Tag: mental-health

The Self Sam Harris Couldn’t Make Disappear

This morning, I quit a meditation before the timer expired.

That is not unusual. I have done it before. But today felt different. Today it did not feel like impatience, laziness, or resistance. It felt like clarity.

I was listening to Sam Harris’s daily meditation in the Waking Up app. Once again, he used the finger snap. Once again, he tried to direct attention toward the familiar exercise: look for the looker, notice the absence of the self, recognize that consciousness contains appearances but no one standing behind them.

And once again, I found myself thinking: I do not buy this.

Not anymore.

Maybe I never fully did.

I have benefited from Sam Harris. I have listened to him for years. He has helped me think more clearly about religion, politics, violence, free will, consciousness, and the dangers of dogmatic certainty. I remain grateful for much of his work.

But gratitude is not agreement.

And this morning, as the meditation unfolded, I found myself pushing back against one of his central claims: the idea that when we look closely enough, we discover there is no self.

That may be true if by “self” we mean an immortal soul, a supernatural essence, or a tiny ghost sitting behind the eyes pulling levers.

But I do not mean that.

I do not believe in that kind of self either.

The self I am talking about is natural, embodied, brain-based, conscious, and alive.

And the more I think about it, the more I believe meditation itself may prove that such a self exists.

The Self That Meditates

Meditation is often described as simple observation. Thoughts arise. Sounds arise. Sensations arise. Emotions arise. Everything appears in consciousness.

There is truth in that.

But meditation, at least as Sam Harris teaches it, is not merely passive observation. It is activity.

He says to notice the breath.

Then he says to look at an object.

Then he says to notice the space around the object.

Then he says to shift attention.

Then he says to look for the one who is looking.

Then he says to begin again when distracted.

That is not random appearance.

That is instruction, understanding, intention, direction, evaluation, correction, and choice.

Something hears the instruction.
Something understands it.
Something directs attention.
Something notices distraction.
Something gets irritated by the finger snap.
Something decides whether to continue or stop.

That something is not nothing.

Call it the organism.
Call it the person.
Call it the embodied mind.
Call it the conscious brain.
Call it Richard.

But do not tell me it is not a self.

When I am told to look at an object and I look at the object, I have found the looker. The looker is not hiding. The looker is engaged in the act of looking.

When I shift attention to peripheral vision, the self has not disappeared. The self has followed an instruction.

When I decide I have had enough and stop the meditation before the timer expires, that decision does not float in from nowhere. It arises from this life, this brain, this history, this irritation, this judgment.

It arises from me.

Consciousness as Self

The deeper question is this: why should the self have to be something separate from consciousness?

Maybe that is the mistake.

Maybe the self is not a little thing inside consciousness.

Maybe consciousness itself is the self.

I do not have Sam Harris’s consciousness.
I do not have Richard Dawkins’s consciousness.
I do not have Christopher Hitchens’s consciousness.
I have mine.

This field of awareness is not generic. It belongs to this life.

It is shaped by my body, my memories, my family, my dogs, my work, my deconstruction, my writing, my land, my failures, my griefs, my mornings, my aging, my choices.

My consciousness is not interchangeable with anyone else’s.

That seems important.

If someone says, “There is no self,” I want to ask: then whose consciousness is this?

Not as a clever trick. As a serious question.

Experience does not occur nowhere. It occurs from a point of view. It is tied to a living body. It is shaped by memory and biology. It has continuity. It has preference. It has concern. It has resistance.

This consciousness is not Sam’s. It is not yours. It is mine.

And that “mineness” is not an illusion in any ordinary sense.

It is what I mean by self.

The Controller Behind the Eyes

There is another phrase often used to dismiss the self: there is no little controller behind the eyes.

I understand the objection. If by “little controller” we mean a magical homunculus sitting inside the skull, then yes, I agree. There is no tiny man inside my head watching the movie of my life and issuing commands.

But there is something behind the eyes.

The brain.

