Having pointed out the problems with over-reliance on both emotion and thinking, I believe balance requires that the third major pillar of mental life be considered here. One popular word for this third foundation is spirituality.
The spiritual dimension of human consciousness seems, at first glance, like something unassailable. Isn’t spirituality the highest principle?
Of course, anyone with strong atheistic beliefs will immediately disagree. Strict materialists often view any mental state or idea with ‘spiritual’ attached to it as profoundly suspect, childish, and superstitious. We have all known people who seem so connected with mystical mental currents that they become sharply disconnected from reality. Schizophrenia, or at least psychosis, often results from too little material consciousness and too much transcendence.
Regardless of whether you believe mystical experiences reflect larger spiritual forces or deranged mental states (or both,) there is no question that an alternate form of consciousness is available to people, and that some humans get lost in it. The question is, does spirituality have value for those who remain firmly connected with day-to-day reality? It’s a personal question that atheists will answer one way and religious folks another. But there is a less controversial way of looking at the problem.
Neuroscientists often divide mental life into thought, emotion, and motivation. Using this formula, spirituality is most closely aligned with motivation. Why do we behave as we do? If we help others, are we acting in self-interest, hoping for future favors? Or do we work from the more laudable place of truly caring about the welfare of others? If we pursue a sexual partner, are we simply interested in carnal pleasure, or do we yearn for lasting connection with a life-partner? These motivational questions can be pursued pragmatically.
When we search within for our best motives, they often have a spiritual flavor, and hover near the transcendent experience. But that doesn’t mean we can’t use either spiritual or motivational terminology, according to our preference.
In the modern world of commerce, spiritual value (or motivational purity) is quite often neglected if not outright derided. Not only are we suspicious of it, we also recognize that it places demands on our lifestyle. If we were truly spiritually/motivationally fit, if we obeyed our most heartfelt tendencies, we might consume less, give away treasure, and live more austere lives. This might be inconvenient not only for us as individuals, but also for family members who share our lifestyles. It is easier to push away the nagging conscience, and offer it tidbits via small acts of charity.
But only when we are true to our deepest spiritual, motivational voice will we feel truly serene. As long as we are living lives that conflict with our values, we will experience that conflict as unease in the heart. Whether we are working a job that doesn’t fit, or living in a relationship that’s not based on love, or consuming far beyond necessity, the heart knows and exacts its price in subtle discontent. We may think we have our lives all worked out, but we feel vaguely disturbed all the same.
In the case of thought and emotion, the usual danger is to lean to far in either direction and live unbalanced mental lives as a result. In the case of spirituality, unless we are bordering on psychosis or fantasy, we are more likely to be underemphasizing the deep motivating forces that most authentically drive us. We are trained in this culture to follow shallow goals, and avoid looking too deeply at why we live as we do. We are trained to want the new car, the nice house, the beautiful mate, without looking at what might be best for the planet and our souls.
The answer? I hesitate to suggest prayer, with all it implies. Meditation is a less controversial word in today’s world. But the language is less important than the act. There is grave necessity to examine what directs us at our very center. If everyone on the planet opened themselves to these deepest motivations, the one’s closest to the heart, greed and cruelty would diminish, wars would gradually cease, ecological destruction would abate.
Or at least that’s what my own spiritual core tells me. Perhaps it is simply fantasy, and perhaps I am losing touch with that hard-edged cynicism I used to prize. Or perhaps I am finally balancing my mind, giving equal voice to thought, emotion, and deep motivation.
>> Share on Facebook>> Tweet

1
Trish Austin at http://www.onenewbraineplease.blogspot.com/
Great post! That Still, Small Voice Within-me needs nurturing and a good ear. I’m not living a life that is in balance with it. However, growing up in a family where God was “dirty” word-dad hardcore scientist. I’ve come a long way. But, like everything, it’s a process.
Posted at September 10, 2010 on 7:38pm.
2
Will at http://willspirit.com
Trish–
My father was also a scientist and an atheist, but he actually made me attend Sunday school. Mainly this was to get me out of the house so my stepmother didn’t have to see me, but it was also because he believed I should understand Christianity on account of its huge presence in our culture. I don’t think he was exactly antagonistic toward God concepts, but he didn’t believe them, and he taught me the same belief system. I didn’t start to see things differently until I was almost thirty.
Even now I couldn’t define my beliefs. I don’t believe the Judeo-Christian tradition offers more than an oblique glimpse of ultimate reality (and in the process adds in a huge amount of human construct.) Eastern systems seem a little closer to the mark, but probably humans are constitutionally incapable of clearly seeing the deepest truth, at least with the logical mind.
On the other hand, within most people there lives a deep sense of whether actions are performed with positive, negative, or neutral motives. One doesn’t need any mystical beliefs to work with that part of the mind, and it does need attention if one desires deep happiness.
–Will
Posted at September 11, 2010 on 6:49am.
3
jane-ellen at http://YourWebsite
Very interesting attempt at reconciling opposing views! A couple of questions about the conclusions: (easier question) In your view, can thought, a.k.a. introspection, uncover those motivations? (harder question) Can you tell us more about how you reached your agreement with Anne Frank–that people are really good at heart? How does one reconcile this with evolutionary biology?
Posted at September 11, 2010 on 8:13am.
4
Will at http://willspirit.com
Jane-Ellen–
You might want to read my similar piece on my other blog, which develops these ideas further and with more discussion of motivations. At the end of that essay I make the point that people contact their core values in a variety of ways, which I’m sure could include introspective thought. The tricky thing about thought, however, is that it is quite persuasive and can potentially promote its own values by making them seem like they are more deeply derived.
Also in that other essay, I acknowledge that assuming people can improve is a bit naive. I prefer this naivete to the cynicism of believing the human situation hopeless.
The idea that evolutionary biology rules out true altruism has been countered on several fronts. The most grounded approach, perhaps, can be read in the book The Neuroscience of Fair Play by Donald Pfaff. Aside from sociopaths, I think most people do have a sense of right and wrong. The problem isn’t so much that people don’t want to do the right thing; it’s that they fear they will get screwed if they let down their guard. But if rectitude became more common, it might promote itself as people began to see others behaving charitably.
You could argue that in that case there is no true altruism after all, and that it’s just self-interest. I’m not sure the distinction matters. In prehistorical times there is little doubt that cooperation (at least within the group) favored survival of all. Whether this is group selection or kin selection is less important than the fact that humans must have once cooperated within their bands to get to where we are today.
The problem is that we are now one large band but still act like we are many small ones. Can humanity adapt to this change? Frankly, I think the odds are long, but stranger things have happened.
–Will
Posted at September 11, 2010 on 8:38am.