7 ms·

The only thing our world needs now is a reorientation away from growth at all costs into a mode of life that values the simple, the close by, the cheap. I don'

The only thing our world needs now is a reorientation away from growth at all costs into a mode of life that values the simple, the close by, the cheap. I don't see this guy giving a damn about that problem. Instead he tosses off bon mots about Popper and Gödel, and intones comfortably that in his view his peers have the right idea because they converge on atheism/agnosticism. Wow. The world is saved. There is a class of people who value a "small life," the kind we all need to adopt: zen monks. Unfortunately, such people are afflicted by the disease of irrationalism in their ideas about God, or some similar concept that offends the sensibility of the excessively rational so much that they can only paint Belief in the most lurid colors. Highly unfashionable to study such people. Instead, a professional philosopher keeps giving interviews, attending conferences and publishing papers. I'll be glad when we can no longer afford them. I also apologize for my lack of charity but there it is.

camelNotation 8y ago
I like you. There's been a total over-correction away from religion and we've lost sight of why it evolved in the first place. Social scientists have long known that there is nothing rational about the decisions we make, and certainly not in groups. Religion may have led us to quite a bit of violence in the past and might not have given us self-driving cars, but simply understanding the universe is not going to be enough to save the world when we are all still driven moment to moment by our emotional predispositions. We need a way to engineer and shape our emotions and and our collective psyche - something religion evolved to do. Science is a valuable tool for good, but it is limited by our own lack of virtue in how we use it. I think a lot of people dislike that idea because religion, unlike science, doesn't offer us any certainty. We're addicted to an illusion of certainty in a world where our actual lived reality is always uncertain. We need to get over that. Certainty is a lie.
- louwrentius 8y ago
  Religion is not about certainty or uncertainty but about a higher purpose, about meaning. This life, this pain, this suffering needs to amount to something or why bother continuing? Religion doesn't seem the answer, it always creates more problems than it solves. It thrives on suffering. Because suffering creates a need for religion, it sustains itself this way. Can we find meaning and purpose in our existence in a way that isn't so detrimental to quality of life, now and in our future?
  - camelNotation 8y ago
    Religion does provide meaning and purpose, but that is hardly all it is "about." Religion also provides inclusion for those that would otherwise feel outcast. It provides social structure and identity. It provides a framework for you to build culture upon. It acts as a moral guide for behavior. It unifies communities around central goals. It uses myth to convey inter-generational wisdom. It teaches rituals that improve mental and physical health. It provides dozens of important things. The idea that religion is just about an individual doing X or Y to feel like they have "meaning" or "purpose" is nonsense. Religion evolved as the foundation of human social order. It's about communion and community, not self-indulgence. We know from our earliest architectural sites, like Gobekli Tepe, that religion preceded even the agrarian forms of human society. It's part of who and what we are. It's extremely arrogant to call it detrimental, especially when our "post-religious" society - where everyone claims a god of their own but no one practices anything - has a workforce composed almost entirely of alienated, corporate slaves that lack more than half the things I mentioned in my second paragraph and a non-working population that suffers in silence because they offer no "economic benefit" to the rest. We are hardly enlightened in any meaningful sense of the word.
    - ripsawridge 8y ago
      I can't agree more! A big problem here is that merely to point to reasons for religions to come about (for example, that they solve real problems at the time of their appearance) is to "condone" every terrible thing that ever happened that could be ascribed to religion. Hint to the wise: the doers of terrible things always align the reason for their actions with the current moral authority. Which in this day is likely to be efficient market operations. Their predations may yet be more harmful...we don't have that much history yet in post-religion. In these discussions, to try and talk about religion as something other than "grotesque superstition" has a hackle-raising effect on people invested in our current cultural totems. The only thing to do for them (the heroic thing), is to fight