And the mind is what the brain does.

Without the brain, there is no personal consciousness. When the brain dies, consciousness dies. When the brain changes, the self changes. Injury, disease, exhaustion, memory loss, medication, fear, trauma, age, and sleep all affect the person because they affect the brain.

So perhaps the old phrase is not entirely wrong.

There is a controller behind the eyes.

It is not supernatural.
It is not separate from the body.
It is not perfect.
It is not in total control.
It does not choose every thought before it appears.

But it does regulate, direct, remember, evaluate, inhibit, attend, compare, imagine, and act.

That is control.

Limited control, yes.
Conditioned control, yes.
Embodied control, yes.

But real control.

A driver does not control the weather, the road, the engine’s physics, or the behavior of every other driver. But we do not conclude there is no driver. We understand that the driver operates within conditions.

The self operates within conditions too: genetics, memory, habit, culture, emotion, fatigue, fear, desire, and circumstance.

But operating within conditions is not the same as not existing.

Why the Finger Snap No Longer Works for Me

The finger snap is supposed to interrupt something. It is supposed to cut through the illusion, perhaps giving the meditator a glimpse of awareness before thought reassembles the familiar self.

But for me, the finger snap has lost whatever usefulness it may have once had.

Now it feels like a trick.

Not a dangerous trick. Not a dishonest trick necessarily. But a technique that asks me to interpret a moment of interruption as metaphysical insight.

A snap happens.
The nervous system reacts.
Attention jolts.
Thought pauses.

And then I am supposed to conclude something profound about the nonexistence of the self.

But why?

The fact that my nervous system can be startled does not prove there is no self. It proves I have a nervous system.

The fact that thought can pause does not prove there is no self. It proves thought can pause.

The fact that attention can shift suddenly does not prove there is no self. It proves attention can shift suddenly.

In my case, the snap now reveals something quite different. It reveals continuity.

I remember the previous snaps.
I recognize the pattern.
I anticipate the move.
I feel irritation.
I judge the method unhelpful.
I decide to stop.

That is not the disappearance of self.

That is selfhood in action.

Dawkins, Hitchens, and Permission to Trust My Own Mind

I have also thought today about Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, two thinkers who helped me during my own deconstruction.

Neither man, so far as I can tell, built his life around meditation.

Dawkins, in conversation with Sam Harris, reportedly tried the guided meditation exercise and disliked it. His reaction was not mystical awe. It was more like: I followed the instructions, but I do not see the point.

That matters to me.

Not because Dawkins is an authority I must obey. I have spent too much of my life recovering from authority-based thinking to simply replace pastors with public intellectuals.

But Dawkins’s reaction reminds me that a serious, rational, secular person can encounter meditation and remain unconvinced.

Hitchens died before the Waking Up app existed, so it would be unfair to claim he rejected it specifically. But I find it hard to imagine Hitchens submitting patiently to “look for the looker” as a final revelation about the human condition. His path was argument, language, wit, memory, history, literature, conversation, and moral clarity.

Dawkins and Hitchens woke up in their own ways.

They did not need a finger snap.

And perhaps neither do I.

I Am Not Rejecting Awareness

I want to be clear about what I am not saying.

I am not saying meditation is bad.

I am not saying no one benefits from it.

I am not saying Sam Harris is foolish.

I am not saying the Waking Up app has no value.

I am not saying I have learned nothing from it.

I am saying something more personal:

This particular practice may no longer be helping me.

That is enough.

I do not need to turn that into a universal conclusion. I do not need to build a campaign against meditation. I do not need to prove that everyone else is wrong.

I only need to be honest about my own experience.

And my honest experience is this: the daily meditation has begun to feel repetitive, irritating, and philosophically unpersuasive.

I no longer feel awakened by it.

I feel interrupted by it.

Other Forms of Presence

The deeper truth is that I already have practices of attention.

I write.

I sit at my desk early in the morning.

I walk.

I listen to the dogs.

