Untangling Knots of Confusion

By Chris J Irving

This book contains a series of lucid essays on common sources of confusion. In each case, the author introduces the topic about which there is confusion, specifies where the confusion lies, articulates the causes of each particular type and replaces the confusion with clarity.

A knot of confusion occurs wherever an association of ideas lea

• Language: English
• Publisher: Irving Publishing
• Release date: Apr 20, 2022
• ISBN: 9780648449461

Book preview

Untangling

Knots of Confusion

Clarifying Common Sources of Confusion

Chris Irving

Irving Publishing

Perth, Western Australia

Copyright © 2020 Chris Irving

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means, without prior written permission.

Chris Irving/Irving Publishing

3/32 Fifth St,

Bicton, Western Australia 6157

www.sageonthepage.com

Untangling Knots of Confusion/ Chris Irving. -- 1st ed.

978-0-6484494-3-0

Dedicated to all those who like to delve beneath the surface of things and examine their assumptions and beliefs.

Introduction

I don’t remember when I started to use writing as a way of attempting to think things through. But somewhere along the way I discovered that it was possible to hold onto a complex train of thought and actually make some progress if one left a trail of where one had been. Then it was just a matter of taking the next steps and adding more links to the chain. And sometimes it was even possible to reach a conclusion or arrive at a definite decision though this means. Whether it was the adventure of exploring new ideas or of unravelling knots of confusion, it seemed to be a productive way of advancing one’s understanding. I can’t say it’s ever been easy; indeed, it has always been a struggle to transform vague hazy notions into well-formulated ideas but the satisfaction of doing so is well worth the effort.

I soon discovered a lack of understanding of some phenomenon, or confusion about some issue was not mine alone. At different times and in a variety of circumstances I encountered sources of confusion amongst my fellows in diverse areas. I seemed to have an inbuilt confusion-detecting radar such that, although I could seldom clearly articulate the precise nature of whatever confusion presented itself in the moment, it nevertheless registered loud and clear that some species of confusion lurked beneath the surface of what someone had said or written. And the desire to bring it to the surface and clarify the issue is what has motivated most of these essays. In fact, whenever I encountered some form of confusion, I simply had to drill down into it and find the source. It was an itch that just had to be scratched. I could not rest until I had succeeded in replacing confusion with clarity.

Frequently the confusion is due to the fact that there are a number of different matters all tangled up together. The process of clarification consists of identifying the different ideas that have tangled together to form knots of confusion, disentangling these separate strands and making the actual or legitimate relationships between them explicit.

A knot of confusion occurs wherever an association of ideas leads to erroneous conclusions. Such associations are inappropriate and misleading and if undetected may seed chain reactions of confusion, which inevitably result in chain reactions of correspondingly inappropriate action. In addition to these illegitimate associations, there are also an array of erroneous assumptions and simple misconceptions.

I would like to think that in the essays that follow I have managed to clarify some of the issues I have tackled.

The first essay ‘The Art of Inquiry’ is simply an exploration of the how the process of inquiry proceeds in the human mind.

‘Truth and Belief’ was the result of being sufficiently irritated by talk of ‘my truth’ and ‘your truth’ amongst a couple of friends to put pen to paper and express my objections to this peculiar use of language that seemed to have become an acceptable way of talking at some point during the eighties.

‘On Judgment’ looks at the role of judgement and examines a number of popular misconceptions surrounding making judgements.

I have long been fascinated with the topic of evolution in general and specifically with the question of the origin of life. The essay ‘Is Evolution Compatible with Creation’ takes a critical look at the worldviews that underpin the long running dispute between the Neo-Darwinians and those who believe that life is a product of divine intelligence and advances the proposition that they are captive to the same fundamental fallacy.

‘Clarifying Spiritual Discourse’ claims that certain terms commonly found within spiritual discourse have become jargon and attempts to clarify the ambiguous and confusing use of terminology within this field of discourse.

‘The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories’ takes a detailed look at the psychological factors underlying the construction and maintenance of conspiracy theories and those who subscribe to them.

‘Synchronicity, Meaning and Scepticism’ is an exploration of the phenomenon of synchronicity and how it is viewed from the perspective of different worldviews.

‘Depression’ is an exploration of the anatomy of depression. It looks at the psychological dynamics involved, with a critical assessment of the medical model and contains suggestions for a different approach.

‘Is Should a Dirty Word?’ poses the question in the title and as a prelude to answering it explores the multiple meanings of this versatile word.

