should we give attention to this preference? And stay attached to it?
Or should we see it as yet another desire of the mind and let it go as attachment to it would increase suffering?
There’s another preference and attachment happening here at the meta level: “We should let go of things that increase suffering”
Is this coming from “you” or “your mind”? What happens when we turn this lens on itself?
Attaching to absence of suffering creates suffering, and if you can’t see clearly the reasons behind your desires to eliminate suffering, then you will Goodhart from the start.
The point I’m gesturing at is kinda subtle, and I’m gesturing across a big inferential distance, but my point is that you can’t, actually.
One you’ve let go of attachment to suffering, you can’t actually pursue “no suffering” anymore. Or maybe it’s more accurate to say “won’t pursue”. Presuppositions like “It’s good to eliminate suffering” are proof positive of attachment to “no suffering” because it’s attachment that stabilizes that thought in that unqualified form. Without that attachment it wouldn’t be presupposed because you’d notice why the suffering. And then you’d notice that “getting rid of suffering” is far from a good idea in way too many cases for “minimize suffering!” to be a good north start to guide by. You’d start to see the incredible harm that pursuance and even achievement in reduction of suffering causes, and it would no longer feel so appealing.
Minds that are unattached to the absence of suffering can still do things like “treat the sick” and “remove the heavy object from one’s toe” that reduce unnecessary suffering… but the goal won’t be “to get away from suffering” it’ll be to help people be healthy, to restore mobility and protect the functionality of ones appendages, etc.
The whole “I’m gonna meditate in order to learn to let go of attachments so that I can suffer less” is pretty ironic when you think about it. Because from the very perspective this stance seeks to achieve, the effort to reach a solution is itself a symptom of the problem it seeks to resolve… except the “problem” no longer looks like a problem in the first place… so, it’s fine?
Like, “Should we let go of this attachment as it would reduce suffering?”, sure? If that’s what you want. Do you want to reduce this suffering? Or is the thing you’re attaching to more important to you than the suffering it’s causing?
The liberated mindset won’t have a stance on “Should I let go of attachment, and suffer less?” because it’s attachment that drives shoulding in the first place. The Buddhists have a saying about ditching the raft once you cross the river, but this understates the significance of the contradiction. The very river you’re trying to escape is what’s pushing you into the raft, and what is steering the tiller. So like… which river you gonna get out of first? Which currents are worth fighting, for how long, and why?
There’s another preference and attachment happening here at the meta level: “We should let go of things that increase suffering”
Is this coming from “you” or “your mind”? What happens when we turn this lens on itself?
Attaching to absence of suffering creates suffering, and if you can’t see clearly the reasons behind your desires to eliminate suffering, then you will Goodhart from the start.
Valid point. The answer lies in equanimity. We can be equanimous and unattached while pursuing some goals like pursuing absence of suffering
The point I’m gesturing at is kinda subtle, and I’m gesturing across a big inferential distance, but my point is that you can’t, actually.
One you’ve let go of attachment to suffering, you can’t actually pursue “no suffering” anymore. Or maybe it’s more accurate to say “won’t pursue”. Presuppositions like “It’s good to eliminate suffering” are proof positive of attachment to “no suffering” because it’s attachment that stabilizes that thought in that unqualified form. Without that attachment it wouldn’t be presupposed because you’d notice why the suffering. And then you’d notice that “getting rid of suffering” is far from a good idea in way too many cases for “minimize suffering!” to be a good north start to guide by. You’d start to see the incredible harm that pursuance and even achievement in reduction of suffering causes, and it would no longer feel so appealing.
Minds that are unattached to the absence of suffering can still do things like “treat the sick” and “remove the heavy object from one’s toe” that reduce unnecessary suffering… but the goal won’t be “to get away from suffering” it’ll be to help people be healthy, to restore mobility and protect the functionality of ones appendages, etc.
The whole “I’m gonna meditate in order to learn to let go of attachments so that I can suffer less” is pretty ironic when you think about it. Because from the very perspective this stance seeks to achieve, the effort to reach a solution is itself a symptom of the problem it seeks to resolve… except the “problem” no longer looks like a problem in the first place… so, it’s fine?
Like, “Should we let go of this attachment as it would reduce suffering?”, sure? If that’s what you want. Do you want to reduce this suffering? Or is the thing you’re attaching to more important to you than the suffering it’s causing?
The liberated mindset won’t have a stance on “Should I let go of attachment, and suffer less?” because it’s attachment that drives shoulding in the first place. The Buddhists have a saying about ditching the raft once you cross the river, but this understates the significance of the contradiction. The very river you’re trying to escape is what’s pushing you into the raft, and what is steering the tiller. So like… which river you gonna get out of first? Which currents are worth fighting, for how long, and why?