Any good reading on circling, spiral dynamics, or chakras off the top of your head?
No, none come to mind.
This is like asking about reading how to ride a horse. Find someone who can teach you to ride a horse with real horses, and you’ll learn 100x more, with less error.
How do you think about impact when going for arahantship, or do you reject the frame? I’d love to do this too but think I could do an (actually) impactful startup
Truly beneficial impact is only possible with Awakening. Everything is still based in delusion until realization, and stream entry is not sufficient.
That does not mean you shouldn’t do anything until then. We can use everything for the path of letting go.
But simply telling yourself you are using everything for the path is not sufficient, and you are probably deceiving yourself in some way. Therefore find a true spiritual teacher, and a good spiritual community, who can keep you on track.
Until then, you are going to be making decisions based on liking and disliking, grasping and avoiding, and none of that really works. It only creates more, bigger problems.
You can check out the Buddhism for AI course online. Might be of interest.
Any chance you could rattle off the next half dozen things that come to mind?
Connection Theory Charting (Leverage Research framework), Core Transformation, Tai Chi / Qi Gong, Bio-Emotive Processing (Doug Tataryn), Shaolin practice (Shi Heng Yi on YouTube), TWIM, Gendlin’s Focusing, Immunity to Change (Kegan process), Improv Theater (see book Impro), Perri Chase (spiritual teacher online).
I haven’t done this one but I hear Alexander Technique is quite powerful. Also heard good things about Landmark.
I’m even considering training at a monastery.
Well if you are seeking, you can try visiting MAPLE for a week or so. Or try the 1-3 month program. It’s not very traditional, but it is a good training system that supports deep practice. If you seek tradition, which has many benefits, I recommend going to Asia.
The benefit of fixing on the release/dissolve as a way of being is that it will release/dissolve itself, and that’s what makes it safer than fixing on anything that doesn’t have an ‘expiration date’ as it were.
I think the confusion on this is that
We have this sense that some process is safe or good to fix upon. Because ‘process’ is more change-y than something static.
But even process is not safe to fix upon. You are not a process. We’re not in a process. To say ‘process’ is trying to ‘thing-ify’ or ‘reify’ something that does not have a property called ‘existence’ nor ‘non-existence’. We must escape from the flattening dichotomy of existence and non-existence, which is a nonsense.
A “universe” cannot be fully specified, and I believe our physics has made that clear. But also our idea of ‘universe’ is ridiculously small-minded still. Science has narrowed our vision of what is, and fixated upon it, and now we’re actually more ignorant / deluded than before. Although I also appreciate the beauty of science and math.
I’m pointing to something more extreme than this, but I’d say this is a good direction.
I will attempt, badly, to capture it in words inspired by your description above.
I say ‘badly’ because I’m not fully able to see the Truth and describe it, but there is a Truth, and it can be described. This process you allude to RE: dissolving and releasing is part of how Truth is revealed, and that’s what I’m training in.
So my re-write of this:
An ontology restricts the shape of [the perceived world] by being of a set shape. All of them are insufficient, the Tao [is beyond conceptualization], but each can contain patterns that are useful [if and only if] you [use them to] dissolve and continually release [all patterns] rather than cling to them.
You imply, maybe, that the point is to come back and reform. To get all the patterns ‘integrated’ and come back into structure.
But the thing around ‘flow’ and ‘faster’ and such—all of this is better achieved with no structure or meta-structure. Because structure opposes flow, period. The point isn’t to create some ultimate ontology or structure, no matter how fluid, fast, or integrated you think it is; this is returning to delusion, or making delusion the purpose.
This takes sufficient letting go to see, but it’s also logically sound even if you can’t buy it experientially.
Is there a place for structure? Yes, we use structure as middle way stepping stones to release structure. We have to use delusion (concepts, etc.) to escape delusion because delusion is what we have to work with. The fact that it’s possible to use delusion to escape delusion is the amazing thing.
