make your universe vast

something got me to thinking. perhaps it was piaget's term, "equilibration." according to piaget, what motivates a subject to develop (to "learn") is the need to "equilibrate" or find equilibrium with his/her environment. as piaget is a cognitive theorist, this equilibrium entails not only adaptation to the external environment, but a kind of cognitive consistency in the internal workings of the mind as well. the changing demands of the environment and the asymptotic inconsistencies in our internal schemata of the world continually create "disturbances" or imbalances (i'm tempted to sound jedi-ish, and end with "in the force..."). the subject is thus motivated to learn in order to reduce or eliminate these imbalances.

this idea is not new. it's been couched in different terms, certainly, but i think it's pretty standard fare to say that an organism develops in order to achieve a degree of homeostasis.

piaget believed development occurred in four stages. the final stage, designated the formal operational stage (if i recall), ends at (i think) age 17??? for piaget, this is the final stage, because all subsequent learning is more or less a patina over the "groundwork" of all previous stages.

piaget also believed that each stage began with the subject in a state he called egocentrism. this is not precisely the "egocentrism" we think about when we say, "oh he's selfish and egocentric." it is, rather, a state of ambiguity and vagueness, because the subject cannot DISTINGUISH the self from its object (which changes depending upon the stage). development in piaget's system, then, is one of progressive differentiation and distinction, a refinement or abstraction if you will, of cognitive schemata.

...

okay, so on a totally unrelated note. i was thinking about kids in my elementary school (and arguably everyone everywhere). in the beginning of the school year, there would be a lot of new kids. and their eyes would be kind of soft and gentle; there is a sparkle in the eyes of innocence, in the eyes of those who don't precisely know where they fit in. i always found those types of eyes beautiful. i believe the universe is found in such eyes. these are the eyes of children, by the way.

by a few months in, those eyes are gone. most kids have found their friends, have discovered where they belong. and there is a kind of haze or film over the eyes at that point. some might perceive this as a kind of clarity, as a kind of "dead certainty." but that's exactly it. eyes that know their place have solidified, are, in a certain sense, clear as the edge of a rock.

i tried to think about this phenomena, this changing of the eyes, so to speak, in piaget's terms. although we idealize the end-goal of each stage of development, let's not discount the beauty of the beginning, of being in "disequilibrium", innocent and unknowing and confounded. for once we achieve equilibration and mastery, we have in essence deadened both ourselves and our world.

this is why i idealize, paradoxically, things like: blindness, being a fool, being a "rude hawaiian," being a beginner. to return to the state of disequilibrium and imbalance is to make future growth possible. it is to "take the lid" off life, and the universe at large. it is to make of life a journey that never ends, not in a negative sense, but in a truly positive sense. sometimes arrival is the worst thing that can happen, because once you arrive, you stop moving, and once you stop moving, you stop living. to keep life and the universe alive, we must learn how to continually be humble and "stupid" and "idiotic", if only so that we can continue to learn and live.

i call this the principle of "making the universe vast."

by the way, i believe it applies to child-rearing and teaching. yes, i know my children. but with each interaction, i try to see them with new eyes, as though i don't know them at all. and, lo and behold! they continually surprise me. isn't it funny? by "not seeing", i am able to see...