Chapter 9: The Unowned Dimension

Four Dimensions, At Least

The numinous --- the thing that meditative practice opens onto, that mystical experience reports, that Tillich's "ground of being" and Wallis's "consciousness-as-cit" both point at --- has at least four dimensions. Probably more.

The claim is not metaphysical. It is descriptive of what the contemplative traditions examined in this book have each had to say about their own object: the thing exceeds the conceptual apparatus available to describe it. The traditions reach the same wall, with different vocabularies. The Sanskrit traditions call it neti neti --- not this, not that. The Christian apophatic tradition calls it the via negativa. The Zen tradition uses koans to break the conceptual grip. The Sufi tradition speaks of the silence that surrounds the divine name. The Kabbalist tradition speaks of Ein Sof, the boundless that has no positive description.

This convergence is data. It is the recurring discovery, across communities of practitioners working in isolation from one another for many centuries, that what is being pointed at has more degrees of freedom than the pointing instrument.

Conceptual language is three-dimensional, at most. Subject, predicate, object. A thing, a relation, another thing. With grammar and metaphor and recursion, language can do more than this, but it remains tethered to the structure of sequential propositions, each of which decomposes into something like S-V-O. To say something is to bind it into this structure --- to project it onto a manifold that has three axes and an ordering.

Whatever the numinous is, it has at least one more axis. Probably several. And at least one of those axes has the property the rest of this chapter will call unowned.

The Unowned

The unowned dimension is not a domain that has been seized by someone other than the practitioner. It is not waiting to be claimed by a better grasp. The unowned is unowned by anyone, including reality itself. It cannot be possessed because possession is a three-dimensional operation: someone has something. The unowned is the dimension of the numinous that does not admit the subject-having-object structure.

This is what the traditions have been trying to name when they say cit is not an object, the ground is not a being, the divine is not a thing, Brahman is not other-than-you, the kingdom of heaven is within you and also not where it can be pointed. The Western philosophical tradition has the hardest time with this, because it was built around the subject-object distinction and has spent two millennia refining it. The Sanskritic and East Asian traditions have a longer practice of dismantling that distinction from inside. But every tradition that has gone deep enough has hit the same wall: there is something in the numinous that refuses to be the object of any knower.

This is not mysticism in the soft sense --- "everything is connected, isn't that beautiful." This is the technical claim that one of the degrees of freedom in the territory cannot be transcribed onto a map without being destroyed by the transcription. Not "lost in translation." Destroyed by translation. The act of mapping it eliminates the property of unownedness, because the map by definition is an owned object. The map cannot contain an unowned thing because the map's existence depends on someone having drawn it.

So the numinous, mapped, is always missing at least one of its dimensions. What is mapped is real --- the three (or however many) dimensions of the numinous that admit conceptualization are accurately represented. The map is not false. But the map is incomplete in a specific way that cannot be remedied by a better map. Better maps will be made. The incompleteness will persist.

This is the structural reason the contemplative traditions converge on practice rather than on doctrine. Doctrine is a map. Practice is a body in the territory. The territory has at least one dimension the body can inhabit and the map cannot represent.

Better Versions of the Truth

If every map is incomplete in the specified way, then the question of which map is the truth is malformed. None is the truth, in the sense of being isomorphic to the territory across all dimensions. Each is a working projection from a higher-dimensional object into the three dimensions language can carry, with the unowned axis necessarily lost.

But the maps are not therefore equivalent. Some are useful. Some cohere with what is observable on the dimensions that can be mapped. Some allow the practitioner to live well, to act compassionately, to maintain the body that practices.

The Linehan three-filter test is exactly this kind of evaluation. It does not ask: is this claim true. It asks: is the map useful, does it fit the data on the mappable dimensions, is it compassionate in its application. Three filters for distinguishing better maps from worse ones, without committing to the claim that any map is the map.

This is the operating principle of the book, and it is, in a phrase, better versions of the truth.

Not the truth. Versions of it. Some better than others. None final.