‘Are Sceptical Societies a Form of Cult’, argues that as well as performing some valuable functions, Sceptical Societies exhibit some cult-like characteristics

In addition to the lengthier essays mentioned above, I’ve included some shorter pieces on various topics. Some of these are extracts from longer essays that aren’t included in this book.

‘Responsibility’ takes a critical look at just what is involved in this often-contentious area and dispels various misconceptions surrounding the topic.

‘Speculations on the Concept of Information’ attempts to define exactly what information is and inquires as to whether the existence of stored information in nature is evidence of intelligence.

‘Randomness’ takes a look at what makes randomness random and what can and can’t be regarded as random.

‘Core Beliefs’ challenges conventional understanding in psychological circles of what a ‘core belief’ is.

And ‘Too Many Words’ is an excerpt from a much longer letter to a friend who criticized an essay I’d written on a subject to which he had considerable attachment. The excerpt could equally well have been called ‘In Defence of Rambling’. It was great fun to write.

The Art of Inquiry

The art of inquiry is like unto the sculptor’s art. The sculptor starts with an unformed lump of wood or stone or clay. Somewhere within this amorphous lump there lies a potential form waiting to be revealed. In the beginning, he/she usually has only a vague general idea or image of what he/she wants to express. Initially, it exists primarily as a feeling, and it is this feeling that both motivates and guides the process of progressive transformation of the material at hand into an explicit expression of that feeling. The form is somehow implicitly contained within the feeling, and the artistic process is the activity of making it explicit.

The process of inquiry begins as a small insistent niggle of puzzlement just below the conscious threshold, that gnaws away like a dog at a bone. This vague hazy feeling of disquiet signals the presence of a conceptual irritant demanding to be scratched. The presence of this conceptual irritation indicates that we have encountered something that cannot be accommodated within our current understanding of the world. It cannot be slotted into any categories we possess at our present level of conceptual development.

The exact cause of our discomfort is as yet undefined. Perhaps we have encountered some incongruity in our experience, been presented with a set of ideas that doesn’t make sense to us because of internal contradictions, incomplete information or undefined terms, or perhaps we have simply been introduced to a new idea. Whatever the cause, the subterranean disturbance we are experiencing indicates that our mind has registered the fact that the new element does not automatically integrate into our existing worldview. It will be necessary to expand or rearrange our conceptual models in order to accommodate the new element. As yet the questions needed to identify the cause or source of this uncomfortable feeling are still unformed. They lie shrouded in the mists of obscurity.

If our inquiry leads us to discover new facts, the process is one of exploration. We engage in an exploratory process of pushing back the boundary of what we know and understand, by following pathways of thought that lead us into new territory. This is pioneer work. It is often difficult because we have no familiar landmarks; we do not know what lies ahead.

Our first excursions into new territory do not usually give detailed information; they simply provide us with a rough picture of the type of country we are exploring. The first approach may be likened to a fly-over in a plane at high altitude, taking stock of the outstanding features but not revealing any detail. In exploration, any particular pathway will open up and make accessible the region immediately surrounding it but gives no access to regions more removed.

As more and more inroads are made, more and more previously unknown territory becomes accessible to detailed investigation. We end up with an interconnected network of pathways that both give access to, and define, the regions they surround. If we add no new bits of information to the pattern, if we cover no new territory, but kaleidoscopically rearrange our ideas into new configurations, forging new links and thereby revealing previously obscured relationships, we are involved in the process of elucidation. Both exploration and elucidation are vital aspects of inquiry. In either case, once our conceptual world has expanded in such a way as to integrate the new material, we have achieved what is called an ‘understanding’. We achieve this through a process called ‘thinking’.

In the process of inquiry, we employ two basic functions of the mind. One is a focused mode of consciousness and this corresponds to the rational mind, which operates using a binary logic. Its function is primarily analytical. It is like a powerful beam of torchlight that can illuminate certain regions but can never reveal the whole picture. It is connected to our verbal faculties and employs linear thinking. By stringing words together, it organizes ideas into sequences of meaning. The rational mind is able to sequentially order ideas in such a way that each one proceeds from the next in a manner that is logically inevitable. It is through the rational mind that we recognize causally related phenomena.

