Re sincerity: I had the sense that throughout the conversation there was a quality of sincere mutual engagement present. I found that beautiful and sweet to witness.
Interestingly, in my personal experience a shared earnestness is often a hallmark of a (particular type of) good conversation. Where the flow of conversation can reinforce the sincerity brought to the table. And where this loop can make avenues explorable that would have been very hard to "get to" alone. I have specific people in mind with whom I experience this pretty reliably.
I don't understand this very well at all, but it does seem one practice to increase one's depth of engagement with the world. In some ways at least... What death can bring into focus feels quite distinct.
Thank you! That’s an interesting idea - that sincere people can enhance our sincerity if we engage well with them. It seems to accord with much of my experience!
Framing it as "control" vs. "trust" already stacks the deck, it's obvious which one is gonna be the wise spiritual answer in the end. Instead of "control" you might say, "will". Instead of "trust", maybe "acceptance". Or just go with yin vs. yang (and then the wise spiritual answer would be that both are indispensable, or it's a false duality, or something.)
I can’t speak for Joe, but I don’t agree at all that trust is obviously preferable to control, or the wise choice. That is precisely the question at issue
Wonderful discussion! So rare to find a 'show' that demands active attention (and then pays off)!
My thoughts during the conversation aligned closely with where you ultimately concluded, which is that deep atheism ought to be context dependent. Here are a few loosely connected notes:
You briefly mention Berry. While it's true he's green towards nature, he's arguably deeply atheistic about the globalization that's characteristic of modernity. Here's a quote I thought was relevant: "Kindly use is a concept that of necessity broadens, becoming more complex and diverse, as it approaches action. The land is too various in its kinds, climates, conditions, declivities, aspects, and histories to conform to any generalized understanding or to prosper under generalized treatment."
I found the discussion of the Code of Hammurabi really interesting. It sparked a possible analogy to this discussion: the debate around prehistoric human life. David Graeber would often talk about the false binary between Hobbes and Rousseau, that is, between the idea that early human life was either brutish and violent or harmonious and egalitarian. Graeber's point was that this debate flattens the truth, which is that there was rich variety both within and between human groups.
Examples within evolution are perhaps a good way of focusing the question of deep atheism. If you take the evolution of sociality, you see mixed results. In spiders, sociality has repeatedly evolved and resulted in dead ends (i.e. the nearest cousin species is not social). And yet in mammals, sociality seems to flourish.
You discuss this idea that greenness is often different at different scales. I think the ideas from Taleb could be useful here. He often talks about how fragile multitudes give rise to an antifragile whole. Another angle comes from a recent post of his: "The final point is that scale matters when it comes to governance. I have an aphorism phrased by friends as follows: I’m a libertarian at the national level, a Republican at the state level, a Democrat at the municipal level, and a communist at the family level."
I think this discussion pairs well with a talk from Beren Millidge called 'When does competition lead to recognizable values?'. He notes that humans (and, to an extent, our values) are the children of Moloch. He asks simple and profound questions like "Why is there no single uber-organism?".
Also, thanks for the Ostrom and 'A Grief Observed' recs!
Great comment, thanks! A couple of too-inadequate replies:
The point about Berry is really interesting. I suspect he doesn't really regard cities, modernity etc as part of nature. But, of course, they are; a 747 is as natural as a tree. Indeed, both are very, very surprising (and astounding) objects from the point of view of the cosmos as a whole.
That's a wonderful talk title from Millidge - I will check it out!
- On grace as integration: I'm reminded of the kind of synchronization that happens if you put metronomes on a table (beautiful example at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v5eBf2KwF8). Somehow a coupled system in action saves energy and appears beautiful to us. Ronaldo's soccer, and speaking from your whole being feels analogous to this
- On deep athiesm vs green: it feels to me one way to tease apart the two is your sphere of care. Levin talks about the 'cognitive lightcone of compassion'. Deep athiesm feels much more contracted — the 'other' is much further away, outside the scope of care, the size of the being that needs to be protected is much smaller. Some versions of green have the lightcone of compassion broadly extended. Where nature is 'us', not 'other', and the boundary is thin
Great comment, thanks! The weakly coupled oscillators example is interesting. I suppose the idea of metastable equilibria in interaction is an interesting lens in general - the idea of achieving some sort of dynamic balance with one's environment. And there is the interesting question of *why* we experience this as difficult. EO Wilson makes the point somewhere that eusocial species always feel a tension between the individual and the group; I wonder if this is part of the issue?
On the sphere of care: I'm not sure. It's easier to care for something you trust, I suppose, rather than distrust? But somehow it feels like a slightly different axis that you're talking about. Caring / broadly altruistic vs selfish / narrowly altruistic do seem like a related axis to deep atheism, though.
Really enjoyed listening!
Re sincerity: I had the sense that throughout the conversation there was a quality of sincere mutual engagement present. I found that beautiful and sweet to witness.