tooth and claw against those irrational forces trying to coagulate into a new Dark Age of superstition. Because of this, any real attempts to understand religion are few and far between. It's certainly true that "religion" as experienced by most is a social institution constructed by people of mixed understanding and motivations, and therefore, depressingly, is just as broken as every other organization people create. These organizations are only the structure erected around a spark that remains almost as mysterious as consciousness itself: the mystical experience of the Divine. I do think philosophy, if it's meaningful at all, should investigate that initial spark. Because it does lead to those good things camelNotation is talking about: inclusion for outsiders; Myth as a durable storage medium for the mores of a culture; Ritual that supports embodied existence, with all it's imperfections and requirements to deal with real suffering. Personally, I think there is plenty of complexity and intricate thought in that space to keep a generation of technically minded people interested. But alas, they mostly make jokes about a "Sky God" and deny the complexity which they have even inside themselves. Here is a starting thought: paradoxical language is used in religion precisely because it "stuns" the intellect, forcing it to switch context in ways it doesn't yet understand, but in time, will. It's a kind of interrupt. A deep inner experience of religion is something that happens on earth because people must endure the unendurable. To pontificate that "oh, they evolved denial, problem solved" is to throw white paint over a breathtaking chiaroscuro. It may be merely an "evolved response," but it deserves more respect.
- mruniverse 8y ago
  But religion asks you to believe in something there’s no evidence for. To commit your life to it. Then when challenged, it asks that you disprove it.
- FabHK 8y ago
  > religion, unlike science, doesn't offer us any certainty. Not sure how to put this politely, but it's the other way around. Religion offers certainty (though a false one). It tells you exactly why we're here, why we suffer, and exactly what we have to do to alleviate the suffering. It is science that destroys that false certainty and replaces it with tentative truths and the obligation to find meaning.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- reeves23423 8y ago
  > I think a lot of people dislike that idea because religion, unlike science, doesn't offer us any certainty. Nope. The real problem is it is being misused by evil people always in every culture and moreover no one can question to correct it because based on belief with no evidence.
petra 8y ago
Zen monks usually don't share ideas. They try to share experiences, about certain possibilities of the human mind, and how they feel. But those are weird, complex, possibly frightening, and they are also sometimes mis-communicated[1]. Also - they challenge deeply held personal beliefs. So it's natural that people will resist. [1]The nature of enlightenment was always hard to explain. Until you listen to Gary Weber(http://happiness-beyond-thought.com/ http://happiness-beyond-thought.com/): He explains it simply - you know that internal voice, that's always focused about "I"? and always remembering the past and making-plans/dreaming about the future ? Think about a time you'd had less of that ? so it's possible to make this voice disappear. And than - you think when you want to think, when you need ideas they sometimes pop into you head, like regular creativity , but most of the time - peace.
- ripsawridge 8y ago
  Yes, good point. The enlightenment experience can't be explained in tidy bullet points. It doesn't even seem interesting to most people. You can't help but use paradox in your words, and then folks even get offended. I admit that we may just be at a dead end with our current consciousnesses in the mass. Some individuals find a way "through," but on the whole most of us will be happy denying most of reality and we'll burn out because of that (resource depletion). I guess it just chaps my hide to see somebody who is a "professional knower" about this stuff being smug and on top of the world when he obfuscates far more than he explains. I'll hit the hay :).
  - petra 8y ago
    I agree that enlightening isn't interesting for most. It But Even if the Enlightenment experience was interesting to most people, i get the feeling it would be too hard, out of reach for most. But the research about it seems to be advancing nicely(Gary weber is a good starting source for that too), and the problem of the extreme cost of the relevant tool for training/research - the fmri - may be soon solved by a startup, openwatr. So maybe this could still be a part of the solution to the resource depletion problem.
szemet 8y ago
