and other endeavors. He's about my age (okay, like most people, a bit younger), and he's curious about and committed to topics that attract me.

So the MOOC  experience: pretty good. Best of all: I can play back Wright's talks at faster than normal speech (usually 1.75x). I'm kidding? No. Even if a talking head is talking about something that interests you (it does), it can still seem way too slow when you're only looking at a computer screen (not much in the way of visuals here). When driving, regular speed is fine because of the (partially) split attention, but looking at the screen and listening to a talk that you know the basics about (vocabulary, terms of art, etc; i.e., not too much drastically new), you can go faster. 

The other thing I conclude is that MOOCs can't replace the live classroom for serious learning. Rote information: okay; but for discussion (thinking aloud with others), the discussion forums (of which there were several) don't work that well. Too many threads for me. Too slow. This is not the fault of the participants, but of the medium. The comments that I did track where sound and worthwhile, but there were so many and so many different threads. It was an overload. 

As for content, I definitely got something out of the course. I'm going to post my two essays (peer-reviewed) below to give you an idea of what I took away. Each essay garnered some criticism for wandering too far from the questions posed and that seems fair. But I decided to write about what I could synthesize and take-away, not show off knowledge of what we learned in the course (not that I'm necessarily above that). Here's the first questions and essay:

Question 2: The Buddha makes the claim, which may draw some support from modern psychology, that the self does not exist. Describe the self that the Buddha says does not exist and explain the Buddha's principal argument against it. Do you agree or disagree with the Buddha’s argument that this kind of self doesn’t exist? Or are you unable to take a position? Give two specific reasons for your view, and explain your reasons support either the existence of the self or the non-existence of the self, or why they explain why you are unable to take a position on the question.

Question 2

Self or No-Self? Does it matter? An answer to the second question must come first. The Buddha told the tale of the man shot with an arrow. Do we first inquire about the arrow before treating the injury? Thus, Buddha deflected most metaphysical inquiry. Are we and the Buddha ignoring this teaching if we go down the rabbit-hole of the Self? While dangerous, the venture is necessary.

The doctrine of No-Self is important because it relates to the fundamental doctrines of impermanency and causality. The “unsatisfactoriness”  (dukkha) of life identified in the First Noble Truth stems from impermanency. Impermanency prompts humans to grasp at experience. If the Self is real and (implicitly) permanent in a way that other experience or objects are not, then we humans will cling to the Self as our anchor against misfortune. But if the Self is as impermanent as the rest of reality, then humans will have grasped in vain in the hope of negating suffering. Buddha’s deconstructs of the Self imagined by the Upanishads. He proposes instead the Five Skandhas (sheaths) as creating the illusion of a Self. Buddha formulates a self that is created and disbursed from moment to moment just like every other form of reality. We can’t cling (successfully) to what doesn’t exist.

While the Buddha’s formulation makes some sense, so does the formulation of the Upanishads. The atman (Self) exists outside of the particular manifestations of a person. The atman represents a Self behind the person. Given the sense of continuity that most humans enjoy, this makes intuitive sense. Whether we posit a Self like the Upanishads or we follow St. Augustine in finding that the seat of the soul [or mind] is in the memory, we experience a fundamental continuity that most humans enjoy and that identifies each person to himself (or herself) and to others. (E.B. White: “Old age is a special problem for me because I've never been able to shed the mental image I have of myself - a lad of about 19.”) It is this remembered self, along with the “I” (or Freudian ego), that marks our day-to-day lives. To what extent can the Buddha’s formulation alter or end these conceptions, and to what extent should it?

Consider the problem formulated by Heraclitus: can we step into the same river twice? To break down the question, are we concerned about the water, the place, or the function (moving water from here to there)? We may think of the self as a river, a channel of experiences that tends to follow the same course, although it changes from time to time—constantly but subtly most of the time; abruptly and drastically at other times. In the course of time, a river comes into being and disappears; so with this entity we call the self. Also, the No-Self doctrine reflects that a person, like the river, is not subject to a unitary command-and-control entity. Nature, in the form of winds, rains, animals, floods, droughts, etc., changes the river. So with humans: we have only limited control over our lives (our bodies, our thoughts, our consciousness) and in such a situation we cannot identify a Self to which we can give allegiance.

