This is a post following up a bit on my last one about Daniel Dennett’s talk, I think Arthur Young’s usage of the idea of degrees of freedom is particularly useful to think about in a number of contexts.
In his book The Reflexive Universe, Arthur Young is trying to develop a theory of evolution of the universe, specifically the universe which man is a part of. Young blends together contemporary science with ancient wisdom traditions. His main theme is that the universe is purposely evolving through a fractally-structured hierarchical process (a reflexive arc), that reality is four-fold in nature, and that the self and the universe are fundamentally of the same nature. He calls this purposive evolution of the universe and of the self “the theory of process” or of development. The following diagrams are a basic visualization of his models.
While there is much that I want to unpack here, I will have to do so in later posts. Here, I’ll be focusing on the degrees of freedom, but first will give a bit of an overview of Arthur Young’s thinking here. Broadly, Young thinks that the universe came into existence or was generated through a sequence of stages which consist of four levels or layers. These begin with pure spirit/consciousness. They end with physical matter. In the diagrams above we see seven stages as occurring on four different levels. First we should note that Young sees this as a process. You start at the top left and follow the dark line on the diagrams through a process of descent and ascent. The process has a purpose, hence its directionality. As one descends through the stages, one gives up freedom in three downward steps.
Degrees of Freedom
First, a bit on degrees of freedom. H. W. Walker wrote a paper on the topic in 1940, laying out some preliminary examples to elucidate the concept. First, consider a bead on a piece of string. It has only one degree of freedom because it can only move on a one-dimensional path, regardless of how many twists and turns that path might take. A drop of water on plane surface has two degrees of freedom because it can move freely on the two-dimensional surface. A bird has three degrees of freedom because it moves freely in three-dimensional space.
A train can only move backward and forward on a linear path–a one dimensional space that is on a two-dimensional space (the surface of the earth) which is in a three-dimensional universe. All that is needed to locate the train at any given point in time is a single coordinate (X) or a distance from its origin. A car moves over a two-dimensional surface but is a section of a three-dimensional space. So, at any given moment the position of the car can be given by two coordinates (X, Y). But, to get its exact location in the four-dimensional space/time, three coordinates would be needed (X, Y, Z).
If I asked you to choose a number at random, (X), you would have one degree of freedom. If I asked you to pick a pair of numbers (X, Y), you would have two degrees of freedom. Then, if that numbered pair was the coordinate on a standard coordinate plane, depending on the answers you gave, the point is free to move anywhere horizontally on the X axis and vertically on the Y axis. Hopefully this is making sense as we move to Arthur Young. Young’s book The Geometry of Meaning delves further into the mathematics of degrees of freedom. It really is a treat to read.
Young suggests, as shown in the diagram above, that light has three degrees of freedom. Light is existing on a four-dimensional plane, requiring three coordinates to locate it. Young posits that the step down from light to the level of nuclear particles constrains the particle to motion within a sphere (a three-dimensional plane), restricting its freedom. Why do that? He claims that the step down offers the light permanence (as a substance).
The second step is a further loss of freedom. It confines the electron to its movement in a circle around the nucleus, leaving only one degree of freedom.
The third step confines it to a fixed position of the atom, like in a crystal. It has no option to move about, rendering it 0 degrees of freedom. But, Young would argue that the atom still has freedom in some sense. Why does an atom have any degree of freedom at all? An atom can absorb or release energy without prompting from the outside. It’s energy state is unpredictable (or free), leaving a semblance of freedom.
At this fourth stage, the turn at the bottom of the process, entails the most constraint on the subject. The only (hidden) freedom at stage 4 is the choice of timing, when the next stage will occur (if at all) or if it will reverse the process and undo what has been done (as this is a possibility for Young, what this means we will get to later).
Stage 5 in Young’s diagram is organization. His example is plants, which have one degree of freedom. Plants exhibit their one degree of freedom by growing vertically, towards the sun–the source of their food.
Stage 6 is characterized by animals, who gain a degree of freedom through their ability to move about two-dimensionally. In doing so, animals require an outside source for its food supply. The freedom of motion that the animals have is gained by giving up the plant’s freedom to manufacture its own energy. (Brief side note I think is interesting, the Italian philosopher Marsilio Ficino said that because plants and animals are mixtures of elements they have additional faculties. Plants, for example, have faculties of nutrition and generation. Animals have a faculty of sensation.)
Stage 7 is the end of the process (and perhaps the beginning of a new one), returns the subject to the original three degrees of freedom.
In Arthur Young’s writings, he elucidates this process further and provides numerous examples from scientific and mythological contexts of this process at work. This “V-shaped” process, a decent and ascent appears in many places. In a mythological context, it maps on to Joseph Campbell’s “Hero’s Journey”, and can be applied to most major mythological or religious figures: Jesus, Ishtar, Hercules, Odin, etc. These figures frequently have to “give up” some freedom or ability in order to transcend it and gain more freedom.
Jesus explicitly, for example, had to come down to Earth, giving up the power a “formless potential (spirit)” had to bring everyone else up as well as, in some traditions at least, become a full god himself. An interesting detail perhaps, while Jesus was on the cross he was at his most constrained point (maybe). So, following the pattern above, the only freedom he had was timing. Thus, at the correct time he said “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” and as soon as he said this he died. He chose when he started his ascent (literally and figuratively).
