4 ms·

Out of the Cell

36 points by fern12 9y ago

jessriedel 9y ago
> As a little boy in Oxford, I was encouraged to worship the mind. I and my friends, often sons of professors, were being drilled in French and Latin and Greek before we turned seven, > ... > Marcus Aurelius had given me all kinds of wisdom for dealing with loss – impeccable in theory – and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar had taught me about the fury of the irrational. But when I thought of texts like that, I was back in the mind of my schoolboy days, and that was the structure that now lay in rubble. > ... > As a writer, I’ve come to feel that the best thing I can share with readers is not dazzling argumentation, or references to the classics, but those moments we all know when we sit, helpless, before ravenous flames, or sense that we can only bow before those turns along the road, harrowing and uplifting, we will never begin to understand. Is the author really claiming that all that fancy book learning is overrated because it didn't emotionally prepare the author for having his house burn down? Does he really think reading the sorts of emotional retrospectives like the present one would have prepared him? I hear this argument all the time from artists: "Oh you analytical types, you spend all this time with sophisticated theories and discussion, but you don't really understand X because you haven't experienced it." Which is fine insofar as they only argue that analysis cannot fully replace first-hand experience in some human affairs. Duh. But very often they continue by arguing (either explicitly or implicitly) that consuming art somehow prepares you better. This is something that I've just never understood. Of the dramatic emotional experiences I've had, I've never thought art prepared me. Rather, I've very often thought "Wait, this is what they were talking about? This is what all those love songs (or whatever) were written about? It is completely different than I expected." If artists were serious about accurately communicating experiences (either to prepare the viewer for ones they would later have, or to allow the viewer to know about something they could never experience), the practice of art would look a hell of a lot different. For instance, there would be much more effort made to check to see if various artistic works actually communicated things accurately by (say) studying whether viewers who had an experience were surprised by aspects of the experience despite having previously consumed the relevant art. (This is useful even if most viewers never have the true experience.) Instead, the practice of art looks much more optimized for giving viewer intense compelling experiences without trying to maintain accuracy at all. And that's fine if that's the end goal. But they shouldn't pretend it's somehow about preparing you for life.
- carbocation 9y ago
  > For instance, there would be much more effort made to check to see if various artistic works actually communicated things accurately by (say) studying whether viewers who had an experience were surprised by aspects of the experience despite having previously consumed the relevant art. This is a fascinating idea. Imagine Facebook injecting various works of art into the timeline of 1 billion people (since the effect size will almost certainly be minuscule, you're going to need a large N). Then, as these people report various life experiences (ended relationship, etc), their happiness/despair/resilience scores (which are probably already being computed) could be assessed and the relationship to the art, if any, could be ascertained. (Caveat being that conducting a trial in the fashion I described would be pragmatic, but at least arguably unethical.)
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    That’s an amazing idea and example of what something like Facebook could be, versus the more banal reality.
- crispinb 9y ago
  Iyer's piece is about a way of inhabiting the self, wider and more inclusive than the pinched serial thinking activity of the mind that tends to dominate. It adds a distinctive calmness, richness and capacity to the experience of living. This 'way' is commonly termed 'mindfulness' right now, but it's a perennial practise going under various guises at different times. It has little intrinsically to do with 'art' (though art can prompt of experiences providing a tantalising glimpse of that wider perspective).
  - jessriedel 9y ago
    But he explicitly says this!: "As a writer, I’ve come to feel that the best thing I can share with readers is ... those moments we all know when we sit, helpless, before ravenous flames, or sense that we can only bow before those turns along the road, harrowing and uplifting, we will never begin to understand." He's not just advising folks to cultivate some mental state, he's arguing for a way of attaining that mental state through the consumption of art. My point is that (1) anecdotally, this has not been successful for me, and, more importantly, (2) the proponents of mindfulness or related mental states are not convincingly pursuing a strategy for helping others to achieve it. And I think the explanation is clear: proponents of mindfulness are generally not willing to apply analytical thinking even in the service of greater mindfulness. Attempts in this direction have been made, but I have not been impressed. https://www.amazon.ca/Buddhism-without-Beliefs-Contemporary-Awakening/dp/1573226564 https://www.amazon.ca/Buddhism-without-Beliefs-Contemporary-... http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/20/meditative-states-as-mental-feedback-loops/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/20/meditative-states-as-me... (The particular examples I have are from the Buddhism-specific conception of mindfulness, but I don't think the more general conceptions you allude to have been more successful. I'd be happy to see links to the contrary.)