The No-Self doctrine challenges Buddhism internally because of the belief in karma and reincarnation. If there isn’t a Self, then what reaps the effects that constitute karma, especially those effects thought to extend beyond a lifetime? And how does reincarnation work if not via a Self? What entity acts to create karma and to reincarnate? For these answers, we return to doctrines of change (impermanence) and causality. Our No-Self is an aggregate of shifting patterns, and it creates a dharma moment-to-moment within its space-time locale. To extend the metaphor borrowed from Heraclitus, the perceived self is the river of that delivers the water (karma) downstream (a later time). Extending the metaphor even further, we can say that our younger self sends water (karma) downstream to our older self. Our image of the self is the river that appears to have continuity. But we know that the river dries up with old age, sickness, and death. Borrowing from Augustine again, we can see that memory—whether genetic material passed down over eons or the recollections of a younger self—provides the seeming and functional continuity that we experience. We can think of the functional self as a collection of habits. Like any habit, it comes into being (time), functions within a context, and then disappears, if for no other reason than death. Would Buddha disagree that we are a collection of habits that me may notice and change from time to time? Isn’t that the point of meditation? Therefore, we cultivate our meta-awareness to influence the channels of our life.

At the end of the course lectures I wrote the following in response to two questions posed: 

3. Does modern science lend support to the logic behind Buddhist meditation practice?

4. Does modern science lend support to the moral validity of Buddhism?

 Re: Questions 3&4

First, let's stipulate that "modern science" includes the systematic, empirically-based study of shared phenomena. To participate in science, one must share a vocabulary and a set of skills. In evaluating Buddhism in light of contemporary thinking, we should include not just evolutionary psychology, but all manner of contemporary science and philosophy. With this understanding in mind, we find a great deal of support for Buddhist contentions about meditation and morality.

Buddhism for our purposes posits some key points:

The doctrine of No-Self (interior) (anatman), supports the idea that we humans have no central command and control in our brains. Plato's tripartite division of the mind (the cultural manifestation of the brain) posits that Reason controls Will & Appetite. EP  (evolutionary psychology) & modular thinking in particular reject the existence of a command and control center in our brains (and in the self that appears to the outside world). Whether we focus on the modular model or (as I prefer), we focus on McGilchrist's account of the division of the hemispheres, we agree that our brains are not built (by natural selection) with a final, authoritative center to arbitrate and rule upon conflicts within the brain/mind. The modular and hemispheric models of the brain help resolve issues of self-deception (akrasia) and self-control that plague more "rational" models of human thinking. EP argues persuasively that the brain is an environment in which different needs and values compete for resources. Sometimes a perspective "wins"; sometimes it losses. (Think of RW's doughnuts.) We are not singular, unified decision-makers contra much of classical economic thinking. Much of neuroscience and contemporary psychology strongly supports the conclusion that we don't have an ultimate decision-making function and therefore an idea of our Self as singular, constant, and essential fails.

Emptiness/sunyata. The concept of emptiness (or nothingness or formlessness) counters the concept of essentialism, the idea of an unchanging essence lurking behind a phenomena. Buddhism posits that all of reality is the result of co-dependent origination, more process than substance. This perspective, based on a radical empiricism, is one that Buddhism shares with American pragmatism (no surprise that RW cites William James), process philosophy, and even quantum mechanics. Indeed, post-modernity as a cultural phenomena provides a view of the fluidity of reality (along with its share of nonsense).

The doctrine of No-Self (exterior) as Prof. Wright describes it involves a reduction of barriers between ourselves and the world "out there". This perspective sees a fundemental unity of reality. Reports of this perspective by the meditators RW interviewed seem common. As an outgrowth of meditation, which involves perceiving the mind as an impermanent and changing reality, alters our relation to the world in which we live. This melting away of distinctions based on verbal and conceptual habits gives way to a new, unencumbered sense of reality. Concepts are habits of mind that may have been (or that may remain) useful, but in a fundamental sense, we now appreciate them as arbitrary. The seemingly fundamental perspective of Self vs. Other fades away. This, too, jibes with the best contemporary thinking: we have gained a perspective during the course of modernity that our world (the earth) is not the center of the universe, that our species was not created specially by God (thank you, Darwin), and that even space and time are relative (not to mention th mind-boggling perpsectives of quantum theories and the like). These shifts in perspective, which meditation encourages, allows us to see the world in a new light. The "us vs. them" no longer holds as great a sway as it once did. More limited worldviews become less attractive because they become less believable. In this sense, the scientific (in the broad sense) study of meditation supports a new, wider view of morality.

