Let me try again. This might not help but I am going to try anyway just in case it does.
I suspect that you personally don’t get spirituality because every time you intend to move towards it you are accidentally doing the opposite thing.
Like flow state. You can’t get into flow by constantly without taking a break, asking if you are in flow yet.
You need to do less complicated thinking and relax your “try hard at it” muscle.
The whole thing is “simple and obvious” by that I don’t mean “and you should be able to get it easy and feel bad for not getting it”, rather I mean, “and it does not require any more complex thinking or strategy than you already have”. It’s simple in the sense that it’s not a trick or a trap or a cryptic thing. It is in fact even less and boring and ordinary. In that sense you may already have bits of spirituality that you just took as “background noise” in your life.
I have no judgement around if you get it or not. It just is. Don’t worry about it and it will be easier to get there.
Try to do the opposite and see what happens. Or describe what will happen if you do the opposite of the things you have tried.
The opposite of all the things I have done in this area would be to ignore the matter. Which I did, before I was interested in this. So that does not leave much.
The whole “it’s so simple!” shtick is what the cactus person and the green bat said to Scott Alexander, and what Val and others have said to LessWrong, and is the totality of liberationunleashed, but all I see is inferential distance and no attempt to cross it. (I am not demanding that you make such an attempt.) Of all the things that I know, I would not try to teach any of them by saying how simple it is and how all you need to do is not do, and drop all assumptions, and just see the truth of the matter, and conquer your fear, and [cont’d p.94]
There’s a reason that these things sound like repeating advice. And it’s because from the other side of the inferential distance they sound like the right advice.
It’s frustrating from this vantage point too.
I guess you don’t need to worry until someone with a better description comes along.
Let me try again. This might not help but I am going to try anyway just in case it does.
I suspect that you personally don’t get spirituality because every time you intend to move towards it you are accidentally doing the opposite thing.
Like flow state. You can’t get into flow by constantly without taking a break, asking if you are in flow yet.
You need to do less complicated thinking and relax your “try hard at it” muscle.
The whole thing is “simple and obvious” by that I don’t mean “and you should be able to get it easy and feel bad for not getting it”, rather I mean, “and it does not require any more complex thinking or strategy than you already have”. It’s simple in the sense that it’s not a trick or a trap or a cryptic thing. It is in fact even less and boring and ordinary. In that sense you may already have bits of spirituality that you just took as “background noise” in your life.
I have no judgement around if you get it or not. It just is. Don’t worry about it and it will be easier to get there.
Try to do the opposite and see what happens. Or describe what will happen if you do the opposite of the things you have tried.
The opposite of all the things I have done in this area would be to ignore the matter. Which I did, before I was interested in this. So that does not leave much.
The whole “it’s so simple!” shtick is what the cactus person and the green bat said to Scott Alexander, and what Val and others have said to LessWrong, and is the totality of liberationunleashed, but all I see is inferential distance and no attempt to cross it. (I am not demanding that you make such an attempt.) Of all the things that I know, I would not try to teach any of them by saying how simple it is and how all you need to do is not do, and drop all assumptions, and just see the truth of the matter, and conquer your fear, and [cont’d p.94]
There’s a reason that these things sound like repeating advice. And it’s because from the other side of the inferential distance they sound like the right advice.
It’s frustrating from this vantage point too.
I guess you don’t need to worry until someone with a better description comes along.