You know the problem, you know the solution and we doesn't even have to think about it: irrationality is ok if you have small environmental footprint. So this is the relevation needed by the "world" to be saved... And now, if we can't afford people with different preferences, or intellectual interest (or - I guess - those who disagree the above - for some reason), what to do with them?
- ripsawridge 8y ago
  I think we should have room for people with many different preferences and intellectual interests. I would never ask someone to do a thing or live a way that they don't agree with. I'd only ask them to fully understand what their way is...how it affects the fabric of the world. If they pursue their interest with full depth, they'll eventually understand. And then they'll do the right thing.
ThomPete 8y ago
You cannot not have growth at all cost if you want to survive. Technology is a natural part of evolution and if you do not adapt to that you will not survive. What you can have is growth with a less negative impact which will be incentivized by growth. But you can't suddenly stop growth and expect the results to be positive and the only reason you can even think about it being possible today is that you are piggybacking on what growth made possible.
- ripsawridge 8y ago
  I would just ask you to imagine the world you are going to get if you think "growth at all cost" is what is necessary to survive. Won't it eventually be a world in which it's no longer possible to grow? I'm definitely piggybacking on what growth made possible. I wouldn't have been born otherwise. But I can still see a shitty situation and call it what it is. Finally, technology is tool-making. We make tools to improve our lives. However, some tools grow too large and come to dominate us. At some point continually "adapting" to outsized tools becomes a fools game.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    I would agree with you if by "growth at all cost", optimization wasn't part of the equation but it is and thus we are constantly becoming more effective. And yes it might be that we grow ourselves into extinction as a species if we can't optimize enough but there is a reason why people flee places that don't have growth and look for places that do.
RichardCA 8y ago
My understanding has always been that, while some Buddhists do in fact proclaim belief in various deities (Tibetan Buddhism in particular), there is always an acknowledgement that they only exist in the realm of the mind. That is, subjective experience is elevated and the idea that "objective reality" can be experienced is discarded. The common word for this is Nondualism. And this Tim Maudlin person does confess to being a non-dualist. I agree that the tone of the Scientific American article was annoying and somewhat condescending. But overall I don't have any issue with the ideas presented. I don't see the conflict.
- ripsawridge 8y ago
  I saw the ideas presented as one of a long stream of similar ideas which have been presented, all of which shape a narrative that obscures more than it reveals. I happened to make a comment on this instance. It's great that you don't see a conflict or have any issues with the ideas presented...I'm a different person. One thing that's happened regarding Buddhism is that western people have picked up the things they like and ignored the rest. In reality, Buddhists think that the experience of Oneness that they reach is real. They may give it different names. But I haven't heard it said by them that the experience is limited to the mind (by which you must mean an individual brain in a head). I think western "apologists" for Buddhism have done that, in order to curry favor...to win over a handful of materialists. They are wasting their time. A materialist is already someone who staked out the least courageous position of engagement in life. What good is their approval?
boomboomsubban 8y ago
Why are you so upset that an irreligious person has a small platform to discuss their views? They aren't forcing you to change your views, and the religious are still by far the majority that are pushing for growth at all costs. Yet you actively hope for a return to the time when irreligious views are silenced, seemingly just because they disagree with you.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
abrahamepton 8y ago
Always glad when HN discovers the existence of a learned scholar, atop their field, who's spent decades studying a truly hard thing and an HNer decides that, in fact, the True Thing They Needed to Understand was there all along, and it is in fact the kind of thing that most reassures the sayer.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
kenny87 8y ago
well said. “Knowledge is as wings to man's life, and a ladder for his ascent. Its acquisition is incumbent upon everyone. The knowledge of such sciences, however, should be acquired as can profit the peoples of the earth, and not those which begin with words and end with words.” - The Baha'i Writings