We can now appreciate and transcend our evolutionary heritage, something that religious and (some) philosophical traditions have been seeking to do for several millenia, especially since the Axial Age. We now better understand the evolutionary pressures and mechanisms that affect human behavior and that in our current environment may prove counter-beneficial. Indeed, we humans may serve as the first conscious creators of human life and culture on earth--if we're very wise and very lucky (longshots). This has been a millennial dream--of heaven on earth--but we can move closer to it. Buddhism, as a praxis, a way of life and understanding, draws on centuries of radical empiricism and acute conceptual thinking to help humans lead better lives. Buddhist adepts are curators of a meditative practice based on recognized principles of practice. When we combine practices of meditation with deep investigation, we perceive the world much differently. Buddhists should continue to join with scientists, trained adepts in a different field of experience, to better guide humanity into our future. 

And on peer evaluations:  About one-half of the evaluations were of little value (minimal comment) and other half were about equally divided between praise and marked criticism. Thus, it's hard to gauge what I should be doing differently. Essays by others that I read were more direct in answering the questions, and I marked them high. On the other hand, I didn't perceive much original thought in them. Nevertheless, it's worth doing and an appropriately humbling exercise. 

 

The War of Art by Steven Pressfield & Do the Work by Steven Pressfield

Procrastination is the enemy of success. I should know. I’m a procrastinator.

At various points in my life, I was a supreme procrastinator. Fortunately, unlike drink, one can be a little bit of a procrastinator unlike trying to be a little bit of a alcoholic. I could still function relatively well, but not near my greatest potential. The demands of work and life helped cure me of my worst excesses, but the tendency is still there. The problem usually revolves around things that require a lot of effort and high expectations (usually self-imposed). Some things you can put off simply because they don’t need to be done now and it’s more efficient to put them off. (“How about never? Never works for me.”) I’ve no problems with this. However, some things worth doing – like writing a blog –often get put off for no good reason.

My history as a procrastinator led me into investigations of the will and how we often fail to do what is in our best interest. I learned that the ancient Greeks had a term for this called akrasia. This refers to our ability to fail to do things that are in our best interest, or to do things that are clearly to our detriment. It is the first cousin of self-deception (which I believe the Greeks would consider a form of akrasia) and probably related in some way to the problem best identified by the Desert fathers, that of acedia, or sloth or torpor. In any event with you call it procrastination, akrasia, or anything else, it’s a real pest.

Writers are among the best procrastinators in the world. They even have a name for it: writer’s block. Something about looking at the blank page (or screen) seems to shut us down. This has probably happened to anyone who’s had to write something that they want taken seriously and that can have some ability to change the world and themselves--they will have put it off at some point. Writer Stephen Pressfield addresses this problem in his two books, The War of Art and Do the Work. Pressfield doesn’t identify procrastination as the primary problem, but he names it as a sub-set in the larger picture that he labels Resistance. He thoroughly describes and analyzes it... He knows it firsthand. Indeed, in the War of Art, Pressfield is all about Resistance and how to deal with it. Pressfield describes Resistance:

 Most of us have two lives. The life we live, and the unlived life within us. Between the two stands Resistance.

 Have you ever brought home a treadmill and let it gather dust in the attic? Ever quit a diet, a course of yoga, a meditation practice? Have you ever bailed out on a call to embark upon a spiritual practice, dedicate yourself to a humanitarian calling, commit your life to the service of others? Have you ever wanted to be a mother, a doctor, an advocate for the weak and helpless; to run for office, crusade for the planet, campaign for world peace, or to preserve the environment? Late at night have you experienced a vision of the person you might become, the work you could accomplish, the realized being you were meant to be? Are you a writer who doesn't write, a painter who doesn't paint, an entrepreneur who never starts a venture? Then you know what Resistance is . . . .

Resistance is the most toxic force on the planet. It is the root of more unhappiness than poverty, disease, and erectile dysfunction. To yield to Resistance deforms our spirit. It stunts us and makes us less than we are and were born to be.

Pressfield, Steven (2011-11-11). The War of Art. Black Irish Entertainment LLC. Kindle Edition.

Pressfield goes on to describe those arenas where Resistance most often manifests. Recognize any of them?

 The following is a list, in no particular order, of those activities that most commonly elicit Resistance:

1)      The pursuit of any calling in writing, painting, music, film, dance, or any creative art, however marginal or unconventional.

2)      The launching of any entrepreneurial venture or enterprise, for profit or otherwise.

3)      Any diet or health regimen.

4)      Any program of spiritual advancement.

5)      Any activity whose aim is tighter abdominals.

6)      Any course or program designed to overcome an unwholesome habit or addiction.

7)      Education of every kind.

11)      The taking of any principled stand in the face of adversity.

In other words, any act that rejects immediate gratification in favor of long-term growth, health, or integrity. Or, expressed another way, any act that derives from our higher nature instead of our lower. Any of these will elicit Resistance.

