You might be amused to know that, in a different forum where I shared my essay, someone suggested that I try DMT. I demurred, with force, and said that if extraplanar entities showed up and started lecturing me on “universal love”, I’d pull out a baseball bat. That Green Bat won’t know what hit him.
(Incidentally, I don’t exactly mean “take that, you big green bat” with 100% positive implications, FWIW I am not particularly resistant to the idea of universal love or similar thoughts provided they are set up in a way that is compatible with our understanding of the mechanics of reality. I also haven’t taken any psychedelics in my life, so at least I did not receive these ideas by force majeure.)
I am not opposed to universal love in principle, but the universe is, from my perspective, not worthy of love. Most of it is empty vacuum and barren matter. That might very well change in the future.
I am reasonably fond of the average human, but hey, that’s not a particularly uncommon stance to hold. I think the usual implication of “universal love” is that it should be a stronger belief than thinking “most people are alright, most of the time”.
I’m not really even pointing directly at the object level thing of “feeling love for everyone/the universe”, I’m thinking about something a bit more meta. It’s something like “I hold the problem of induction in high regard, and I place a lot of probability mass on the idea that I have not explored the space of hypotheses sufficiently well. I think that somewhere out there there is a frame that fits the universe/everyone past and present with high accuracy which also showcases the good qualities that were always present in the universe/everyone past and present”. I saw this Kirkegaard quote once about someone who is exactly like a police detective, but instead of trying to find guilt or crimes he tries his hardest to find love in everyone and everything, and I guess it’s related to that.
Hmm. I will mull over that. But even if such a frame were to exist (it probably does, because there are an infinite number of hypotheses that fit any set of observations), I doubt I would want to subscribe to it without good reason. For example, let’s say there was a tiger trying to eat me, or a man trying to murder me for my wallet. I would understand their hunger, their desperation, but I do not see myself loving them or wanting to love them. I understand this is a personal topic, and probably one that boils down to fundamental values too, in a manner not easily changed by rational argumentation for either of us.
Oh yeah, the competitive frame is dominant when you might die/are trapped in a zero sum struggle (for various reasons). But there is also a reason to take a love/cooperative frame, such as when you are embarking on a collaborative venture. And the chance to switch the frames of others offers a chance for effectively giving moloch a bloody nose (which, given your opinions on dmt entities, you might be in favour of).
Fair. I will note that you do not need to “love” another entity to engage in positive sum/pro-social trade (from a game theoretical perspective), but I suppose that affection and empathy makes it easier. At least oils the gears a bit.
Take that, you big green bat!
You might be amused to know that, in a different forum where I shared my essay, someone suggested that I try DMT. I demurred, with force, and said that if extraplanar entities showed up and started lecturing me on “universal love”, I’d pull out a baseball bat. That Green Bat won’t know what hit him.
(Incidentally, I don’t exactly mean “take that, you big green bat” with 100% positive implications, FWIW I am not particularly resistant to the idea of universal love or similar thoughts provided they are set up in a way that is compatible with our understanding of the mechanics of reality. I also haven’t taken any psychedelics in my life, so at least I did not receive these ideas by force majeure.)
I am not opposed to universal love in principle, but the universe is, from my perspective, not worthy of love. Most of it is empty vacuum and barren matter. That might very well change in the future.
I am reasonably fond of the average human, but hey, that’s not a particularly uncommon stance to hold. I think the usual implication of “universal love” is that it should be a stronger belief than thinking “most people are alright, most of the time”.
I’m not really even pointing directly at the object level thing of “feeling love for everyone/the universe”, I’m thinking about something a bit more meta. It’s something like “I hold the problem of induction in high regard, and I place a lot of probability mass on the idea that I have not explored the space of hypotheses sufficiently well. I think that somewhere out there there is a frame that fits the universe/everyone past and present with high accuracy which also showcases the good qualities that were always present in the universe/everyone past and present”. I saw this Kirkegaard quote once about someone who is exactly like a police detective, but instead of trying to find guilt or crimes he tries his hardest to find love in everyone and everything, and I guess it’s related to that.
Hmm. I will mull over that. But even if such a frame were to exist (it probably does, because there are an infinite number of hypotheses that fit any set of observations), I doubt I would want to subscribe to it without good reason. For example, let’s say there was a tiger trying to eat me, or a man trying to murder me for my wallet. I would understand their hunger, their desperation, but I do not see myself loving them or wanting to love them. I understand this is a personal topic, and probably one that boils down to fundamental values too, in a manner not easily changed by rational argumentation for either of us.
Oh yeah, the competitive frame is dominant when you might die/are trapped in a zero sum struggle (for various reasons). But there is also a reason to take a love/cooperative frame, such as when you are embarking on a collaborative venture. And the chance to switch the frames of others offers a chance for effectively giving moloch a bloody nose (which, given your opinions on dmt entities, you might be in favour of).
Fair. I will note that you do not need to “love” another entity to engage in positive sum/pro-social trade (from a game theoretical perspective), but I suppose that affection and empathy makes it easier. At least oils the gears a bit.