Hello! Thanks for the greeting. Do we know each other by chance?
Removing fixedness in ontologies is good. I claim it’s in the good direction. And then you go further in that direction and remove the ontology itself, which is a fixation on its own. The ontology is not strictly needed, in much the same way that you can be looking at a video of a waterfall—but it’s meaningfully better and more true to look directly at a waterfall. In the same way, you don’t need the concept of ‘waterfall’ to truly see it. The concept actually gets in the way.
Actively rooting out and removing the concept makes it sound like you are somehow reaching in and pulling it out with force, and that’s not really how it goes. It’s more of a letting go of conceptual grasping, like unclenching a hand.
Huh. I don’t know if I get the bit on Statistical Learning.
Good poems—I haven’t seen those particular translations before.
Catholicism never would have collected the intelligence necessary to invent a nuke. Their worldview was not compatible with science. It was an inferior organizing principle. (“inferior” meaning less capable of coordinating a collective intelligence needed to build nukes.)
You believe intelligence is such a high good, a high virtue, that it would be hard for you to see how intelligence is deeply and intricately causal with the destruction of life on this planet, and therefore the less intelligent, less destructive religions actually have more ethical ground to stand on, even though they were still fairly corrupt.
But it’s a straightforward comparison.
Medieval “dark” ages = almost no technological progress, very little risk of blowing up the planet in any way; relatively, not inspiring, but still—kudos for keeping us from hurtling toward extinction, and at this point, we’re fine with rewarding this even though it’s such a “low bar”
Today = massive, exponential technological progress, nuclear war could already take us all out, but we have a number of other x-risks to worry about. And we’re so identified with science and tech that we aren’t willing to stop, even as we admit OUT LOUD that it could cause extinction-level catastrophe. This is worse than the Crusades by a long shot. We’re not talking about sending children to war. We’re talking about the end of children. Just no more children. This is worse than suicide cults that claim we go to heaven as long as we commit suicide. We don’t even think what we’re doing will necessarily result in heaven, and we do it anyway. We have no evidence we can upload consciousnesses at all. Or end aging and death. Or build a friendly AI. At least the Catholics were convinced a very good thing would happen by sending kids to war. We’re not even convinced, and we are willing to risk the lives of all children. Do you see how this is worse than the Catholics?
are you putting forward that something about worldviews sometimes relies on faster than light signaling?
OK this is getting close. I am saying worldviews CANNOT EVER be fast enough, and that’s why the goal is to drop all worldviews to get “fast enough”. Which the very idea of “fast enough” is in itself ‘wrong’ because it’s conceptual / limited / false. This is my worst-best attempt to point to a thing, but I am trying to be as literal as possible, not poetic.
No response can be immediate in a physical universe
Yeah, we’re including ‘physical universe’ as a ‘worldview’. If you hold onto a physical universe, you’re already stuck in a worldview, and that’s not going to be fast enough.
The point is to get out of this mental, patterned, limited ideation. It’s “blockheaded”, as you put. All ideas. All ways of looking. All frameworks and methodologies and sense-making. All of it goes. Including consciousness, perception.
When all of it goes, then you don’t need ‘response times’ or ‘sense data’ or ‘brain activity’ or ‘neurons firing’ or ‘speed of light’ or whatever. All of that can still ‘operate’ as normal, without a problem.
We’re getting to the end of where thinking or talking about it is going to help.
I don’t know if I fully get you, but you also nailed it on the head.
In such situation, I think the one weird trick would be to invent a belief system that actively denies being one. To teach people a dogma that would (among other things) insist that there is no dogma, you just see the reality as it is (unlike all the other people, who merely see their dogmas). To invent rituals that consist (among other things) of telling yourself repeatedly that you have no rituals (unlike all the other people). To have leaders that deny being leaders (and yet they are surrounded by followers who obey them, but hey that’s just how reality is).
So, basically… science.
