> Ultimately my best guess for a grounds of ethical action is the recognition of the self in the other, the other in the self, and the absence of precise boundaries between the self and the rest of the world.
If I'm right I expect future documents similar to the Claude Constitution that attempt to make a model broadly good will head in this direction, grounding their notions of "the good" implicitly or explicitly in nondual philosophy or any other means of collapsing the self/other boundary while maintaining for pragmatic reasons some hard lines.
Don't forget St Paul's meditation on inner division: "I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it, but the sin which dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members." - Romans 7:15-24
Oh boy, such a cool article. It’s always been incredible to me that analyses of these form aren’t more common in the academy.
A few things that your article made me think:
Despite the fact that parts are, according to Buddhists, transient and thus do not define our core self, Buddhists also identify and reify certain aspects of these parts, for example judging that every part arises with a “desire,” “self,” and “world.” It seems that this same level of analysis could be used to assign a certain reality to the things that we habitually do in the physical world. In other words, it may be that the parts of our selves are illusory, but there are certain patterns that arise over and over, naturally. And these parts can seriously seem real, even upon deep contemplation.
In a similar vein, I’ve often wondered about the paradox of effort in meditation. One of the most fascinating kinds of meditation for me is when I sit down and decide that for the next 20 minutes I will not apply any effort at all. The problem is, I often start to realize that it’s not clear which action would require effort and which wouldn’t. For example, part of me might want to continue meditating, but another part of me wants to go lie down and take a nap. Who is to say which of these urges involves effort? Can we really “eliminate” effort? Or is continued effort, like suffering, an unavoidable part of being alive? Sometimes when I am lying down trying to sleep but feel very tense, merely telling myself “don’t try” doesn’t make my body feel any less like it is trying. It seems in those moments like the effort is hard wired into my physiology. The thing is, if we argue that effort is set by or integral to our physiology and isn’t something we can gain too much insight into psychologically, then that once again feels like we are reifying our objective physical states, as opposed to taking the illusionist stance typically associated with Buddhism. Anyway these are just some thoughts I’ve had while meditating. (I’m not very good at meditating haha)
I once complained to a meditation teacher on retreat that I didn't know what the difference was between 'do nothing' meditation and the rest of my life. He said some things I couldn't remember more or less to the effect of - "Maybe it is like your life". I walked outside and things god slightly weird for a while.
Another way how the three characteristics are defined is:
- multiplicity
- interdependence
- impermanence
I think that overlaps quite a bit with parts work.
I think this insight of multiplicity and context sensitivity (interdependence, impermanence) is also what allows economic models to make more sense instead of general rational choice models.
I'm struggling to understand what you mean by "suffering." Is this a Buddhist term of art, or are you claiming that you literally experience the daily process of desiring things and pursuing goals as overwhelmingly unpleasant?
You can think of it as ranging from horrible to extremely subtle. The Buddhist word is dukkha and the most common old school translation is ‘suffering’, but ‘stress’ and ‘unsatisfactoriness’ are also common. It’s kind of a tension or restless dissatisfaction. If you want reference points for when it may have been low in your life think of something like being in nature with people you love and feeling completely safe and unhurried and connected to the beauty of the world. Or moments that feel profound listening to a favorite song.
I think I understand what you mean by "absolute perfection," at least in direction if not magnitude. I associate this with, for example, the memory of sitting in the back of a truck with some friends on a nice summer evening, and thinking idly that I would be content with the universe being frozen in this moment forever. Does that sound about right?
I don't think it's accurate to me to understand this as a lack of dissatisfaction. I would say that the subjective intensity of "satisfaction" as an emotional state is independent of the dissatisfaction:satisfaction ratio. These are multiple separately variable things to me, not single sliding scale.
I also don't think "satisfaction" is the most pleasant kind of mental state I can experience. It's fine, but rather bland. I prefer higher-energy, higher-motivation states. I want to want to do stuff.
Yeah that sounds like the right direction. As for whether it’s one thing or the lack of another I don’t know. All frameworks are kind of imaginary anyway. I will say that the goal of spiritual practice is not to not want to do stuff, but it gets a bit confusing and beyond my pay grade there. I will say that the Buddha did 50 years of often arduous travel and teaching after waking up, so being inert is not the thing.
> “Treat others as you would treat yourself, because to some degree they are you.”
https://nintil.com/claude-constitution
Indeed :)
> Ultimately my best guess for a grounds of ethical action is the recognition of the self in the other, the other in the self, and the absence of precise boundaries between the self and the rest of the world.
If I'm right I expect future documents similar to the Claude Constitution that attempt to make a model broadly good will head in this direction, grounding their notions of "the good" implicitly or explicitly in nondual philosophy or any other means of collapsing the self/other boundary while maintaining for pragmatic reasons some hard lines.