Healing and the Theory of Process
Another example of an application of this process is in healing, take a broken arm for example. Technically, you are still free to do the things you normally would. That is not quite feasible though. So, in order to overcome this, you go to the doctor where they set the break and put a cast on it. This constricts its movement and allows it to heal. Once it has begun to heal then comes the task of strengthening it–gradually at first, and slowly ramping up until you are able to do what you were doing before hand again.
- Purpose – heal the arm
- Motivation – the pain from moving it (which constricts your movement to avoid the pain)
- Content/form – the cast (a physical barrier to movement)
- Turn – the break has healed
- Organization/growth – strengthening the muscles so they work in the right way again
- Animation – metamorphosis of the mindset of being “injured” to “not injured”
- Dominion/realization – back to normal
Trauma and the Theory of Process
Another potential connection I see is with trauma. The restriction of freedom does not necessarily have to be self-imposed. Traumatic experiences are imposed upon people. They are experiences in which one cannot escape. Saj Razvi has proposed four stages of stress/trauma that occur in individuals. [Here] The first two stages are of stress and can be imposed or voluntarily taken on. The last two stages are of trauma which is imposed on the individual. The stages are experienced linearly, but the duration of each stage can vary greatly. The first stage is mild stress. It is characterized by danger being present but not being immanent. It represents a lower level of nervous system arousal and is relatively stable. The symptoms of this first stage can include anxiety, fear, anger, insomnia, excitement, nervousness, somatic tension, etc. We enjoy slight amounts of this stage through horror movies, roller coasters, etc. In the voluntary form of this type of stress there is generally a purpose behind it. A goal this moves you toward, whether excitement from a roller coaster or an impending deadline for a project.
The second stage is one of high stress. This involves maximum activation and performance of the nervous system. It only occurs in short durations and is very unstable. This type of stress is the kind that keeps you alive, it is an activation of the sympathetic nervous system. Robert Sapolsky characterizes this type as the stress which a zebra undergoes when being chased by a lion. This provides the “motivation” the adrenaline to keep the zebra alive during the chase but it disappears after the chase is over. These first two types of stress don’t cause trauma. Trauma emerges with overwhelm when the sympathetic nervous system is overwhelmed and the fight or flight fails to resolve the situation, when freedom is constricted.
Stage 3 is mild trauma. It is when both the sympathetic and parasympathetic activate simultaneously. Stage 3 can be characterized as a potentially escapable shock (one degree of freedom), but the possible solution did not work. Stage 4 is an inescapable shock (0 degrees of freedom). There is a complete absence of any sort of solution. The difference between the two stages would be something like stage 3 is like an abused child who can go over to a friend’s house once a week to escape, there is a band-aid solution. In stage 4 there is no friend’s house to escape to. Stage 4 is severe trauma. In this state numbness, disconnect, and dissociated states can occur. To survive in these sorts of traumatic experiences the psyche has to fragment. In other words, the limited “freedom” that exists to stay alive is to break apart.
Trauma reduces one’s freedom, at no fault of their own. So, in a given situation where one’s triggers are present, they might only have 1 degree of freedom if any at all. Instead of a multitude of options available, there is only one. For example if you are asked to give a pair of numbers that equals 7, the options for the first number appear to be infinite. As soon as the first number has been determined, the second one is fixed. If the first number is 3, the second must be 4. Or, in other words, consider a situation, where in an ideal circumstance, there are no triggers yet. The pair of numbers can be equal to whatever you want them to be. Once a traumatic experience has occurred you are given the first number, 3, and the sum, 7. The only outcome for the second number is 4 while before that event there was freedom to choose. This is all meant to say that traumatic experiences restrict our freedom at no fault of our own.
Healing, is a process. And, Saj Razvi argues that In stages 3 and 4—the traumatic stages—talk therapy isn’t the solution to heal. You cannot take someone straight from stage 4 to stage 1 or 0 (no stress/trauma). To get someone back to 0 from 4, you must go through stages 3, 2, and 1. Razvi argues this in the context of why psychedelic therapy can be useful for healing trauma, but the point is useful in this context too. The fourth stage of trauma is also the fourth level on Arthur Young’s diagrams.
The only way to get back to baseline is through the other levels. The only way to return to the original degrees of freedom (if that is possible) is to complete the healing process, otherwise, in any given situation where triggers are present, that freedom does not exist (Note: I’m not making any claims about the moral status of a person who does not or cannot go through the healing process, I’m just working through the framework as best as I can).
This sort of framework applies more generally to things too. It seems a useful way to understand learning, goal directed behavior, and as a way to increase one’s own personal degrees of freedom. This same principle of increasing constraint and restricting freedom only to slowly increase one’s freedom again, albeit with more skill than before it was initially constrained, can be applied to numerous things. It has been applied to general theories of change more broadly, business management, organization management, and to team performance.
I think it might be a decent model for mapping out the various stages and states of psychedelic experiences, though I need to put more thought into it and map it out more explicitly.