Perhaps. If so, I certainly look forward to reading that future post.
However, I will say that before one begins to lay out an elaborate explanation of why something is hard to explain, one might perhaps begin by offering at least a taste of just why, exactly, anyone might be interested in having that thing explained at all.
An analogy: suppose I have invented a widget. Well, so I claim, anyway, having shown up in your office (you’re an investor, to whom I propose to license my invention). Upon entering, I immediately launch into a long, elaborate explanation of the fact that my widget is very difficult to manufacture—almost impossible, really. It’s quite a herculean effort, just making the thing! Yes, producing even one of these widgets is an ordeal worthy of song and story, because the process of its creation is long and arduous and complex…
Are you not liable to interrupt my tale, by saying “Yes, yes, but what is it? Do you have one? What the heck are we even talking about, here? Show it to me!”?
Coming back from the analogy, what I’d very much like to have seen first (and would still like to see) is a post along the lines of: “Observe, as I demonstrate unusual and impressive feats of thinking / writing / action! Are you not impressed? Yes, of course you are… and how did I accomplish these things? Enlightenment! And what is this ‘enlightenment’? Ah, now that’s a tricky one… settle in, because this’ll take a while…”
Your wish totally makes sense. And I might have tried harder at that. This is a teaching principle I understand well, I promise.
But… the motivation problem is subject to the same puzzle I’m outlining in the OP.
This is why so many meditation teachers and enlightenment gurus end up making claims about “lower your stress” and “improve health” and “increase concentration” and “better love-making” and “healthier relationships” and so on. Some of it is trying to point at things that actually can come from this, and some of it is people who have no clue what they’re talking about copying the claims they’ve heard others make.
But if I’m being honest, the motivation is already in you, and I don’t really care that much what your conscious mind has to think about it. I’d prefer to ease your passage as you keep doing you, but if I literally cannot get your conscious mind to understand, then oh well!
The thing I do hope is for your conscious mind to track that there is a kind of insight that it has trouble understanding the need for. “Well, why would I care about that?” Exactly.
With all that said, I really did try to give your conscious mind something to hold onto — but it looks like it didn’t stick at all, which is unsurprising given, um, everything I’ve been saying:
Once you have any meaningful grasp of how to Look, you can use it to see things that prompt novel Gears in your understanding of the world. A lot of things that previously sounded kind of mystical or incoherent will suddenly change meaning and be made of obviousness to you. And some of them really, really, really, really matter.
Seeing these things will probably transform you, although it usually seems to feel more like realizing who you have always been and what has always mattered most to you. Your reflective priorities rearrange, you start caring in a different and deeper way, and most of the things you had previously been so stressed or concerned about stop mattering. You actually start to get what’s at stake and what’s worth doing.
I started writing a comment responding to things you said, there.
Then I noticed that nothing in your comment was actually responsive to my comment. Hm.
I asked you to demonstrate what you know, or understand, or can do, now that you’ve achieved whatever-it-is. But you responded by talking about what amazing (but, of course, hard to verbalize) things would happen for me if I were to achieve this thing (or, worse, not even what would happen as a result of achieving the thing, but reasons I allegedly already want this thing—without knowing it).
That seems like a non sequitur, and is definitely not at all a response to what I asked.
It would be as if—to return to the widgets analogy—I asked you to demonstrate your amazing widget, and you started telling me how great it would be if I made a widget of my own. I hope you can see how that might not quite be the most satisfying response.
Edit: This part…
A lot of things that previously sounded kind of mystical or incoherent will suddenly change meaning and be made of obviousness to you. And some of them really, really, really, really matter.
seems ripe for examples. You need not even tell us what amazing new insights you have gained; at least enumerate a few of these previously-confusing things which are now laid bare to you (and, preferably, tell us why they matter).
I asked you to demonstrate what you know, or understand, or can do, now that you’ve achieved whatever-it-is. But you responded by talking about what amazing (but, of course, hard to verbalize) things would happen for me if I were to achieve this thing (or, worse, not even what would happen as a result of achieving the thing, but reasons I allegedly already want this thing—without knowing it).
This doesn’t strike me as much of a non-sequitur. At least the first part. Assuming that the benefits of the thing Val is describing are similarly for different people, then you getting benefit X after learning it, has a strong implication that Val got benefit X after learning it, and both are direct evidence for “you will benefit if you put effort into learning/engaging-with this”.
You might still have found his arguments weak, but at least the specific thing you describe doesn’t seem to fall into the specific category of “non-sequitur”.
Ah, no. I was just responding to these two paragraphs in isolation.
I asked you to demonstrate what you know, or understand, or can do, now that you’ve achieved whatever-it-is. But you responded by talking about what amazing (but, of course, hard to verbalize) things would happen for me if Iwere to achieve this thing (or, worse, not even what would happen as a result of achieving the thing, but reasons I allegedly already want this thing—without knowing it).
That seems like a non sequitur, and is definitely not at all a response to what I asked.
While obviously context is always important, this comment of mine should be parsable without any knowledge of Val’s original comment.
(And as such might also not be super valuable. The thing that generated this comment was more the part of my brain that goes through a proof/argument step-by-step and analyses its internal logic, and not the part of my brain that was trying to parse the larger context of the conversation.)
Then, I confess I am having trouble grasping your point.
You don’t think that “let me tell what you will get from this” is a non-sequitur in response to “show me what you got from this”? I think it is… but, perhaps reasonable people can differ on this. It is, in any case, a very unsatisfying sort of response, even if it isn’t literally a non sequitur.
