home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
- title: Reflection
- by: Dennis Merritt (amziod@world.std.com)
- publisher: Amziod 1992
- subjects: mysticism, philosophy
- other: 114 pages, US$9.95
- summary: the interconnectedness of all things?
-
- I generally have negative feelings about mysticism, and anything that
- looks like "self-help" literature tends to put me right off. But it is
- good to read something different every so often, and _Reflection_, while
- it fits both categories and certainly did raise my hackles in many
- places, was thought provoking. Its saving graces are that Merritt
- doesn't think he has the answers to *everything*, that he isn't trying
- to hard sell anything, and that he writes succinctly and without being
- obscurantist. _Reflection_ is his application of a particular way of
- looking at things to understanding his own life.
-
- The basic idea is that our inner world and external reality are perfect
- reflections of one another; our conscious "outer self" may not be in
- concordance with the world, but our "inner self" always is. As Merritt
- himself points out, this is a very old concept; certainly there is a
- long tradition of religious and mystical ideas to the effect that
- coincidences aren't really coincidences and that everything is related
- to everything else. My basic problem with the Reflection Principle is
- that it is far too vague to be testable or useful as a predictive tool;
- all the stories which Merritt recounts as evidence for the principle
- have explanations constructed for them afterwards. It is also massively
- counterintuitive in many circumstances, and while Merrit tries to
- explain this away he doesn't really do a convincing job of it; there
- *are* such things as coincidences, and events do not always make any
- kind of sense from an individual's perspective.
-
- Since I disagree with the basic Reflection principle, I disagree with
- almost all of the explanations in Merritt's stories. However I found
- myself rethinking many of his ideas within a more traditional causal
- framework as I read, and that was sort of fun.
-
- The Reflection principle says that peoples' inner selves are linked in
- some mysterious way to the world around them. While I don't accept this
- as it stands, I do believe there is an important idea involved here.
- The multiplicity and complexity of the causal links between people and
- the world around them, and the fact that these links are too a large
- extent unmediated by our conscious personalities, is something few
- people really accept; most people, most of the time, have a greatly
- exaggerated sense of their own rationality and their understanding of
- and control over themselves. And while I am not a fan of behaviourist
- psychology in general, when it comes to understanding *oneself* a
- behaviourist approach (looking at the world around you rather than
- introspecting) at least has the advantage of guaranteeing some kind of
- objectivity.
-
- Most of Merritt's ideas about illness and relationships make sense
- viewed within a (sufficiently sophisticated) causal perspective. The
- importance of unconscious psychological factors in illness (and their
- neglect by modern medicine) is fairly broadly accepted these days, and
- that the functioning of relationships is often independent of conscious
- decisions by the participants is pretty obvious. Of course not all his
- examples are susceptible to this kind of analysis; as I said before
- there are coincidences and events that have no explanation at the level
- of the individual. To suggest that everyone who dies from a heart attack
- really wanted to die does seem to me to be preposterous.
-
- I stick absolutely to a causal notion of responsibility. But again I
- agree with much of Merritt's general view, and in particular his
- critique of popular attitudes to responsibility (both in public law and
- in personal relationships). I do think his idea that everyone involved
- in an event is 100% responsible for it is too vague and imprecise to be
- really useful. It seems to me that the critical fact is that, in
- general, causality is not additive. In particular, if events X and Y are
- both necessary for event Z, and X and Y are different kinds of
- events/entities, then it makes no sense whatsoever to say that "X is 20%
- responsible and Y is 80% responsible". It is even clearer that it makes
- no sense when X and Y are people (ie themselves extremely complex
- bundles of causal links).
-
- The one thing about _Reflection_ that worries me most is the same thing
- that distresses me about other similar ways of looking at the world (for
- example Stoicism or certain Indian religions). This is the idea that
- people get what they need/deserve and just have to adjust their "wants".
- (The other way of wording this is to say that anyone can achieve
- anything if only they want it enough.) This may work reasonably well for
- denizens of middle America (or middle class Australia), but I find the
- idea of someone telling a starving sub-Saharan farmer that he is
- starving to death because he doesn't really want/need to live intensely
- abhorrent. Although the author certainly doesn't use it that way, his
- ideas, because of their basically individualist nature, could easily be
- turned to apologetics for inequality.
-
- As you've probably gathered, _Reflection_ wasn't really my cup of tea.
- Its lack of the usual paraphernalia of most New Age mysticism means it
- will probably not gain a great audience there. As an attempt to employ a
- logical approach to the illogical it will probably annoy everyone a bit.
-
- --
-
- %T Reflection
- %A Dennis Merrit
- %I Amziod
- %C Stow, MA
- %D 1992
- %O paperback, US$9.95
- %P 114pp
- %G ISBN 1-881674-00-2
- %K mysticism, philosophy
-
- Danny Yee (danny@cs.su.oz.au)
- 15 November 1993
-
-