The Invariant Gardener

Jonah Leher’article on willpower is a perfect exemple of the utter emptiness of the current brain rethoric which endlessly repeat that the brain is THE cause of any mental phenomena.

Where do you go with such an idea ? Seemingly nowhere since neuropreach has just this one leitmotiv : « it happens in the brain ».

The article title is just one hysterical way of saying it. Hysterical in the original sense, i.e., based on the blaming of a body part ; thus the self avoids assuming her/his will, hence mental, weaknesses.

 

But make no mistakes, the paper is interesting because if you are not mesmerized by the neuropropaganda, you will soon discover that ALL the information brought to bear comes from sound psychological experiments. Not even one neuroscientific data is mentioned by the author. So you can appreciate here the power of the brain rhethoric because a casual reading will only let you think that you must « blame it on the brain ».

 

Now, concerning the psychological content of this paper, what is especially satisfying in the perspective of synthetic psychology is the reference to habits. Sure enough, the weakness of willpower is nowhere more evident than when it comes to breaking bad habits. But what is especially of importance is that when you are thinking in terms of habits, you are done. You don’t need anything else. Because — it’s a synthetic psychology axiom — we are nothing but a bunch of habits. And willpower has to be thought in this context, as William James did 120 years ago. That’s precisely what this paper shows, providing also the best evidence that there’s nothing new under the sun, even with breaking news in scientific research.

 

The author insists on the metaphor of « will-power as muscle » and it is very interesting because we are then in the domain of force, energy, power and… competition, i.e, the domain of habits, where exercizing, that is, repeating and repeating again the same activity is at the root of learning, development and mastery… over all the competing bad habits :-)

 

As we are a bunch of habits, doing anything suppose that at some point in time, there is some agreement between our habits, our schemas on what should be done. Like in a parliament, no unanimity is needed, a majority will suffice to give a stable idea of the goal. This means that the competition between different tendencies, different habits has to come to an end. Energy is therefore essential to win. Weak tendencies, weak habits won’t win power and/or access to bodily ressources if they are not sufficiently energetized. Heraclites is correct when stating that « war is the father and king of all », insofar as it reaches victory, that is, decision.

 

But, there is a but, contrarily to a parliament, the habit chamber can vote every seconds if one is lacking… willpower, that is, commitment to the decision taken.

 

If a habit in control (the one with which the self is identified) looses energy, it will loose control. All the experiments mentioned by Lehrer fall into this category, whether it’s a old habit (e.g. monitoring food intake) or a new one (a New Year resolution).

 

So everything boils down to… attention, focusing, dedication, i.e. presence to the fight that occurs constantly between good and bad habits. We tend to think that will is helpfull in this situation. But will is a fiction, as the self-agent agent which supposedly exert this will. The self is like God in a knight tournament. The best knight will win but his victory will be attributed to a God jugdement (jugement de Dieu). It the same for the self. The strongest habit will win and the victory will be attributed to a decision of the self : the will.

 

It’s a fiction, a social construction, but as reality is also a social construction, we can still use and live by this notion.

 

Whether we do it or not doesn’t matter. What is essential is to understand James who stressed the fact that attention is the alpha and omega of any decision process.

 

Lehrer gives a good example of that : if you don’t want to give in to temptation, think to something else. If you can’t, then, you will succumb. Forget will, self, etc. It’s only a matter of who which habit wins the power in you.

 

And yes, you can… have it. Whoever (whatever habit) you are… :-). Just be present to yourself, aware, conscious, pay attention to what is present and give attention to what has value to you. It’ll win.

 

So in the end, the question is : why does the neuroscientists go repeating constantly something that everybody knows : mental processes are supported by the brain ? Why ?

Here again, it’s a matter of power. By focusing attention on the neuron, they give power to it, they win power (i.e. money) like sorcerer in ancient culture. They pretend to deal with « the cause » of the phenomenology. As always, it’s a lie.

 

The cause is in you. Not in your neurons. Don’t blame the brain. Don’t blame yourself either. It’s useless. Just be cautious of what you are thinking, of yourself, of others, of the world. All of this is habits and action in the making, hence your reality. And again, you can change it. Just by paying attention.

 

It’s not that easy. You may consider engage in some kind of eastern practice of meditation. It helps. We have neuroscientific proofs of it :-)