The phrase is not a concession to relativism. Relativism would say every map is equally valid, that the choice between them is arbitrary or political or aesthetic. The position of this book is the opposite: the choice between maps is adjudicable by reference to the criteria of the three-filter test. Better and worse exist. The Newtonian map of physics is worse than the relativistic one, by the standards of fitting more data, predicting more accurately, accounting for more phenomena. The cosmology that includes a flat earth is worse than the one that does not. The map that says women have no moral standing is worse than the one that says they do. Maps can be evaluated. Maps can be improved.

What cannot be done is to claim, of any map, that it has achieved the territory. The unowned dimension forbids this. Every map remains a projection. Every projection loses something. The discipline of the practitioner is to choose better projections while remembering that what is lost will not be retrieved by another projection.

Infinite Is Not Unbounded

Here a distinction matters that the modern mind, trained in a particular way, will tend to collapse.

Infinite and unbounded are not synonyms.

A set can be infinite while still bounded. The real numbers between zero and one form an infinite set --- there are uncountably many of them. But the set is bounded: nothing in it is greater than one or less than zero. The boundary is firm. The interior is infinite. Both at once, no contradiction.

This is the structure of an adaptive culture. The number of possible adaptive cultures is infinite --- the human nervous system can be tended in indefinitely many configurations of language, story, ritual, food, kinship, and ecology. But the set of adaptive cultures is bounded by physics. No adaptive culture can exceed the carrying capacity of its watershed for more than a few generations. No adaptive culture can extract energy from a system at a rate that destroys the system. No adaptive culture can scale its consumption faster than its capacity for repair. The boundary is firm. The interior is infinite. There are infinite ways to live well within the boundary. There are zero ways to live well outside it.

Modernity has confused infinite with unbounded. This is one of its constitutive hallucinations.

The hallucination shows up most clearly in the economic logic of growth-without-end. The assumption that GDP can grow exponentially forever, that material throughput can rise indefinitely, that the goods produced and consumed by a global civilization can increase in number without limit --- this is the unbounded fantasy applied to the material world. And the material world does not permit it. The earth has a finite surface. The atmosphere has a finite carbon budget. The freshwater table has a finite recharge rate. The fisheries have a finite spawning capacity. The boundary is not negotiable. What is infinite is the variety of lives that can be lived within it. What is bounded is the size of the substrate those lives can extract from.

The hallucination shows up in personal life too --- the assumption that the body's capacity for stimulation can grow without limit, that pleasure can be optimized indefinitely upward, that attention can be fragmented endlessly without cost, that productivity can rise forever without bodily consequence. This is the same error scaled to a single nervous system. The body has a finite parasympathetic capacity, a finite tolerance for sympathetic activation, a finite supply of the chemistry that allows recovery from stress. The boundary is real. The room inside the boundary --- the variety of lives that can be lived within the body's actual capacity --- is, for practical purposes, infinite.

A different civilization would not abandon the infinite. It would learn the boundary. Infinite within bounded is the structural condition of adaptive life. The cultures that have sustained themselves for many millennia --- the ones whose names recur in Working Architecture and Grammars of the Living World --- learned this structure and built around it. The civilization currently extending across the planet has not yet learned it, and the maps it operates from refuse to represent the boundary.

This is a mappable phenomenon. There is no unowned dimension here. The boundary can be measured, the math can be done, the carrying capacity can be calculated. What is required is not a deeper mysticism. What is required is a better map --- one that does not confuse the variety of lives possible with the absence of limits on the substrate.

A better version of the truth: infinity within boundedness. Not a paradox. A description.

The Lifted Taboo

There is a particular case where the prevailing map's three-dimensional projection has elected to leave a domain blank, and the blank itself has become so naturalized that most readers no longer notice it as a choice. The case is death.

The lifted taboo, in this frame, is not what the modern mind tends to imagine when the phrase is heard. It is not endorsement. It is not encouragement. It is the willingness to map a domain that one prevailing cartography has elected to leave blank.