8bitsrule 8y ago
Yes, yes, and yes. Although I'd point out that: Zen has no God or gods or beliefs.
- ripsawridge 8y ago
  Thanks! I'd quibble a bit with that though. I love the way Zen banishes ideas and concepts, throwing them into the fire the moment they reify. However there is a something. A something greater. That is very much the point. To perceive it, to align with it. Zen knows that ideas in the mind prevent you from doing this, that's why they are so militant about banishing concepts. For example, when we westerners say "God," we attach all kinds of stuff to it. Near-eastern King, sitting frowning on a throne. Buddhism would agree with none of that. And so, to them, that kind of God doesn't exist. A field which surrounds us though...this is the Buddhist idea of God and it's precisely what our culture is at war with. As materialists, we continually deny that such a thing could be. My argument is that we should seriously think about this idea. I'm no religious scholar, though I practice zen. I certainly have some things wrong and am happy to be corrected.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> The only thing our world needs now is a reorientation away from growth at all costs into a mode of life that values the simple, the close by, the cheap. Well, populism and xenophobia are simple, as simple as it gets, they appeal to base urges that demand no thinking (indeed require to not think at all). The whole world is nowadays "close by", thanks to cheap flights everywhere. And the labour that produces all the consumerist crap we, well, consume, is dirt cheap. You should rejoice.
- ripsawridge 8y ago
  Thanks, no.
edanm 8y ago
> The only thing our world needs now is a reorientation away from growth at all costs into a mode of life that values the simple, the close by, the cheap. What? Why? I mean, yeah, "at all costs" is a little extreme, but the alternative isn't to only value the simple, close by, and cheap. I kind of like the fact that humanity strives for better and better things - it's what took us from the age of 50% of children dying by the age of 5, to barely any dying. It's what took us from the age of the majority living in poverty and hunger, to the majority living far better lives. It's what will hopefully take us from all the problems we have now, to all the solutions to those problems that we can't even conceive of yet. I may be misunderstanding you completely - but if I'm not, what's wrong with that?
- ripsawridge 8y ago
  I also like for humanity to strive for better and better things. But do you get that mostly, "better" has just meant that someone else pays the cost? My point is that a real look into "better" will often (probably! Not necessarily!) lead a person to minimize his or her ill effects. Naturally, being decent, they'll try to maximize their good effects. I pointed to a tradition like zen to evoke minimalism, to evoke noticing the smallest details. There are certainly many ways to improve. I guess I spoke in a strong way so that my words wouldn't be immediately lost. If it sounds like I'm devaluing too many just plain good aspects of humanity then I can say I didn't mean to say that. Now...I do quibble with the set of facts you offer that indicate the now is the best. Yes, life is so good for so many. Though we are clearly not in balance. We are heating up the atmosphere and we don't have a solution. That is an actual problem, right? Yes, it's easy to ignore. Easy to hope that "something" comes along. But I don't call it responsible.
  - edanm 8y ago
    > But do you get that mostly, "better" has just meant that someone else pays the cost? Well I don't really agree with that, what makes you think so? The economy is not zero sum. Progress is not zero sum. When polio was eradicated, it didn't mean somebody else pays the cost of anything. When doctors learned to wash hands before surgeries so that mothers wouldn't get infected in childbirth, who did that hurt? When Bourlag invented strains of wheat that fed twice as many people for the same land input, ushering in the green revolution, it was all upside. Similarly, when Wikipedia came along to make a great database of most of the knowledge of the world, that was a great thing. When Apple created the iPhone and ushered in an age when almost everyone has access to all that info in their pockets, it was a great benefit. Who are these people who are paying the cost? Worldwide poverty and health has also improved tremendously over the last 20 years. > We are heating up the atmosphere and we don't have a solution Well yep that's a major problem. Can't say we disagree there, but I don't think the solution is to strive for minimalism (this seems to be neither practical nor desirable).
namlem 8y ago
Yes, this sort of thing is exactly why I believe that Derek Parfit was by far the most important philosopher of the past century.