Pressfield, Steven (2011-11-11). The War of Art (p. 5-6). Black Irish Entertainment LLC. Kindle Edition.

Having read to this point, I was hooked. Pressfield’s description was like looking into a mirror. I may not be in the gutter, but I have a way to go before I could claim to have reached the point of not having to pay attention to this. 

Having defined the Devil (we can apprehend Resistance as form of evil and personify it), Pressfield goes on the catalog the wiles of the Devil, just as the Desert Fathers might have done.

RESISTANCE IS INVISIBLE. Resistance cannot be seen, touched, heard, or smelled. But it can be felt. We experience it as an energy field radiating from a work-in-potential. It's a repelling force. It's negative. Its aim is to shove us away, distract us, prevent us from doing our work.

RESISTANCE IS INTERNAL. Resistance seems to come from outside ourselves. We locate it in spouses, jobs, bosses, kids. "Peripheral opponents," as Pat Riley used to say when he coached the Los Angeles Lakers. Resistance is not a peripheral opponent. Resistance arises from within. It is self-generated and self-perpetuated. Resistance is the enemy within.

RESISTANCE IS INSIDIOUS. Resistance will tell you anything to keep you from doing your work. It will perjure, fabricate, falsify; seduce, bully, cajole. Resistance is protean. It will assume any form, if that's what it takes to deceive you. It will reason with you like a lawyer or jam a nine-millimeter in your face like a stickup man. Resistance has no conscience. It will pledge anything to get a deal, then double-cross you as soon as your back is turned. If you take Resistance at its word, you deserve everything you get. Resistance is always lying and always full of shit.

RESISTANCE IS IMPLACABLE. Resistance is like the Alien or the Terminator or the shark in Jaws. It cannot be reasoned with. It understands nothing but power. It is an engine of destruction, programmed from the factory with one object only: to prevent us from doing our work. Resistance is implacable, intractable, indefatigable. Reduce it to a single cell and that cell will continue to attack. This is Resistance's nature. It's all it knows.

RESISTANCE IS IMPERSONAL. Resistance is not out to get you personally. It doesn't know who you are and doesn't care. Resistance is a force of nature. It acts objectively. Though it feels malevolent, Resistance in fact operates with the indifference of rain and transits the heavens by the same laws as the stars. When we marshal our forces to combat Resistance, we must remember this.

RESISTANCE IS INFALLIBLE. Like a magnetized needle floating on a surface of oil, Resistance will unfailingly point to true North — meaning that calling or action it most wants to stop us from doing. . . . . Rule of thumb: The more important a call or action is to our soul's evolution, the more Resistance we will feel toward pursuing it.

RESISTANCE IS UNIVERSAL. We're wrong if we think we're the only ones struggling with Resistance. Everyone who has a body experiences Resistance.

RESISTANCE NEVER SLEEPS Henry Fonda was still throwing up before each stage performance, even when he was seventy-five. In other words, fear doesn't go away. The warrior and the artist live by the same code of necessity, which dictates that the battle must be fought anew every day.

RESISTANCE PLAYS FOR KEEPS. Resistance's goal is not to wound or disable. Resistance aims to kill. Its target is the epicenter of our being: our genius, our soul, the unique and priceless gift we were put on earth to give and that no one else has but us. Resistance means business. When we fight it, we are in a war to the death.

RESISTANCE IS FUELED BY FEAR. Resistance has no strength of its own. Every ounce of juice it possesses comes from us. We feed it with power by our fear of it. Master that fear and we conquer Resistance.

RESISTANCE ONLY OPPOSES IN ONE DIRECTION. Resistance obstructs movement only from a lower sphere to a higher. It kicks in when we seek to pursue a calling in the arts, launch an innovative enterprise, or evolve to a higher station morally, ethically, or spiritually.

RESISTANCE IS MOST POWERFUL AT THE FINISH LINE. The danger is greatest when the finish line is in sight. At this point, Resistance knows we're about to beat it. It hits the panic button. It marshals one last assault and slams us with everything it's got.

RESISTANCE RECRUITS ALLIES. Resistance by definition is self-sabotage. But there's a parallel peril that must also be guarded against: sabotage by others. When a writer begins to overcome her Resistance — in other words, when she actually starts to write — she may find that those close to her begin acting strange. They may become moody or sullen, they may get sick; they may accuse the awakening writer of "changing," of "not being the person she was." The closer these people are to the awakening writer, the more bizarrely they will act and the more emotion they will put behind their actions. They are trying to sabotage her.

Pressfield, Steven (2011-11-11). The War of Art (pp. 6-19. Black Irish Entertainment LLC. Kindle Edition.