I work on cabins.

I notice the weather.

I read.

I question.

I watch my own mind argue, resist, grieve, remember, and revise.

I build.

I doubt.

I pay attention to ordinary life.

Those are not inferior forms of awareness.

For me, they may be better.

There is a kind of presence in walking the runway without headphones.

There is presence in drinking coffee before daylight and noticing what thought is doing.

There is presence in writing a sentence and then realizing the sentence is not yet true.

There is presence in feeding dogs, carrying lumber, watching light move across the trees, or sitting quietly without turning the moment into a lesson.

Maybe I do not need to “look for the looker.”

Maybe I need to keep living honestly as the looker.

The Self I Am Willing to Defend

So here is where I have landed, at least for today.

I do not believe in an eternal soul.

I do not believe in a supernatural essence.

I do not believe in a little ghost behind the eyes.

But I do believe there is a self.

The self is the conscious life of the brain-body system.

The self is this particular field of awareness.

The self is the embodied person who remembers, attends, chooses, resists, loves, regrets, acts, and dies.

The self is not separate from the brain.

The self is what the brain does when the brain produces a conscious person.

When the brain lives, the self lives.

When the brain changes, the self changes.

When the brain dies, the self dies.

That is not mystical.

That is not religious.

That is not crude.

That is real enough.

Closing

This morning, Sam Harris snapped his fingers.

And I did not awaken to the absence of self.

I awakened to the presence of one.

A tired, questioning, irritated, conscious, brain-based self who had followed the instructions long enough and finally said:

Enough.

Not out of avoidance.

Out of honesty.

And perhaps honesty is its own form of waking up.

Daily Deep Dive–Why Clarity Often Feels Like Standing Alone

There is a quiet assumption built into most social life:

If many people agree on something, it must be right. If something is widely accepted, it must be normal. If it is normal, it must be healthy.

Erich Fromm challenges that assumption directly.

A society can be deeply disordered while appearing functional. Individuals within it can adapt so completely that they no longer question the structure they are living inside. In that sense, conformity can produce stability—but not necessarily sanity.

This creates a tension.

To belong is to align with what is shared. To see clearly is sometimes to step outside of it.

And that step can feel like isolation.

Clarity does not always come with agreement. In fact, it often removes it. When a person begins to see something directly—without relying on inherited assumptions—the result may not match what others see. Not because the person is trying to be different, but because they are no longer filtering reality through the same framework.

This is where discomfort enters.

It is easier to belong than to see. It is easier to agree than to question. It is easier to adjust than to stand still in what is known directly.

But the cost of constant adjustment is subtle.

A person begins to lose contact with their own perception. Decisions become shaped by expectation rather than understanding. Over time, the internal sense of alignment weakens, even if external functioning remains intact.

Fromm’s idea of sanity points in another direction.

Sanity is not agreement. It is not comfort. It is not the absence of tension.

It is clarity.

Clarity requires attention. It requires the willingness to see what is there, even when it does not match what is expected. It requires holding perception steady long enough to trust it.

This does not mean rejecting everything external. It means not surrendering to it blindly.

A sane life, in this sense, is not one lived in opposition to others. It is one lived from a stable center of awareness. That center allows for connection, but it does not depend on agreement.

The result is a different kind of relationship to the world.

Less reactive.Less dependent.More grounded.

But also, at times, more solitary.

Not because the person is alone in a literal sense, but because they are no longer fully merged with shared assumptions.

This is where clarity and solitude meet.

And this is why clarity often feels like standing alone—not as a dramatic stance, but as a natural consequence of seeing without distortion.

The question is not whether this will happen.

The question is whether it will be avoided.

Because the alternative is not true belonging.

It is quiet disconnection.

Daily Deep Dive–Why Wholeness Matters More Than Balance in Creative Work

We often talk about creative work in the language of balance. Balance your reason and your feeling. Balance structure and spontaneity. Balance discipline and inspiration. There is truth in that language, but it can also be misleading. It suggests that the self is made of separate compartments that must be carefully negotiated into cooperation.

