my parliament

There is the conundrum of 'I' …

I want to lose weight

I could go to the gym and join a fitness group

I should stop eating between meals

I could eventually fasten my belt at a closer hole

I want a six pack abdomen

I want to choose organic vegetables in the supermarket

I could want … (many things)

I cannot be bothered (ICBB) with many of the above

So who is the 'I' that 'wants'? How many coulds and shoulds pass through your attention centre in a minute?

Try the following activity - stop reading and, for 60 seconds, pay attention to the thoughts, feelings and moods (TFM) that (a) appear from the unconscious, (b) hang around in consciousness, then (c) disappear back into the unconscious.

You will notice that there are many self conscious 'I's loving, hating and being neutral about different TFMs. Neurologists are getting better at locating modular activity in the brain because of the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC)

eg the prefrontal cortex is home to the high level executive functions which involve being both rational and emotional in the process of responding relatively slowly while setting priorities and making decisions. Note also that the decision making process in the pre-frontal cortex is shaped by integration with many other modules and networks which, amongst other things, trigger physiological and physical responses while preventing the upset of homeostatic control systems.

David Eagleman offers the analogy of the mindbrain being like a parliament. In the self conscious and in the unconscious there are groups of Is - like there are MPs in parliament. There are many agendas and intentionalities clustered in continuously competing modules and networks. Thus 'reality' and the 'I' illusion are an ongoing changeable feast.

During the above activity where I was witnessing - what was going on? Nothing comes from nothing. Why did that I choose those particular TFMs? Answer = because of minor evolutions of nature, nurture and chance 10 minutes ago, from childhood from our ancestors.

I often think of William the Witness MP. He is a cool dude in his 60s but he keeps up with radical and progressive TFM and with consilience between individual and coalitionary MPs. In essence he functions like the speaker in parliament – he encourages the objectification of the process rather than the content of what goes on.

Thich Nhat Hahn, the Vietnamese Zen man, recommends a similar objectification of mind stuff. He recommends sitting still and when a TFM appears to ask of it – What is it? How strong is it? and How long does it last?

I is not as straightforward as we sometimes think. And now the conundrum is politicised. The ancient Chinese knew something when they reckoned that “the reality that can be described is not the real reality”. Easy come, easy go.