Considering that we aren’t designed to be consistently happy, I have a Buddhist perspective that the best way to be happy is to want less, rather than achieve more. It might be called “letting go”. This applies to things who’s only or primary function is to make you happy, as opposed to making others happy or allowing you to survive to experience more happiness. E.g. rather than fall into the cycle of getting and being dissatisfied with larger and larger houses, to learn to be completely content with the house you already have. Said another way, it’s a self-modification of one’s emotions and utility function. One is then free to give up certain things to achieve greater utility elsewhere, altruistically or selfishly, not to mention enjoying both new and old houses quite a bit more.
The ability to do this to a significant degree is one of my most valued skills. In particular, coming to be extremely content with being single provided immense utility, both inside and outside of relationships (comparing my relationships to others). It also really helped me to find relationships. Note: as I’ve experienced this, it does NOT require that you cease the pursuit of something, just that you become very content with failing to achieve it. Being in a nice relationship might be preferable, but doesn’t have to stop the lack of one from being a great time.
Achieving this skill to the extent I did took a long time, including a lot of struggling and complication. For those interested, particularly useful were music (able to add beauty to all manner of things with the right perspective) and general practice with enjoying subpar outcomes.
Focusing on existential risk I get to enjoy this less than I used to. By so affecting mine and others’ ability to achieve future utility, the avoidance of such a disaster is far more valuable than being content with failure. Shucks.
Focusing on existential risk I get to enjoy this less than I used to. By so affecting mine and others’ ability to achieve future utility, the avoidance of such a disaster is far more valuable than being content with failure. Shucks.
Also coming from the Bayesian Buddhist perspective, I often think the same. The problem is that even without existential risks, there’s still death and disease and destruction. Before I knew of existential risks I was quite keen on destroying death. A life of quiet and content contemplation sounds nice, but perhaps the key is in leading that life while striving rather than imagining an idealized world where one needn’t strive? The Buddha was on a quest to save the world, too.
I think it helps some to remind myself that though we Singularitarians harp on about existential risks, the positive utility of winning is mind-boggling. We de-emphasize this to separate our perspective from the “Woo Singularity yeah!” crowd, but perhaps we go too far sometimes. Building the republic of heaven is a much more happy thought than fighting to keep humanity from killing itself.
Considering that we aren’t designed to be consistently happy, I have a Buddhist perspective that the best way to be happy is to want less, rather than achieve more. It might be called “letting go”. This applies to things who’s only or primary function is to make you happy, as opposed to making others happy or allowing you to survive to experience more happiness. E.g. rather than fall into the cycle of getting and being dissatisfied with larger and larger houses, to learn to be completely content with the house you already have. Said another way, it’s a self-modification of one’s emotions and utility function. One is then free to give up certain things to achieve greater utility elsewhere, altruistically or selfishly, not to mention enjoying both new and old houses quite a bit more.
The ability to do this to a significant degree is one of my most valued skills. In particular, coming to be extremely content with being single provided immense utility, both inside and outside of relationships (comparing my relationships to others). It also really helped me to find relationships. Note: as I’ve experienced this, it does NOT require that you cease the pursuit of something, just that you become very content with failing to achieve it. Being in a nice relationship might be preferable, but doesn’t have to stop the lack of one from being a great time.
Achieving this skill to the extent I did took a long time, including a lot of struggling and complication. For those interested, particularly useful were music (able to add beauty to all manner of things with the right perspective) and general practice with enjoying subpar outcomes.
Focusing on existential risk I get to enjoy this less than I used to. By so affecting mine and others’ ability to achieve future utility, the avoidance of such a disaster is far more valuable than being content with failure. Shucks.
Also coming from the Bayesian Buddhist perspective, I often think the same. The problem is that even without existential risks, there’s still death and disease and destruction. Before I knew of existential risks I was quite keen on destroying death. A life of quiet and content contemplation sounds nice, but perhaps the key is in leading that life while striving rather than imagining an idealized world where one needn’t strive? The Buddha was on a quest to save the world, too.
I think it helps some to remind myself that though we Singularitarians harp on about existential risks, the positive utility of winning is mind-boggling. We de-emphasize this to separate our perspective from the “Woo Singularity yeah!” crowd, but perhaps we go too far sometimes. Building the republic of heaven is a much more happy thought than fighting to keep humanity from killing itself.
And Michael Vassar above demonstrates the usefulness of nonattachment to rationality—letting go of one’s hypothesis, patterns, ways of doing things.