36 points by fern12 9y ago

> As a little boy in Oxford, I was encouraged to worship the mind. I and my friends, often sons of professors, were being drilled in French and Latin and Greek before we turned seven, > ... > Marcus Aurelius had given me all kinds of wisdom for dealing with loss – impeccable in theory – and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar had taught me about the fury of the irrational. But when I thought of texts like that, I was back in the mind of my schoolboy days, and that was the structure that now lay in rubble. > ... > As a writer, I’ve come to feel that the best thing I can share with readers is not dazzling argumentation, or references to the classics, but those moments we all know when we sit, helpless, before ravenous flames, or sense that we can only bow before those turns along the road, harrowing and uplifting, we will never begin to understand. Is the author really claiming that all that fancy book learning is overrated because it didn't emotionally prepare the author for having his house burn down? Does he really think reading the sorts of emotional retrospectives like the present one would have prepared him? I hear this argument all the time from artists: "Oh you analytical types, you spend all this time with sophisticated theories and discussion, but you don't really understand X because you haven't experienced it." Which is fine insofar as they only argue that analysis cannot fully replace first-hand experience in some human affairs. Duh. But very often they continue by arguing (either explicitly or implicitly) that consuming art somehow prepares you better. This is something that I've just never understood. Of the dramatic emotional experiences I've had, I've never thought art prepared me. Rather, I've very often thought "Wait, this is what they were talking about? This is what all those love songs (or whatever) were written about? It is completely different than I expected." If artists were serious about accurately communicating experiences (either to prepare the viewer for ones they would later have, or to allow the viewer to know about something they could never experience), the practice of art would look a hell of a lot different. For instance, there would be much more effort made to check to see if various artistic works actually communicated things accurately by (say) studying whether viewers who had an experience were surprised by aspects of the experience despite having previously consumed the relevant art. (This is useful even if most viewers never have the true experience.) Instead, the practice of art looks much more optimized for giving viewer intense compelling experiences without trying to maintain accuracy at all. And that's fine if that's the end goal. But they shouldn't pretend it's somehow about preparing you for life.

carbocation 9y ago
> For instance, there would be much more effort made to check to see if various artistic works actually communicated things accurately by (say) studying whether viewers who had an experience were surprised by aspects of the experience despite having previously consumed the relevant art. This is a fascinating idea. Imagine Facebook injecting various works of art into the timeline of 1 billion people (since the effect size will almost certainly be minuscule, you're going to need a large N). Then, as these people report various life experiences (ended relationship, etc), their happiness/despair/resilience scores (which are probably already being computed) could be assessed and the relationship to the art, if any, could be ascertained. (Caveat being that conducting a trial in the fashion I described would be pragmatic, but at least arguably unethical.)
- Spooky23 9y ago
  That’s an amazing idea and example of what something like Facebook could be, versus the more banal reality.
crispinb 9y ago
Iyer's piece is about a way of inhabiting the self, wider and more inclusive than the pinched serial thinking activity of the mind that tends to dominate. It adds a distinctive calmness, richness and capacity to the experience of living. This 'way' is commonly termed 'mindfulness' right now, but it's a perennial practise going under various guises at different times. It has little intrinsically to do with 'art' (though art can prompt of experiences providing a tantalising glimpse of that wider perspective).
- jessriedel 9y ago
  But he explicitly says this!: "As a writer, I’ve come to feel that the best thing I can share with readers is ... those moments we all know when we sit, helpless, before ravenous flames, or sense that we can only bow before those turns along the road, harrowing and uplifting, we will never begin to understand." He's not just advising folks to cultivate some mental state, he's arguing for a way of attaining that mental state through the consumption of art. My point is that (1) anecdotally, this has not been successful for me, and, more importantly, (2) the proponents of mindfulness or related mental states are not convincingly pursuing a strategy for helping others to achieve it. And I think the explanation is clear: proponents of mindfulness are generally not willing to apply analytical thinking even in the service of greater mindfulness. Attempts in this direction have been made, but I have not been impressed. https://www.amazon.ca/Buddhism-without-Beliefs-Contemporary-Awakening/dp/1573226564 https://www.amazon.ca/Buddhism-without-Beliefs-Contemporary-... http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/20/meditative-states-as-mental-feedback-loops/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/20/meditative-states-as-me... (The particular examples I have are from the Buddhism-specific conception of mindfulness, but I don't think the more general conceptions you allude to have been more successful. I'd be happy to see links to the contrary.)