The taboo on death in modern liberal cultures is specific and observable. Death is increasingly removed from the home, from the body's experience of caregiving, from the rituals that prepared earlier generations for it. Dying happens in institutions. Bodies are handled by professionals. The corpse is rarely seen by the family. Children are kept away. The vocabulary becomes euphemistic --- passed away, lost, departed. The phenomenon is consistent enough across modern Western cultures that anthropologists have a name for it: the denial of death, after Ernest Becker.

The taboo on chosen death is stronger still. Suicide is treated, in modern liberal culture, as a single category of universally pathological act, requiring prevention by every available mechanism. There is a documented public-health rationale for this. A substantial body of research finds that suicide in modern Western contexts is frequently associated with treatable mental illness, acute crisis, and social isolation, and that prevention infrastructure saves lives. The rationale is sound for what it addresses. The mapping, in those cases, is correct.

But the mapping is also incomplete. It cannot distinguish between an act of acute distress and a deliberate, considered, long-prepared departure by a person whose work is done and whose body is failing. It cannot distinguish between a teenager and a person of ninety in palliative care. It cannot include, even as a category to be reasoned about, the ancient tradition of the realized practitioner choosing the moment of leaving the body. The legend of Abhinavagupta, who is said to have entered a cave with his disciples and never returned, does not register inside the modern mapping. It cannot be classified as anything but pathology, even though the tradition that produced it classified it as fulfillment.

Christopher Wallis has noted, in his teachings on the tradition's view of death, that Shaiva Tantra does not place an absolute prohibition on chosen departure the way the dominant modern frameworks do.¹ This is not a recommendation. It is a description of how a different mapping handled a domain the modern mapping has refused to handle.

To lift the taboo is to permit the discussion. It is to allow that the question how should a culture relate to chosen death has more than one defensible answer. It is to acknowledge that the modern mapping is a mapping, not the territory --- that the boundary it draws around discussable death is a feature of its three-dimensional projection, not a feature of the underlying domain.

This permission does not change what one does for a person in acute crisis. The crisis is its own situation, with its own protocols, and the protocols are sound for what they address. The lifted taboo operates at a different level: the level of cultural discourse, of philosophical inquiry, of the ability of a community to discuss the parameters of its own attitudes toward mortality without having the discussion shut down by reflex.

A culture that cannot discuss death has not solved death. It has only refused to map it. The unmapped domain continues to operate --- people continue to die, including by their own hand --- but the conceptual apparatus available to handle the phenomenon is impoverished by the refusal.

A better version of the truth about death includes the capacity to think about it.

What the Practitioner Owes the Unowned

The practitioner who has accepted the structure of this chapter is left with a specific discipline.

First: every map is a projection. The map being used today, however good it is, is missing at least one dimension. The willingness to keep practicing without holding the map as final is the willingness to live in relationship with the unowned.

Second: better maps are possible. The three-filter test is the means of evaluating them. Useful, fits the data, compassionate. Adjudication is real. Better is real. The practitioner is not stranded in relativism.

Third: the modern hallucination that confuses infinite with unbounded is itself a bad map. It fails the second filter --- it does not fit the data on the dimensions it claims to cover. It needs to be replaced with the better version: infinite within bounded, variety within physics, depth within limit.

Fourth: the domains the prevailing map refuses to discuss are not therefore non-existent. They are unmapped. The practitioner is permitted --- required --- to consider them. With care. With discipline. With awareness of the people for whom the discussion would be premature or harmful. But without the reflex of refusal that the prevailing map has trained into the body.

Fifth: the unowned dimension is what makes practice irreducible to doctrine. The body in the territory has access to what the map will never represent. This is not an argument against maps. It is an argument for not confusing one's possession of a map with one's standing in the territory. The map is owned. The territory contains a dimension that is not.

The courage to be, in Tillich's sense, is partly the courage to live with a map one knows to be incomplete. The recognition, in Wallis's sense, is partly the recognition that the incompleteness was never a defect --- it was the territory's nature. The grief, in the sense of the previous chapter, is what keeps the maps honest about what they cannot soften.

Better versions of the truth. Held lightly. Practiced anyway. Replaced when better ones come along.

CC BY-SA 4.0