camelNotation 8y ago

I like you. There's been a total over-correction away from religion and we've lost sight of why it evolved in the first place. Social scientists have long known that there is nothing rational about the decisions we make, and certainly not in groups. Religion may have led us to quite a bit of violence in the past and might not have given us self-driving cars, but simply understanding the universe is not going to be enough to save the world when we are all still driven moment to moment by our emotional predispositions. We need a way to engineer and shape our emotions and and our collective psyche - something religion evolved to do. Science is a valuable tool for good, but it is limited by our own lack of virtue in how we use it. I think a lot of people dislike that idea because religion, unlike science, doesn't offer us any certainty. We're addicted to an illusion of certainty in a world where our actual lived reality is always uncertain. We need to get over that. Certainty is a lie.

louwrentius 8y ago
Religion is not about certainty or uncertainty but about a higher purpose, about meaning. This life, this pain, this suffering needs to amount to something or why bother continuing? Religion doesn't seem the answer, it always creates more problems than it solves. It thrives on suffering. Because suffering creates a need for religion, it sustains itself this way. Can we find meaning and purpose in our existence in a way that isn't so detrimental to quality of life, now and in our future?
- camelNotation 8y ago
  Religion does provide meaning and purpose, but that is hardly all it is "about." Religion also provides inclusion for those that would otherwise feel outcast. It provides social structure and identity. It provides a framework for you to build culture upon. It acts as a moral guide for behavior. It unifies communities around central goals. It uses myth to convey inter-generational wisdom. It teaches rituals that improve mental and physical health. It provides dozens of important things. The idea that religion is just about an individual doing X or Y to feel like they have "meaning" or "purpose" is nonsense. Religion evolved as the foundation of human social order. It's about communion and community, not self-indulgence. We know from our earliest architectural sites, like Gobekli Tepe, that religion preceded even the agrarian forms of human society. It's part of who and what we are. It's extremely arrogant to call it detrimental, especially when our "post-religious" society - where everyone claims a god of their own but no one practices anything - has a workforce composed almost entirely of alienated, corporate slaves that lack more than half the things I mentioned in my second paragraph and a non-working population that suffers in silence because they offer no "economic benefit" to the rest. We are hardly enlightened in any meaningful sense of the word.
  - ripsawridge 8y ago
    I can't agree more! A big problem here is that merely to point to reasons for religions to come about (for example, that they solve real problems at the time of their appearance) is to "condone" every terrible thing that ever happened that could be ascribed to religion. Hint to the wise: the doers of terrible things always align the reason for their actions with the current moral authority. Which in this day is likely to be efficient market operations. Their predations may yet be more harmful...we don't have that much history yet in post-religion. In these discussions, to try and talk about religion as something other than "grotesque superstition" has a hackle-raising effect on people invested in our current cultural totems. The only thing to do for them (the heroic thing), is to fight tooth and claw against those irrational forces trying to coagulate into a new Dark Age of superstition. Because of this, any real attempts to understand religion are few and far between. It's certainly true that "religion" as experienced by most is a social institution constructed by people of mixed understanding and motivations, and therefore, depressingly, is just as broken as every other organization people create. These organizations are only the structure erected around a spark that remains almost as mysterious as consciousness itself: the mystical experience of the Divine. I do think philosophy, if it's meaningful at all, should investigate that initial spark. Because it does lead to those good things camelNotation is talking about: inclusion for outsiders; Myth as a durable storage medium for the mores of a culture; Ritual that supports embodied existence, with all it's imperfections and requirements to deal with real suffering. Personally, I think there is plenty of complexity and intricate thought in that space to keep a generation of technically minded people interested. But alas, they mostly make jokes about a "Sky God" and deny the complexity which they have even inside themselves. Here is a starting thought: paradoxical language is used in religion precisely because it "stuns" the intellect, forcing it to switch context in ways it doesn't yet understand, but in time, will. It's a kind of interrupt. A deep inner experience of religion is something that happens on earth because people must endure the unendurable. To pontificate that "oh, they evolved denial, problem solved" is to throw white paint over a breathtaking chiaroscuro. It may be merely an "evolved response," but it deserves more respect.
mruniverse 8y ago
But religion asks you to believe in something there’s no evidence for. To commit your life to it. Then when challenged, it asks that you disprove it.
FabHK 8y ago
> religion, unlike science, doesn't offer us any certainty. Not sure how to put this politely, but it's the other way around. Religion offers certainty (though a false one). It tells you exactly why we're here, why we suffer, and exactly what we have to do to alleviate the suffering. It is science that destroys that false certainty and replaces it with tentative truths and the obligation to find meaning.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
reeves23423 8y ago
> I think a lot of people dislike that idea because religion, unlike science, doesn't offer us any certainty. Nope. The real problem is it is being misused by evil people always in every culture and moreover no one can question to correct it because based on belief with no evidence.

petra 8y ago

Zen monks usually don't share ideas. They try to share experiences, about certain possibilities of the human mind, and how they feel. But those are weird, complex, possibly frightening, and they are also sometimes mis-communicated[1]. Also - they challenge deeply held personal beliefs. So it's natural that people will resist. [1]The nature of enlightenment was always hard to explain. Until you listen to Gary Weber(http://happiness-beyond-thought.com/ http://happiness-beyond-thought.com/): He explains it simply - you know that internal voice, that's always focused about "I"? and always remembering the past and making-plans/dreaming about the future ? Think about a time you'd had less of that ? so it's possible to make this voice disappear. And than - you think when you want to think, when you need ideas they sometimes pop into you head, like regular creativity , but most of the time - peace.

