Published on July 13, 2025 10:49 PM GMT
Some speculations based upon the Vasocomputational Theory of Mediation, meditation and some poorly understood Lakoff. Even though reading about meditation is low risk, I wouldn't necessarily assume that it is risk-free.
A Summer's night. Two friends have been discussing life and meaning late into the evening:
Rafael: So in short, you're being torn in two.
Riven: Yep, I'm being pulled in two different directions.
Rafael: Part of you is being pulled one direction and another part of you is being pulled another way.
Riven: That’s exactly what I’m feeling.
Rafael: Figuratively or literally?
Riven: What? No… what?!
Rafael: I’m serious
Riven: Literally??
Come now, do you really have to be such a joker all the time? Whilst the bit may worked for Socrates, I have to admit that find it rather tiresome for you to play the fool.
Rafael: It’s quite possible I’m being stupid, but unfortunately, I must confess that it's not in any way a pretense. I'm completely, 100% sincere. I’m not disputing that you think you’re think you’re speaking figuratively, but sometimes we accidentally hit upon deeper truths than we realise. You are familiar with Lakoff, right?
Riven: Of course. He made three claims that really caught my attention. Firstly, that dead metaphors referencing physical action are much more common than we realise. When we say we’re "going through” something, or that we want to “pick up” a topic again or that we’re “keeping” on acting a particular way, even though we typically don't realise this, we're invoking a turn of phrase that started off as a metaphor[1]. Secondly, that this isn’t a mere flourish, but instead provides insight into how human language developed. Thirdly, that the fact that we needed this scaffolding reveals a deep truth about how the human brain works
Rafael: And what do you think of his claims?
Riven: I don’t know if I’d unambiguously and universally endorse these claims, but I suspect they’re at least somewhat true. I don't know why you're bringing this up though, all of these examples are figurative. Why bring up a figure who doesn't at all support your point?
Rafael: I agree that a straight-forward Lakoffian analysis doesn't help me here. But it is also possible to take broader inspiration from someones work. In Unsong, the phrase "this was not a coincidence, because nothing is ever a coincidence", is repeated each time the author shares a satirical conspiracy theory. The influence I take from Lakoff is not presuming that the phrasing a language uses to describe a concept is merely incidental, but instead often deeply revealing about human psychology. He focuses on dead metaphors, but sometimes the rabbit hole goes deeper than that. And that's what I'm proposing in this particular case.
Riven: That feels like a long bow to draw, but color me intrigued. How could this be literally true? I hope you're not just another millenial who literally doesn't understand the meaning of the word "literally".
Rafael: I'm not so sure that the millenial usage of the word "literally" is actually a misuse — linguistic descriptivism, Wittegensteinian language games and all that. However, I want to actually attempt to stay on topic for once. Let's suppose you're literally standing at a crossroads, deciding whether to go left or right. You can even try it if you want. If you feel into your body, I expect you'll likely literally be able to feel tension between two muscles where one is pulling one way and another muscle is pulling another way. Oh, btw, "tension" that's literal as well. Imagine a goalie croaching ready to spring left or right, by tensing two sets of muscles they can prepare to leap on an instant's notice — no need to wind up first.
Riven: Fascinating. However... I'm basically never literally standing at a crossroad or preparing to spring one way or another. At most you can claim that these terms are occasionally literal.
Rafael: On the contrary, it happens all the time. Put your two favourite flavours of drink on a table in front of you and tell me that you don't feel a literal tension. For me, it's most noticable in the neck — when I'm selecting a choice, my first eyes start drifting towards it. Let's suppose I considering whether to grab dinner or continue working [2] — my eyes drift either towards the door or my laptop.
Riven: I have to admit that now that you're saying this, I'm starting to feel something surprisingly similar. However, it's unclear to me whether this was only the case and I'm only starting to notice it now or whether this was always true and you just psy-oped[3] me into believing it. Could you clarify how you think this came about? Are you proposing that people explicitly noticed these internal sensations and decided to make use of it when naming the phenomenon? This wouldn't be impossible, but I must admit that I'm dubious.
Rafael: It certainly needn't be so direct. Decisions in neural networks are driven by the combination of a large number of factors. I expect that the pheomenological experience would have (weakly) affected what kinds of metaphors sounded right, without any need for such conscious awareness.
Riven: I suppose that could be plausible. I'll have to think about it some more. But supposing this is all true, surely this would have some consequences in terms of how we should treat stress?
Rafael: Indeed, whilst I'm still reflecting on this, if it were true, it would suggest that relaxing particular muscles might be one of the best ways to relieve tension. Which should surprise nobody given how common this advice is. However, this seems to suggest that the stress relief effect more direct than you might think.
Riven: That sounds plausible, but I'm not completely sold. The muscle tension could be a incidental, downstream effect of stress, rather than being at the heart of the phenomenon.
Rafael: Indeed, that's not implausible, but I think not. I'd prefer to leave that thread for another time. For now, I'd like to venture an even more speculative hypothesis — on how we're already enlightended.
Riven: I suppose your interpretation of Buddhism can't be worse than your reading of Lakoff. So do go on...
Rafael: Suppose meditation were really about relieving tension by relaxing muscles and enlightenment were about releasing all such tension. The question then becomes, how would you do that? Now, here's the trick, relaxing is the most natural thing in the world, you don't really have to be taught how to do it. All you have to do is to put your attention on the tension and you'll automatically relax, so long as you don't actively maintain it.
Riven: It sounds so easy and yet...
Rafael: Tension is uncomfortable. Our brain wants to resolve any tension, but if that doesn't prove possible, then it learns to look away. If you want to examine the tension, you need to overcome this resistance. However, directing your attention like this, may require you to strain. Again, this is literal, and the muscle tension this creates may interfere with your ability to relax the muscles you are focusing on. This explain why trying to hard to relax is counterproductive and the same too for mediation.
Riven: That's sounding much tricker now.
Rafael: Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Your body's tactile space isn't Newtownian, but closer to Einsteinian, except instead of space being bent by gravity, it's bent by discomfort. You can try to move your attention towards the tension, but if you naively assume the space to be Euclidean, then you'll most likely miss. It's possible to have a situation where discomfort in spot A prevent you from directing your attention towards spot B, but discomfort in spot B prevents you from directing your attention towards spot A.
Even if you manage to direct your attention to the desired spot, it may still immediately bounce off. Plus, there's a natural human instinct to activate your cognitive system to find a way to resolve the discomfort. In many cases, this instinct is correct, but if you actually can't access any solutions, then getting caught up in your thoughts can end up counterproductive as it'd prevent you from focusing your attention on the muscles that you want to relax.
Riven: That sounds hard, but actually a lot easier than following the instructions I've recieved when attending meditation class. You're obviously not enlightened, so I assume you're suggesting that if you followed the process long enough you might get there?
Rafael: I honestly don't know what the path looks like. As you say, my understanding of Buddhism is quite poor and I haven't gone very far down the path, but this seems to at least be part of the puzzle.
Riven: I assume you're proposing that I join you on your meditative journey then.
Rafael: Causal mediation class is probably a good thing. As for more serious mediation, I can't in good conscious recommend it without having ventured further down this path. Although it's often downplayed, serious mediation comes with serious risks that ought to be taken seriously. There's a lot to be gained here, but don't assume it's all smooth sailing. In fact, some of these waters are treacherous indeed.
- ^
These examples are merely illustrative. I don't have the linguistic knowledge to know if they are actually plausible.
- ^
A completely hypothetical example 😛
- ^
Confirmation bias
Discuss