The unfocused mode of consciousness corresponds to what might be called the associative, relational or organic mind. It deals with relationships and operates through establishing the appropriate connections. It stores information in gestalts and is apt to produce images as analogues of processes. Whilst the rational mind is associated with causality, the organic mind or right hemisphere tends to operate on acausal or synchronistic principles. It is activated by a teleological stimulus such as asking a question.

Once a purpose has been defined, a goal set up, it automatically establishes criteria for deciding which ideas are relevant to this goal from a wide selection of possible associations. The process of inquiry moves through definite stages and in doing so employs both these modes of consciousness.

In the first stage, we experience this vague feeling of puzzlement and discontent and we feel like someone groping around in a dark room. We sense a presence but don’t know quite where to locate it or how to identify it. We know the general area but it seems difficult to pin down; it feels like an elusive phantom always just out of reach.

The only way to proceed is to hover in a state of unfocused awareness, like an eagle uncertain as to the exact whereabouts of its prey, scanning the whole field, alert for the first sign of movement. Soon a fragment will drift in but couched in only the vaguest of terms. Do not disdain this rough awkward fellow but gratefully accept its presence, for it is the first clue that will ultimately lead to a clear understanding.

The initial source of irritation is like a radio transmitter that has been dropped into the jungle, emitting signals that we can gradually home in on. As we proceed, we can tell whether we are getting warmer or not by the strength of the signals we receive. Once we locate the general region in which it lies, we can begin to make approaches from different angles. Approaching from one direction gets us caught in brambles, whilst from another, results in meeting an impasse. Finally, we find an approach that seems to give access, to provide a point of entry.

The whole process in its initial stages is a bit like trying to dislodge individual items from a highly compacted heap of materials that have been bulldozed together. At first, it is extremely difficult, everything is so mutually entangled. However, once we succeed in removing the first item, we can usually get out a second and third, and as we continue, it becomes progressively easier because there is more freedom to move in the remaining heap. Once we get past the stage where everything is stuck, in which we circle round and round it without getting to grips with it, once we find a point of entry, our activity starts to generate a trickle that rapidly becomes an avalanche.

When we ask a question, a message is sent by our rational conscious mind to our organic relational mind which responds by gathering up the relevant ideas and feeding them back to the conscious mind.

The difficult part lies in formulating the question clearly. Our first attempts tend to be a clumsy inarticulate groping towards that which we are attempting to express. We tend to progressively refine our initial attempt until the blurred and hazy image suddenly sharpens and comes into focus. This occurs when we have managed to find the right words with which to express the idea we are attempting to formulate. Indeed, finding the right words is the mental process by which we come to grips with the idea that is central to our concern.

The feelings associated with this phase of the process are those of relief and jubilation. It is as if we had been blindly groping our way through swirling mists, and as we got warmer, the mists started to thin out, until finally, they evaporated completely to reveal a landscape clearly stated in sunlight.

The sculptor in just such a manner begins with a hazy image in his/her mind, takes up a hammer and chisel and begins the journey towards unveiling the shroud that hides the form. He attacks it from many angles, shaving off irrelevance, discarding the extraneous, until the final form stands revealed as a tribute to lucidity, ringing forth as a statement of completeness.

Once we have been able to frame the question in the right words, we have achieved the first step because the correct terms link by association to the relevant accompanying concepts. Once we have clearly formulated the question, we are inundated with a veritable barrage of associated concepts that fall like pennies from heaven. This ‘concept cluster’ accompanies the core concept. It is not until we express the idea in the right configuration of terms that an associative bonding can take place between the idea contained in the question and the associated concept cluster. Just as an enzyme provides a reaction site for the meeting and joining of two different types of molecules by providing them with the right shapes to fit into, so expressing an idea or posing a question in the appropriate terms, gives it the right form to associate with its affinitive colleagues. It provides the idea with the appropriately shaped terminals for the complementary concepts to plug into.

Thus, when we pose a question, we send a message to our biocomputer which scans the associated networks and selects those ideas which are relevant to our pursuit. Precisely how this process operates is somewhat of a mystery. There seems to be a part of us that knows exactly what we will need in order to solve a problem or answer a question. We are sent a collection of ideas whose relevance to our question is not always apparent. Often, we are sent single words or phrases with no surrounding context, and sometimes images and analogies that are representative of processes related to the theme we are attempting to explore. Sometimes we don’t even know to which process the image applies. Even though it is not at all obvious how some of these items are related to our inquiry, if we trust the process and regard each item we are given as a piece in a jigsaw puzzle, a vital clue to solving the problem, we will discover that all of the fragments are both necessary and invaluable.