ripsawridge 8y ago
Yes, good point. The enlightenment experience can't be explained in tidy bullet points. It doesn't even seem interesting to most people. You can't help but use paradox in your words, and then folks even get offended. I admit that we may just be at a dead end with our current consciousnesses in the mass. Some individuals find a way "through," but on the whole most of us will be happy denying most of reality and we'll burn out because of that (resource depletion). I guess it just chaps my hide to see somebody who is a "professional knower" about this stuff being smug and on top of the world when he obfuscates far more than he explains. I'll hit the hay :).
- petra 8y ago
  I agree that enlightening isn't interesting for most. It But Even if the Enlightenment experience was interesting to most people, i get the feeling it would be too hard, out of reach for most. But the research about it seems to be advancing nicely(Gary weber is a good starting source for that too), and the problem of the extreme cost of the relevant tool for training/research - the fmri - may be soon solved by a startup, openwatr. So maybe this could still be a part of the solution to the resource depletion problem.

szemet 8y ago

You know the problem, you know the solution and we doesn't even have to think about it: irrationality is ok if you have small environmental footprint. So this is the relevation needed by the "world" to be saved... And now, if we can't afford people with different preferences, or intellectual interest (or - I guess - those who disagree the above - for some reason), what to do with them?

ripsawridge 8y ago
I think we should have room for people with many different preferences and intellectual interests. I would never ask someone to do a thing or live a way that they don't agree with. I'd only ask them to fully understand what their way is...how it affects the fabric of the world. If they pursue their interest with full depth, they'll eventually understand. And then they'll do the right thing.

ThomPete 8y ago

You cannot not have growth at all cost if you want to survive. Technology is a natural part of evolution and if you do not adapt to that you will not survive. What you can have is growth with a less negative impact which will be incentivized by growth. But you can't suddenly stop growth and expect the results to be positive and the only reason you can even think about it being possible today is that you are piggybacking on what growth made possible.

ripsawridge 8y ago
I would just ask you to imagine the world you are going to get if you think "growth at all cost" is what is necessary to survive. Won't it eventually be a world in which it's no longer possible to grow? I'm definitely piggybacking on what growth made possible. I wouldn't have been born otherwise. But I can still see a shitty situation and call it what it is. Finally, technology is tool-making. We make tools to improve our lives. However, some tools grow too large and come to dominate us. At some point continually "adapting" to outsized tools becomes a fools game.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  I would agree with you if by "growth at all cost", optimization wasn't part of the equation but it is and thus we are constantly becoming more effective. And yes it might be that we grow ourselves into extinction as a species if we can't optimize enough but there is a reason why people flee places that don't have growth and look for places that do.

RichardCA 8y ago

My understanding has always been that, while some Buddhists do in fact proclaim belief in various deities (Tibetan Buddhism in particular), there is always an acknowledgement that they only exist in the realm of the mind. That is, subjective experience is elevated and the idea that "objective reality" can be experienced is discarded. The common word for this is Nondualism. And this Tim Maudlin person does confess to being a non-dualist. I agree that the tone of the Scientific American article was annoying and somewhat condescending. But overall I don't have any issue with the ideas presented. I don't see the conflict.

ripsawridge 8y ago
I saw the ideas presented as one of a long stream of similar ideas which have been presented, all of which shape a narrative that obscures more than it reveals. I happened to make a comment on this instance. It's great that you don't see a conflict or have any issues with the ideas presented...I'm a different person. One thing that's happened regarding Buddhism is that western people have picked up the things they like and ignored the rest. In reality, Buddhists think that the experience of Oneness that they reach is real. They may give it different names. But I haven't heard it said by them that the experience is limited to the mind (by which you must mean an individual brain in a head). I think western "apologists" for Buddhism have done that, in order to curry favor...to win over a handful of materialists. They are wasting their time. A materialist is already someone who staked out the least courageous position of engagement in life. What good is their approval?

boomboomsubban 8y ago

Why are you so upset that an irreligious person has a small platform to discuss their views? They aren't forcing you to change your views, and the religious are still by far the majority that are pushing for growth at all costs. Yet you actively hope for a return to the time when irreligious views are silenced, seemingly just because they disagree with you.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

abrahamepton 8y ago

Always glad when HN discovers the existence of a learned scholar, atop their field, who's spent decades studying a truly hard thing and an HNer decides that, in fact, the True Thing They Needed to Understand was there all along, and it is in fact the kind of thing that most reassures the sayer.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

kenny87 8y ago

well said. “Knowledge is as wings to man's life, and a ladder for his ascent. Its acquisition is incumbent upon everyone. The knowledge of such sciences, however, should be acquired as can profit the peoples of the earth, and not those which begin with words and end with words.” - The Baha'i Writings