Lucille Clifton suggests something deeper. In the interview Maria Popova draws from, Clifton says a poem has to come from intellect and intuition. Too much intuition becomes sentimentality. Too much intellect becomes a mass of material no one knows or cares about. But the center of the insight is not really “balance” as such. It is wholeness. The poem is about a whole human, speaks to a whole human, and therefore must come from a whole human.

That distinction matters.

Balance implies management among parts. Wholeness implies a different condition altogether—an undivided life from which the work can arise naturally. The problem is not merely that we favor one faculty over another. The problem is that many of us live in pieces. We think in one register, feel in another, work in another, speak in another, and then wonder why our creative output seems thin or strained.

A divided person may still produce competent work. But there is a difference between competence and aliveness.

Clifton’s wisdom helps clarify that difference. A poem dies when intellect takes over in a sterile way, but it also dies when intuition runs free without shape. The answer is not to keep those two forces on opposite ends of a seesaw. The answer is to let them belong to one living center.

That is harder than it sounds, because modern life encourages fragmentation. We are trained into roles, outputs, categories, and modes. Be productive here. Be emotional there. Be analytical in this space. Be practical in that one. Even inner life becomes specialized. The result is a person who may function effectively but not always wholly.

Creative work suffers under that arrangement because art is not merely assembled from skill. It is formed from personhood. Popova opens the Clifton piece by observing that everything we make is shaped by the whole of what we are and what we have lived. A song, an equation, a poem, a page—all of it bears the imprint of the person making it.

That means the deeper question is not only, “How do I balance my faculties?” It is, “From what kind of self does this work arise?”

If the self is fractured, the work may carry the fracture. If the self is present, receptive, and integrated, the work may carry that instead.

This is why I think wholeness matters more than balance. Balance can remain mechanical. It can become one more managerial project. Wholeness is less tidy and more organic. It comes from living in a way that allows thought, instinct, memory, craft, labor, and feeling to remain in conversation with each other.

The same may be true well beyond poetry.

A day of useful labor, a well-made bench, a prepared garden bed, a clear conversation, a thoughtful page—none of these arise from one faculty alone. They draw from attention, memory, judgment, bodily knowledge, and a certain instinctive feel for what belongs where. Life itself asks for more than balance. It asks for participation by the whole person.

Clifton also says something else that deepens this. Poetry can heal because it comes from a heart and can speak to another heart. The healing power lies not only in expression, but in connection. The work is not complete when it is merely made. It becomes fully itself in the contact it creates.

That too points toward wholeness rather than balance.

A balanced self might still remain self-contained. A whole self is able to connect. It can create work that not only displays intelligence or feeling, but actually reaches another person. And perhaps that is one sign that the work has come from a deeper center: it does not merely show off the maker’s capacities. It carries some living human charge from one person to another.

The language of wholeness also has the advantage of being more forgiving. Balance can make a person imagine a neat symmetry that few real lives possess. Wholeness does not require symmetry. It requires honesty. It requires a willingness to let the actual person show up—flawed, layered, experienced, thinking, feeling, remembering, trying.

In that sense, wholeness is less about perfection than about consent. Consent to be present as one life. Consent to let the hand belong to the mind, the intuition belong to the craft, the labor belong to the reflection, the solitude belong to the connection.

Perhaps that is why some work feels alive from the first line or the first glance. It was not produced by a well-managed fragment. It was made by someone who, for that moment at least, was gathered enough to speak from one center.

And maybe that is what so many of us are after without quite naming it. Not simply better balance. Not a more polished arrangement of our competing faculties. But a life out of which work can rise without distortion because it rises from a self no longer at war with itself.

That kind of wholeness cannot be faked. But it can be practiced. In the page. In the shop. In the garden. In the conversation. In the way a day is lived.

The work, then, is not just to make something.

It is to become someone from whom living work can come.