I have a lot of sympathy for the view that when you peel away all the outer layers of defence mechanisms and reactivity, what remains under the surface is love - so that rather than *trying* to love and forgive per se, the business of life is removing whatever isn't love until all that remains is love. The more you rest in confidence and peace, the more you forgive others' evil actions by default for the simple reason that they can't hurt you any more. On that level there is no "us" and "them", just one being who can't possibly not love itself, because it is love.
Sounds very nice and mystical, but is it achievable in practice? 1 or 2 people seem to have gotten there alright. I'm nowhere near it, but it's my guiding ideal.
I kinda fear that removing everything that isn't love just leaves one incapable of acting in the world. But maybe that is an irrational fear.
And also that there is great risk of delusion in attempting to fill oneself only with love. Love is a big multifaceted thing, it is not just good vibes. Part of the reason Mark David Chapman killed John Lennon is that he saw Lennon as a hypocrite:
> He told us to imagine no possessions and there he was, with millions of dollars and yachts and farms and country estates, laughing at people like me who had believed the lies and bought the records and built a big part of their lives around his music.
And yet, most people think Lennon was full of love. There definitely was that, but it was a love with big blindspots.
In the theory I'm talking about - let's call it the "Ram Dass model", haha - you're not attempting to fill yourself with anything, just freeing yourself from attachments and witnessing your thoughts and feelings rather than identifying with them. Whatever's left underneath the flotsam and jetsam of life, the illusions and passing show, is love. It's our true essence and is there inside us all the time, waiting for us to remove the obstacles so we can see it more clearly. Sort of like removing the thunderclouds so you can see what's always already there around and beyond them - the sky.
As I say, this is more me describing someone else's model than speaking from my own daily experience, though I've experienced my own mini-versions of "clearing the clouds away" at times. I relate hard to your fear about becoming incapable of acting in the world though. Transcending the dramas, emotions and attachments of life seems kinda inhuman somehow. I'm not always so sure I *want* to see through, or rise above, everything.
The other issue I have is that a lot of people who think of themselves as "awake" don't necessarily seem that loving to me, at least in the way I would think of love. Calmer, more detached, more peaceful, sure. But not necessarily full of compassion - and if you don't have that, what have you got except smugness and spiritual bragging rights (1 Cor 13)?
Yes, exactly! Basically, I don't think the state Ram Dass was in is all that desirable. I find more desirable the spiritual constitution of someone working in Effective Altruism. Karma Yoga over Jnana Yoga, though of course, Jnana Yoga can still be useful. It's just that it is not the most important part.
About 1 Cor 13, an interesting thing about that is that I am not sure Jesus himself meets that definition of love. Paul certainly didn't, and it is definitely proud to say stuff like "the Father and I are one" and "Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved."
I find EA's consequentialism, rationalism and materialism hard to reconcile with the spiritual path, but that's a personal thing - I still think it's a force for good in the world and I like how it makes people think harder about the effectiveness of their giving.
Who would you regard as your spiritual role model - or do you have a few people, or no people?
I have learned from many books and people, but I wouldn't say I have a guru. I trust I can figure things out for myself, picking and choosing what is useful from whatever I learn and experience.
But I do think people in EA are ahead of me, because taking care of each other is what matters, and they are doing that very well.
There's nothing necessarily anti-spiritual about their philosophical positions, so long as they are not total about them, and it doesn't seem like they are. As Scott Alexander has pointed out, not even he is a strict utilitarian, and many aren't, because strict utilitarianism just leads to insanity. But it can be a very useful tool when figuring out how to give more effectively, which is the point of EA.
Consequentialism, rationalism and materialism all have problems, but they're not useless either. They can become cages for your head if you let them, but they don't have to be.
It's all about balance isn't it - I know you say elsewhere that the over-spiritual should try more rationality and vice versa, and I agree. For me, rationalism and consequentialist ethics quickly veer into unhelpful overanalytical OCD territory, so it's much more helpful for me to use heart-centred approaches as the basis of my practice (Ram Dass, Tara Brach, Thich Nhat Hanh etc). But as I say, I know others get more juice out of the LessWrong worldview than I do. Nor have I totally abandoned my left brain - it's always hungry for stimuli and I need to keep it fed, same as I need to keep my gut fed and exercise my leg muscles. Blogging's part of that process, a kind of "faith seeking understanding" in Augustine's phrase.