Yes. The future is dharmic
We should hang soon
yes!! my NYC visit is long overdue.
Oh that's random, I was thinking about Softmax just yesterday and wondering how they were doing
Everything is connected 😉
💙
Don't forget St Paul's meditation on inner division: "I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it, but the sin which dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members." - Romans 7:15-24
Oh boy, such a cool article. It’s always been incredible to me that analyses of these form aren’t more common in the academy.
A few things that your article made me think:
Despite the fact that parts are, according to Buddhists, transient and thus do not define our core self, Buddhists also identify and reify certain aspects of these parts, for example judging that every part arises with a “desire,” “self,” and “world.” It seems that this same level of analysis could be used to assign a certain reality to the things that we habitually do in the physical world. In other words, it may be that the parts of our selves are illusory, but there are certain patterns that arise over and over, naturally. And these parts can seriously seem real, even upon deep contemplation.
In a similar vein, I’ve often wondered about the paradox of effort in meditation. One of the most fascinating kinds of meditation for me is when I sit down and decide that for the next 20 minutes I will not apply any effort at all. The problem is, I often start to realize that it’s not clear which action would require effort and which wouldn’t. For example, part of me might want to continue meditating, but another part of me wants to go lie down and take a nap. Who is to say which of these urges involves effort? Can we really “eliminate” effort? Or is continued effort, like suffering, an unavoidable part of being alive? Sometimes when I am lying down trying to sleep but feel very tense, merely telling myself “don’t try” doesn’t make my body feel any less like it is trying. It seems in those moments like the effort is hard wired into my physiology. The thing is, if we argue that effort is set by or integral to our physiology and isn’t something we can gain too much insight into psychologically, then that once again feels like we are reifying our objective physical states, as opposed to taking the illusionist stance typically associated with Buddhism. Anyway these are just some thoughts I’ve had while meditating. (I’m not very good at meditating haha)
I once complained to a meditation teacher on retreat that I didn't know what the difference was between 'do nothing' meditation and the rest of my life. He said some things I couldn't remember more or less to the effect of - "Maybe it is like your life". I walked outside and things god slightly weird for a while.
Kinda relevant read that happened to come out today: https://kajsotala.substack.com/p/why-do-so-many-mental-frameworks
It's not free article yet but will be in a week. I will finish reading it as well
Already started reading it! Kaj what a whole series on multi agent models of the mind: https://www.lesswrong.com/s/ZbmRyDN8TCpBTZSip
I think there's a lot to what you are writing.
Another way how the three characteristics are defined is:
- multiplicity
- interdependence
- impermanence
I think that overlaps quite a bit with parts work.
I think this insight of multiplicity and context sensitivity (interdependence, impermanence) is also what allows economic models to make more sense instead of general rational choice models.
I'm struggling to understand what you mean by "suffering." Is this a Buddhist term of art, or are you claiming that you literally experience the daily process of desiring things and pursuing goals as overwhelmingly unpleasant?
You can think of it as ranging from horrible to extremely subtle. The Buddhist word is dukkha and the most common old school translation is ‘suffering’, but ‘stress’ and ‘unsatisfactoriness’ are also common. It’s kind of a tension or restless dissatisfaction. If you want reference points for when it may have been low in your life think of something like being in nature with people you love and feeling completely safe and unhurried and connected to the beauty of the world. Or moments that feel profound listening to a favorite song.
I talk about it in these other essays:
https://arram.substack.com/p/how-a-glimpse-of-absolute-perfection
https://arram.substack.com/p/how-to-start-putting-down-your-emotional
I think I understand what you mean by "absolute perfection," at least in direction if not magnitude. I associate this with, for example, the memory of sitting in the back of a truck with some friends on a nice summer evening, and thinking idly that I would be content with the universe being frozen in this moment forever. Does that sound about right?
I don't think it's accurate to me to understand this as a lack of dissatisfaction. I would say that the subjective intensity of "satisfaction" as an emotional state is independent of the dissatisfaction:satisfaction ratio. These are multiple separately variable things to me, not single sliding scale.
I also don't think "satisfaction" is the most pleasant kind of mental state I can experience. It's fine, but rather bland. I prefer higher-energy, higher-motivation states. I want to want to do stuff.
Yeah that sounds like the right direction. As for whether it’s one thing or the lack of another I don’t know. All frameworks are kind of imaginary anyway. I will say that the goal of spiritual practice is not to not want to do stuff, but it gets a bit confusing and beyond my pay grade there. I will say that the Buddha did 50 years of often arduous travel and teaching after waking up, so being inert is not the thing.