(There is also the fact that even as I try to think of just what specific benefits Valentine has made reference to, I find it hard to pin them down. Perhaps someone might make a concise list?)
Edit: It seems like you edited your comment shortly after posting, to add the second paragraph? Or did I just miss it the first time I read? Anyway, I retract the “trouble grasping your point”, in light of that, but the rest of my comment stands.
I’m betting that this is what he plans on explaining in the next post, where this post is a precursor to explain why it’s difficult to convey.
Perhaps. If so, I certainly look forward to reading that future post.
However, I will say that before one begins to lay out an elaborate explanation of why something is hard to explain, one might perhaps begin by offering at least a taste of just why, exactly, anyone might be interested in having that thing explained at all.
An analogy: suppose I have invented a widget. Well, so I claim, anyway, having shown up in your office (you’re an investor, to whom I propose to license my invention). Upon entering, I immediately launch into a long, elaborate explanation of the fact that my widget is very difficult to manufacture—almost impossible, really. It’s quite a herculean effort, just making the thing! Yes, producing even one of these widgets is an ordeal worthy of song and story, because the process of its creation is long and arduous and complex…
Are you not liable to interrupt my tale, by saying “Yes, yes, but what is it? Do you have one? What the heck are we even talking about, here? Show it to me!”?
Coming back from the analogy, what I’d very much like to have seen first (and would still like to see) is a post along the lines of: “Observe, as I demonstrate unusual and impressive feats of thinking / writing / action! Are you not impressed? Yes, of course you are… and how did I accomplish these things? Enlightenment! And what is this ‘enlightenment’? Ah, now that’s a tricky one… settle in, because this’ll take a while…”
… or something. You know?
Your wish totally makes sense. And I might have tried harder at that. This is a teaching principle I understand well, I promise.
But… the motivation problem is subject to the same puzzle I’m outlining in the OP.
This is why so many meditation teachers and enlightenment gurus end up making claims about “lower your stress” and “improve health” and “increase concentration” and “better love-making” and “healthier relationships” and so on. Some of it is trying to point at things that actually can come from this, and some of it is people who have no clue what they’re talking about copying the claims they’ve heard others make.
But if I’m being honest, the motivation is already in you, and I don’t really care that much what your conscious mind has to think about it. I’d prefer to ease your passage as you keep doing you, but if I literally cannot get your conscious mind to understand, then oh well!
The thing I do hope is for your conscious mind to track that there is a kind of insight that it has trouble understanding the need for. “Well, why would I care about that?” Exactly.
With all that said, I really did try to give your conscious mind something to hold onto — but it looks like it didn’t stick at all, which is unsurprising given, um, everything I’ve been saying:
I started writing a comment responding to things you said, there.
Then I noticed that nothing in your comment was actually responsive to my comment. Hm.
I asked you to demonstrate what you know, or understand, or can do, now that you’ve achieved whatever-it-is. But you responded by talking about what amazing (but, of course, hard to verbalize) things would happen for me if I were to achieve this thing (or, worse, not even what would happen as a result of achieving the thing, but reasons I allegedly already want this thing—without knowing it).
That seems like a non sequitur, and is definitely not at all a response to what I asked.
It would be as if—to return to the widgets analogy—I asked you to demonstrate your amazing widget, and you started telling me how great it would be if I made a widget of my own. I hope you can see how that might not quite be the most satisfying response.
Edit: This part…
seems ripe for examples. You need not even tell us what amazing new insights you have gained; at least enumerate a few of these previously-confusing things which are now laid bare to you (and, preferably, tell us why they matter).
This doesn’t strike me as much of a non-sequitur. At least the first part. Assuming that the benefits of the thing Val is describing are similarly for different people, then you getting benefit X after learning it, has a strong implication that Val got benefit X after learning it, and both are direct evidence for “you will benefit if you put effort into learning/engaging-with this”.
You might still have found his arguments weak, but at least the specific thing you describe doesn’t seem to fall into the specific category of “non-sequitur”.
Hm, are you saying that this part
… was intended to be read as a list of benefits that I would get, and Valentine has gotten, from his achievement?
I did not read it that way, but if your reading was the intended one, then indeed, that is the sort of thing I meant.
Valentine, could you clarify?
Ah, no. I was just responding to these two paragraphs in isolation.
While obviously context is always important, this comment of mine should be parsable without any knowledge of Val’s original comment.
(And as such might also not be super valuable. The thing that generated this comment was more the part of my brain that goes through a proof/argument step-by-step and analyses its internal logic, and not the part of my brain that was trying to parse the larger context of the conversation.)
Then, I confess I am having trouble grasping your point.
You don’t think that “let me tell what you will get from this” is a non-sequitur in response to “show me what you got from this”? I think it is… but, perhaps reasonable people can differ on this. It is, in any case, a very unsatisfying sort of response, even if it isn’t literally a non sequitur.
(There is also the fact that even as I try to think of just what specific benefits Valentine has made reference to, I find it hard to pin them down. Perhaps someone might make a concise list?)
Edit: It seems like you edited your comment shortly after posting, to add the second paragraph? Or did I just miss it the first time I read? Anyway, I retract the “trouble grasping your point”, in light of that, but the rest of my comment stands.
Ah, yes. I edited. I usually omit the explicit “edit” if I do it less than five minutes after posting, but I guess this time that was the wrong call.