I have a lot of sympathy for the view that when you peel away all the outer layers of defence mechanisms and reactivity, what remains under the surface is love - so that rather than *trying* to love and forgive per se, the business of life is removing whatever isn't love until all that remains is love. The more you rest in confidence and peace, the more you forgive others' evil actions by default for the simple reason that they can't hurt you any more. On that level there is no "us" and "them", just one being who can't possibly not love itself, because it is love.
Sounds very nice and mystical, but is it achievable in practice? 1 or 2 people seem to have gotten there alright. I'm nowhere near it, but it's my guiding ideal.
I kinda fear that removing everything that isn't love just leaves one incapable of acting in the world. But maybe that is an irrational fear.
And also that there is great risk of delusion in attempting to fill oneself only with love. Love is a big multifaceted thing, it is not just good vibes. Part of the reason Mark David Chapman killed John Lennon is that he saw Lennon as a hypocrite:
> He told us to imagine no possessions and there he was, with millions of dollars and yachts and farms and country estates, laughing at people like me who had believed the lies and bought the records and built a big part of their lives around his music.
And yet, most people think Lennon was full of love. There definitely was that, but it was a love with big blindspots.
In the theory I'm talking about - let's call it the "Ram Dass model", haha - you're not attempting to fill yourself with anything, just freeing yourself from attachments and witnessing your thoughts and feelings rather than identifying with them. Whatever's left underneath the flotsam and jetsam of life, the illusions and passing show, is love. It's our true essence and is there inside us all the time, waiting for us to remove the obstacles so we can see it more clearly. Sort of like removing the thunderclouds so you can see what's always already there around and beyond them - the sky.
As I say, this is more me describing someone else's model than speaking from my own daily experience, though I've experienced my own mini-versions of "clearing the clouds away" at times. I relate hard to your fear about becoming incapable of acting in the world though. Transcending the dramas, emotions and attachments of life seems kinda inhuman somehow. I'm not always so sure I *want* to see through, or rise above, everything.
The other issue I have is that a lot of people who think of themselves as "awake" don't necessarily seem that loving to me, at least in the way I would think of love. Calmer, more detached, more peaceful, sure. But not necessarily full of compassion - and if you don't have that, what have you got except smugness and spiritual bragging rights (1 Cor 13)?
Yes, exactly! Basically, I don't think the state Ram Dass was in is all that desirable. I find more desirable the spiritual constitution of someone working in Effective Altruism. Karma Yoga over Jnana Yoga, though of course, Jnana Yoga can still be useful. It's just that it is not the most important part.
About 1 Cor 13, an interesting thing about that is that I am not sure Jesus himself meets that definition of love. Paul certainly didn't, and it is definitely proud to say stuff like "the Father and I are one" and "Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved."
You've got me looking up types of yoga now :)
I find EA's consequentialism, rationalism and materialism hard to reconcile with the spiritual path, but that's a personal thing - I still think it's a force for good in the world and I like how it makes people think harder about the effectiveness of their giving.
Who would you regard as your spiritual role model - or do you have a few people, or no people?
I have learned from many books and people, but I wouldn't say I have a guru. I trust I can figure things out for myself, picking and choosing what is useful from whatever I learn and experience.
But I do think people in EA are ahead of me, because taking care of each other is what matters, and they are doing that very well.
There's nothing necessarily anti-spiritual about their philosophical positions, so long as they are not total about them, and it doesn't seem like they are. As Scott Alexander has pointed out, not even he is a strict utilitarian, and many aren't, because strict utilitarianism just leads to insanity. But it can be a very useful tool when figuring out how to give more effectively, which is the point of EA.
Consequentialism, rationalism and materialism all have problems, but they're not useless either. They can become cages for your head if you let them, but they don't have to be.
It's all about balance isn't it - I know you say elsewhere that the over-spiritual should try more rationality and vice versa, and I agree. For me, rationalism and consequentialist ethics quickly veer into unhelpful overanalytical OCD territory, so it's much more helpful for me to use heart-centred approaches as the basis of my practice (Ram Dass, Tara Brach, Thich Nhat Hanh etc). But as I say, I know others get more juice out of the LessWrong worldview than I do. Nor have I totally abandoned my left brain - it's always hungry for stimuli and I need to keep it fed, same as I need to keep my gut fed and exercise my leg muscles. Blogging's part of that process, a kind of "faith seeking understanding" in Augustine's phrase.
How the 'Grift Right' Gimps for the Left . . . Steven Crowder almost became Mel Gibson and Kanye West by accident . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the