8bitsrule 8y ago

Yes, yes, and yes. Although I'd point out that: Zen has no God or gods or beliefs.

ripsawridge 8y ago
Thanks! I'd quibble a bit with that though. I love the way Zen banishes ideas and concepts, throwing them into the fire the moment they reify. However there is a something. A something greater. That is very much the point. To perceive it, to align with it. Zen knows that ideas in the mind prevent you from doing this, that's why they are so militant about banishing concepts. For example, when we westerners say "God," we attach all kinds of stuff to it. Near-eastern King, sitting frowning on a throne. Buddhism would agree with none of that. And so, to them, that kind of God doesn't exist. A field which surrounds us though...this is the Buddhist idea of God and it's precisely what our culture is at war with. As materialists, we continually deny that such a thing could be. My argument is that we should seriously think about this idea. I'm no religious scholar, though I practice zen. I certainly have some things wrong and am happy to be corrected.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

>> The only thing our world needs now is a reorientation away from growth at all costs into a mode of life that values the simple, the close by, the cheap. Well, populism and xenophobia are simple, as simple as it gets, they appeal to base urges that demand no thinking (indeed require to not think at all). The whole world is nowadays "close by", thanks to cheap flights everywhere. And the labour that produces all the consumerist crap we, well, consume, is dirt cheap. You should rejoice.

ripsawridge 8y ago
Thanks, no.

edanm 8y ago

> The only thing our world needs now is a reorientation away from growth at all costs into a mode of life that values the simple, the close by, the cheap. What? Why? I mean, yeah, "at all costs" is a little extreme, but the alternative isn't to only value the simple, close by, and cheap. I kind of like the fact that humanity strives for better and better things - it's what took us from the age of 50% of children dying by the age of 5, to barely any dying. It's what took us from the age of the majority living in poverty and hunger, to the majority living far better lives. It's what will hopefully take us from all the problems we have now, to all the solutions to those problems that we can't even conceive of yet. I may be misunderstanding you completely - but if I'm not, what's wrong with that?

ripsawridge 8y ago
I also like for humanity to strive for better and better things. But do you get that mostly, "better" has just meant that someone else pays the cost? My point is that a real look into "better" will often (probably! Not necessarily!) lead a person to minimize his or her ill effects. Naturally, being decent, they'll try to maximize their good effects. I pointed to a tradition like zen to evoke minimalism, to evoke noticing the smallest details. There are certainly many ways to improve. I guess I spoke in a strong way so that my words wouldn't be immediately lost. If it sounds like I'm devaluing too many just plain good aspects of humanity then I can say I didn't mean to say that. Now...I do quibble with the set of facts you offer that indicate the now is the best. Yes, life is so good for so many. Though we are clearly not in balance. We are heating up the atmosphere and we don't have a solution. That is an actual problem, right? Yes, it's easy to ignore. Easy to hope that "something" comes along. But I don't call it responsible.
- edanm 8y ago
  > But do you get that mostly, "better" has just meant that someone else pays the cost? Well I don't really agree with that, what makes you think so? The economy is not zero sum. Progress is not zero sum. When polio was eradicated, it didn't mean somebody else pays the cost of anything. When doctors learned to wash hands before surgeries so that mothers wouldn't get infected in childbirth, who did that hurt? When Bourlag invented strains of wheat that fed twice as many people for the same land input, ushering in the green revolution, it was all upside. Similarly, when Wikipedia came along to make a great database of most of the knowledge of the world, that was a great thing. When Apple created the iPhone and ushered in an age when almost everyone has access to all that info in their pockets, it was a great benefit. Who are these people who are paying the cost? Worldwide poverty and health has also improved tremendously over the last 20 years. > We are heating up the atmosphere and we don't have a solution Well yep that's a major problem. Can't say we disagree there, but I don't think the solution is to strive for minimalism (this seems to be neither practical nor desirable).

namlem 8y ago

Yes, this sort of thing is exactly why I believe that Derek Parfit was by far the most important philosopher of the past century.