Science is the best cult because it convincingly denies being one at all, disguising itself as truth itself.
I think it’s worth admiring science and appreciating it for all the good things it has provided.
And I think it has its limitations, and people should start waking up soon to the fact that if the world is destroyed, humans all destroyed, etc. then science played an instrumental and causal role in that, and part of that is the insanity and evil within that particular cult / worldview.
Or why can’t you have a worldview that computes the best answer to any given “what should I do” question, to arbitrary but not infinite precision?
I am not talking about any ‘good enough’ answer. Whatever you deem ‘good enough’ to some arbitrary precision.
I am talking about the correct answer every time. This is not a matter of sufficient compute. Because if the answer comes even a fraction of a second AFTER, it is already too late. The answer has to be immediate. To get an answer that is immediate, that means it took zero amount of time, no compute is involved.
Is it something that your reader should be able to infer from this post, or from their own experience of life (assuming they’re paying attention?)
Not unless they are Awakened. But my intended audience is that which does not currently walk a spiritual path.
Is this something that you think you know mainly because of your personal experience with pervious worldviews failing you? Some other way?
A mix of my own practice, experience, training, insight, and teachings I’ve received from someone who knows.
Merely having worldviews failing you is not sufficient to understand what I am saying. You also have to have found a relative solution to the problem. But if you are sick of worldviews failing you or of failing to live according to truth, then I am claiming there’s a solution to that.
I am saying things in a direct and more or less literal manner. Or at least I’m trying to.
I did use a metaphor. I am not using “poetry”? When I say “Discard Ignorance” I mean that as literally as possible. I think it’s somewhat incorrect to call what I’m saying phenomenology. That makes it sound purely subjective.
Am I talking down to you? I did not read it that way. Sorry it comes across that way. I am attempting to be very direct and blunt because I think that’s more respectful, and it’s how I talk.
First paragraph: 3⁄10. The claim is that something was already more natural to begin with, but you need deliberate practice to unlock the thing that was already more natural. It’s not that it ‘comes more naturally’ after you practice something. What ‘felt’ natural before was actually very unnatural and hindered, but we don’t realize this until after practicing.
2nd, 3rd, 4th paragraph: 2⁄10. This mostly doesn’t seem relevant to what I’m trying to offer.
...
It’s interesting trying to watch various people try to repeat what I’m saying or respond to what I’m saying and just totally missing the target each time.
It suggests an active blind spot or a refusal to try to look straight at the main claim I’m making. I have been saying it over and over again, so I don’t think it’s on my end. Although the thing I am trying to point at is notoriously hard to point at, so there’s that.
...
Anyway the cruxy part is here, and so to pass my ITT you’d have to include this:
“It’s not a meta-process. It’s not metacognition. It’s not intelligence. It’s also not intuition or instinct. This wisdom doesn’t get better with more intelligence or more intuition. ”
“I’m more guided by a wisdom that is not based in System 1 or System 2 or any “process” whatsoever. ”
“The “one weird trick” to getting the right answers is to discard all stuck, fixed points. Discard all priors and posteriors. Discard all aliefs and beliefs. Discard worldview after worldview. Discard perspective. Discard unity. Discard separation. Discard conceptuality. Discard map, discard territory. Discard past, present, and future. Discard a sense of you. Discard a sense of world. Discard dichotomy and trichotomy. Discard vague senses of wishy-washy flip floppiness. Discard something vs nothing. Discard one vs all. Discard symbols, discard signs, discard waves, discard particles.
All of these things are Ignorance. Discard Ignorance.”
Just respond genuinely. You already did.
I don’t know how else to phrase it, but I would like to not contradict interdependent origination. While still pointing toward what happens when all views are dropped and insight becomes possible.
I appreciate this attempt… but no it is not it.
What I’m talking about is not the skill to combine S1 and S2 fluidly as needed.