Okay. I must stop now, as I’ll end up including the whole book. From this description of traits, Pressfield goes on the catalog the techniques of Resistance, number one of which is—you guessed it!—procrastination. 

So what do we do with this awful thing? How do we fight the Devil? By “turning pro”.

By “turning pro” Pressfield means that you “do the work”. You show up each day and do something that you need to do to further your project. You set aside all of the crap and put on your game day face. You approach life as a warrior, as one who comes to work (even if it’s just to the typewriter on your kitchen table) ready to perform. The cure to Resistance is to turn pro and to do the work. According to Pressfield, it’s that simple, and I think that he’s right. We show up to do what we need to do just as we show up for our jobs each day and do what we need to do, only with one difference (unless you’re very fortunate): you show up for love, not just a paycheck. 

Pressfield’s list of “pro” attributes is a complete and impressive. I particularly appreciate this quote:

A professional schools herself to stand apart from her performance, even as she gives herself to it heart and soul. The Bhagavad-Gita tells us we have a right only to our labor, not to the fruits of our labor. All the warrior can give is his life; all the athlete can do is leave everything on the field.

Pressfield, Steven (2011-11-11). The War of Art (p. 88). Black Irish Entertainment LLC. Kindle Edition.

Although I didn’t see it quoted in the book, I’m sure he’d give the nod to Theodore Roosevelt’s “The Man in the Arena” speech as well. 

Part 3 deals with “allies”, those forces that come to the aid of the pro. Pressfield in this regard sounds a bit like Castaneda’s Don Juan, but he has a point. As the saying goes, “God helps them that help themselves”. So it is in these situations. Pressfield shares this quote:

Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation) there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would not otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favour all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance which no man would have dreamed would come his way. I have learned a deep respect for one of Goethe's couplets: "Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, magic, and power in it. Begin it now."

— W. H. Murray, The Scottish Himalayan Expedition

Pressfield, Steven (2011-11-11). The War of Art (p. 122). Black Irish Entertainment LLC. Kindle Edition.

This part is more speculative, based on religious intuition and Jungian psychology, but it makes sense and gives a larger perspective to Pressfield’s project. He outlines a Jungian distinction between the Ego and Self in a battle between the small “I” that clings to the status quo and the “I” that represents creation and fulfillment. It’s not just our little battle, but it's part of a larger cosmic conflict. Regardless of the degree of credence you give to this perspective, it taps into some of the most potent and evocative archetypes of human kind in order to situate our struggles. 

Having defined Resistance and how we can slay the dragon, Pressfield takes a more practical bent in Do the Work (but this isn’t to suggest that The War of Art isn’t practical: to the contrary, it’s immensely practical, but Do the Work is more of a playbook). You now know what you have to do, this goes into how to do it more effectively and with greater clarity. 

In fact, early in the book, Pressfield lists traits now mentioned in the earlier book, those traits that aid us:

Our Allies Enough for now about the antagonists arrayed against us. Let’s consider the champions on our side:

• Stupidity
• Stubbornness
• Blind faith
• Passion
• Assistance (the opposite of Resistance)
• Friends and family

Pressfield, Steven (2011-04-20). Do the Work (Kindle Locations 130-134). AmazonEncore. Kindle Edition.

Pressfield breaks down the artistic process with for closer examination. He starts at the beginning and shares this suggestion: “Don’t prepare. Begin.” (Kindle Location 172). Pressfield discusses a number of practical tips to aid the process and to overcome the guiles of Resistance. For instance, he addresses one of my weaknesses, research; you know, just one more case or law review article to make sure of such and such before I start to write. But Pressfield nails it:

Do research early or late. Don’t stop working. Never do research in prime working time. Research can be fun. It can be seductive. That’s its danger. We need it, we love it. But we must never forget that research can become Resistance. Soak up what you need to fill in the gaps. Keep working.

Pressfield, Steven (2011-04-20). Do the Work (Kindle Locations 315-317). AmazonEncore. Kindle Edition.

Yup. He’s got it figured. 

Pressfield offers an extended quote from Marianne Williamson on “the fear of success”, which he argues is foremost among our fears and actually much more intimidating that the fear of failure (which simple allows the status quo to continue). Williamson writes:

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you . We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

Pressfield, Steven (2011-04-20). Do the Work (Kindle Locations 717-722). AmazonEncore. Kindle Edition.

Pressfield (via Williamson) doesn’t encourage us to play small ball. 

These books are insightful and encouraging. Light reading in one sense, not long, not complex. But they go for the jugular and if you have any endeavor that creates Resistance (such as Life), you’ll likely benefit from these works.