Interestingly, in my personal experience a shared earnestness is often a hallmark of a (particular type of) good conversation. Where the flow of conversation can reinforce the sincerity brought to the table. And where this loop can make avenues explorable that would have been very hard to "get to" alone. I have specific people in mind with whom I experience this pretty reliably.
I don't understand this very well at all, but it does seem one practice to increase one's depth of engagement with the world. In some ways at least... What death can bring into focus feels quite distinct.
Anyway, thanks!
Thank you! That’s an interesting idea - that sincere people can enhance our sincerity if we engage well with them. It seems to accord with much of my experience!
Framing it as "control" vs. "trust" already stacks the deck, it's obvious which one is gonna be the wise spiritual answer in the end. Instead of "control" you might say, "will". Instead of "trust", maybe "acceptance". Or just go with yin vs. yang (and then the wise spiritual answer would be that both are indispensable, or it's a false duality, or something.)
I can’t speak for Joe, but I don’t agree at all that trust is obviously preferable to control, or the wise choice. That is precisely the question at issue
Wonderful discussion! So rare to find a 'show' that demands active attention (and then pays off)!
My thoughts during the conversation aligned closely with where you ultimately concluded, which is that deep atheism ought to be context dependent. Here are a few loosely connected notes:
You briefly mention Berry. While it's true he's green towards nature, he's arguably deeply atheistic about the globalization that's characteristic of modernity. Here's a quote I thought was relevant: "Kindly use is a concept that of necessity broadens, becoming more complex and diverse, as it approaches action. The land is too various in its kinds, climates, conditions, declivities, aspects, and histories to conform to any generalized understanding or to prosper under generalized treatment."
I found the discussion of the Code of Hammurabi really interesting. It sparked a possible analogy to this discussion: the debate around prehistoric human life. David Graeber would often talk about the false binary between Hobbes and Rousseau, that is, between the idea that early human life was either brutish and violent or harmonious and egalitarian. Graeber's point was that this debate flattens the truth, which is that there was rich variety both within and between human groups.
Examples within evolution are perhaps a good way of focusing the question of deep atheism. If you take the evolution of sociality, you see mixed results. In spiders, sociality has repeatedly evolved and resulted in dead ends (i.e. the nearest cousin species is not social). And yet in mammals, sociality seems to flourish.
You discuss this idea that greenness is often different at different scales. I think the ideas from Taleb could be useful here. He often talks about how fragile multitudes give rise to an antifragile whole. Another angle comes from a recent post of his: "The final point is that scale matters when it comes to governance. I have an aphorism phrased by friends as follows: I’m a libertarian at the national level, a Republican at the state level, a Democrat at the municipal level, and a communist at the family level."
I think this discussion pairs well with a talk from Beren Millidge called 'When does competition lead to recognizable values?'. He notes that humans (and, to an extent, our values) are the children of Moloch. He asks simple and profound questions like "Why is there no single uber-organism?".
Also, thanks for the Ostrom and 'A Grief Observed' recs!
Great comment, thanks! A couple of too-inadequate replies:
The point about Berry is really interesting. I suspect he doesn't really regard cities, modernity etc as part of nature. But, of course, they are; a 747 is as natural as a tree. Indeed, both are very, very surprising (and astounding) objects from the point of view of the cosmos as a whole.
That's a wonderful talk title from Millidge - I will check it out!
- On grace as integration: I'm reminded of the kind of synchronization that happens if you put metronomes on a table (beautiful example at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v5eBf2KwF8). Somehow a coupled system in action saves energy and appears beautiful to us. Ronaldo's soccer, and speaking from your whole being feels analogous to this
- On deep athiesm vs green: it feels to me one way to tease apart the two is your sphere of care. Levin talks about the 'cognitive lightcone of compassion'. Deep athiesm feels much more contracted — the 'other' is much further away, outside the scope of care, the size of the being that needs to be protected is much smaller. Some versions of green have the lightcone of compassion broadly extended. Where nature is 'us', not 'other', and the boundary is thin
Great comment, thanks! The weakly coupled oscillators example is interesting. I suppose the idea of metastable equilibria in interaction is an interesting lens in general - the idea of achieving some sort of dynamic balance with one's environment. And there is the interesting question of *why* we experience this as difficult. EO Wilson makes the point somewhere that eusocial species always feel a tension between the individual and the group; I wonder if this is part of the issue?
On the sphere of care: I'm not sure. It's easier to care for something you trust, I suppose, rather than distrust? But somehow it feels like a slightly different axis that you're talking about. Caring / broadly altruistic vs selfish / narrowly altruistic do seem like a related axis to deep atheism, though.
Great convo! Really resonated with being fake happening more when we’re only using a subset of ourselves.
Would love to learn more about the Kevin Kelly anecdote! (Casual googling didn’t turn up anything)
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/50/shoulda-been-dead/act-one