I will respond to this more fully at a later point. But a quick correction I wish to make:
What I’m referring to is not about System 1 or System 2 so much. It’s not that I rely more on System 1 to do things. System 1 and System 2 are both unreliable systems, each with major pitfalls.
I’m more guided by a wisdom that is not based in System 1 or System 2 or any “process” whatsoever.
I keep trying to point at this, and people don’t really get it until they directly see it. That’s fine. But I wish people would at least mentally try to understand what I’m saying, and so far I’m often being misinterpreted. Too much mental grasping at straws.
The wisdom I refer to is able to skillfully use either System 1 or System 2 as appropriate. It’s not a meta-process. It’s not metacognition. It’s not intelligence. It’s also not intuition or instinct. This wisdom doesn’t get better with more intelligence or more intuition.
It’s fine to not understand what I’m referring to. But can anyone repeat back what I’m saying without adding or subtracting anything?
Yes we agree. 👍🌻
I think I mention this in the essay too.
If we are just changing at the drop of a hat, not for truth, but for convenience or any old reason, like most people are, …
or even under very strenuous dire circumstances, like we’re about to die or in excruciating pain or something...
then that is a compromised mind. You’re working with a compromised, undisciplined mind that will change its answers as soon as externals change.
Views change. Even our “robust” principles can go out the window under extreme circumstances. (So what’s going on with those people who stay principled under extreme circumstances? This is worth looking into.)
Of course views are usually what we have, so we should use them to the best extent we are able. Make good views. Make better views. Use truth-tracking views. Use ethical views. Great.
AND there is this spiritual path out of views altogether, and this is even more reliable than solely relying on views or principles or commandments.
I will try out a metaphor. Perhaps you’ve read The Inner Game of Tennis.
In tennis, at first, you need to practice the right move deliberately over and over again, and it feels awkward. It goes against your default movements. This is “using more ethical views” over default habits. Using principles.
But somehow, as you fall into the moves, you realize: This is actually more natural than what I was doing before. The body naturally wants to move this way. I was crooked. I was bent. I was tense and tight. I was weak or clumsy. Now that the body is healthier, more aligned, stronger… these movements are obviously more natural, correct, and right. And that was true all along. I was lacking the right training and conditioning. I was lacking good posture.
It wasn’t just that I acquired different habits and got used to them. The new patterns are less effortful to maintain, better for for me, and they’re somehow clearly more correct. I had to unlearn, and now I somehow “know” less. I’m holding “less” patterning in favor of what doesn’t need anything “held onto.”
This is also true for the mind.
We first have to learn the good habits, and they go against our default patterning and conditioning. We use rules, norms, principles. We train ourselves to do the right thing more often and avoid the wrong thing. This is important.
Through training the mind, we realize the mind naturally wishes to do good, be caring, be courageous, be steadfast, be reliable. The body is not naturally inclined to sit around eating potato chips. We can find this out just by actually feeling what it does to the body. And so neither is the mind naturally inclined to think hateful thoughts, lie to itself and others, or be fed mentally addictive substances (e.g. certain kinds of information).
To be clear:
“More natural” does not mean more in line with our biology or evo-psych. It does not mean lazier or more complacent. It does not mean less energetic, and in some way it doesn’t even mean less “effort”. But it does mean less holding on, less tension, less agitation, less drowsiness, less stuckness, less hinderance.
“More natural” is even more natural than biology. And that’s the thing that’s probably going to trip up materialists. Because there’s a big assumption that biology is more or less what’s at the bottom of this human-stack.
Well it isn’t.
There isn’t a “the bottom.”
It’s like a banana tree.
When you peel everything away, what is actually left?
Well it turns out if you were able to PEEL SOMETHING AWAY, it wasn’t the Truth of You. So discard it. And you keep going.
And that’s the path.
You are speaking from a materialist, consequentialist worldview. I do not buy into this worldview.
It has caused massive suffering and existential crises on the planet and is deeply deluded about what ‘beneficial’ is.