The stage of our endeavour in which we are attempting to clearly formulate the question, requires an active, highly concentrated, focused mode of consciousness. Indeed, it requires an almost frenetic ferreting action as we home in on something we can get to grips with. Once we have formulated the question however, we must then become passive and receptive and not attempt to judge or analyze the stream of ideas that start to flow. It is better not to focus too much on any one of them, as this will block the flow. Simply take note as they arise. It is a curious fact that the order in which the ideas arrive seems to have no relationship to the order in which we would want to arrange them in the construction of a subsequent exposition. It is like a diver bringing up fragments of a broken vessel from the ocean floor. The order in which they arrive at the surface is not the same as the order in which they will later be pieced together in the reconstruction of the vessel.

So, what began as a single thought, painfully pried loose from the compacted heap of mutually entangled, (largely unconscious) thoughts, grudgingly condescends to turn into a trickle of ideas, and lo and behold before you know it, has become a veritable avalanche, a cascading flood of ideas, all trying to arrive simultaneously. And like a mob of sheep rushing for a gate, jams in the bottleneck, which is the passage from the unconscious to the conscious mind. This, however, is not really a problem, for although it may be necessary to temporally discard some, in order to leave room for others to get through, they do return. This is an exhilarating phase of the process. It is a reward for the hard work of carefully formulating the question.

There is, however, a danger in getting over-excited by this manna from heaven. It is easy to squander the energy we will need to complete this process of inquiry in the excitement. This rush of energy should be immediately employed in working with the concept cluster we have received.

Once again, a focused state of consciousness is required as we analyze the ideas we have been given. To discover what implications each idea contains, we must expand and expound upon each one. This is the same sort of process as correctly formulating our question. By spelling out each idea in detail, we make explicit that which was implicitly contained, and by so doing, provide each nuclear idea with a number of strands or extensions available for connecting with other terminals and making the appropriate associations. The image is appropriately that of a neuron.

When we carry out the same operation upon each of the concepts in our concept cluster, we have in effect created a branching network of ideas which soon begin to interconnect. It is rather like the process of crystallization, where we are dealing not with one centre but multiple centres. Instances of this can be seen in water freezing over an uneven surface, or resin drying. As each circumference of crystallization advances, it does so at an accelerating rate that is constant for each one. But as the spheres of influence expand to include those regions in between the centres of crystallization, as the advancing radii begin to link up, the whole area rapidly succumbs to the process and solidifies almost instantly. This is the same process that occurs once we have broken down each nuclear idea into its component constituents. We reach a stage in which the separate lines of thought, the chains of association, interconnect, thereby linking up previously unrelated concepts. There is a rapid fire of sparks jumping the synapses and suddenly a whole new network of interrelated concepts comes into clear view, and we experience an ‘understanding’. We experience this subjectively as an expansion of consciousness, as a bird’s eye view. Once we have understood something, we have brought about a permanent change in our being.

By forging new links, new associative pathways, and integrating new ideas into our conceptual world, we have extended the dimensions of the resonating network of meaningful connections and thus called on a greater flow of consciousness to maintain this structure.

So the process of inquiry has culminated in an understanding. In order to reinforce these newly established patterns, in order to imprint them so that they become easily accessible to, and digestible by, the rational mind, it is now necessary to arrange the ideas we have received and worked upon, into a logical sequence in which each idea follows effortlessly and inevitably from the last. The whole exposition should display the qualities of consistency, coherence, completeness, elegance, simplicity and lucidity. The statements made should be succinct, the analogies employed be apt and the images presented be both clear and crisp.

The art of inquiry is something that can and should be practised by all, for it provides a foolproof method of discovering what is true. Once we learn to trust the process of open inquiry, we have discovered an immensely powerful method of liberating ourselves from the tyranny of belief systems and dogmatic assertions of those holding positions of authority. Obviously, the more we can discover about the world we live in and how it functions, the more fulfilled we will be as human beings.

It seems to be a fact, that when we are trying to think something through when we are involved in a reasonably complex process of thought, we tend to lose the thread, we drift off or lose track of our thoughts. It seems difficult for the mind to both hold onto a previously constructed chain of ideas, whilst at the same time, carry out the operation that will add the next link in the sequence. It is like the juggler who must release the ball he is holding before he can reach for the next. There are two ways of overcoming this difficulty; the first consists of taking up