Welcome, new subscribers! Crazy to think that we have grown from 18 readers when I first sent this newsletter out 2 years ago to 4,087! We are a growing group of people who seek to live lives of thoughtfulness and awe, who believe that the worlds of intellect and spirit can and should overlap, and who seek to confront the challenges of modern life guided by the wisdom of great and ancient texts. I am grateful for your deep engagement.
As we head into year 3, I plan on introducing an AMA (Ask Me Anything) Function. Put your questions in the thread below and I’ll either respond directly or integrate into material for a more elaborate post. I’m hoping to do these about once every two weeks. I’m also going to make the threads open so you can respond to one another. And watch the space for more opportunities to interact with me and one another.
My ask: To support this work and gain access to the AMA threads going forward, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Finally, here is a thought to ponder: Mark Lilla says the point of humanistic study is to help us ask the question “What should we desire?” STEM and technical disciplines help us fulfill our desires, but philosophy and literature make us reflective: “Is this what we should desire? And how should we know? Where does this sense of ‘should’ come from? etc.
So here is the question: Let’s agree that a reflective life is something we should desire because we should desire to ask “What should we desire?” But that still doesn’t answer the question “What should we desire?” What is your answer, and what are the resources, be they textual or experiential, that inform it? Can self-help and wellness gurus answer this question, or do they already presume what we desire, namely wellness, which only begs the question: what is wellness?
1. The first source is innate either biologically hardwired into our bodies (e.g. an infant's desire for milk) or spiritually embedded (e.g. Pascal's God-shaped hole).
2. The second is psychosocially determined (e.g. Girard's mimetic theory, marketing, peer group, etc).
3. The third is religious in that we are "bound" by a tradition, a text, a community, rituals, a metanarrative, revelation, etc. to train us in what to desire.
Self-help gurus presume and even shape all three sources. As a psychotherapist, I am often concerned that my field is not explicit about its definition of mental health and all of the value-laden assumptions that go into it. This is true of wellness as well. Secularism's subtraction story leads us to believe we live in a values-vacuum, now that we've done away with God. We do not. These four questions come to bear: 1. What is (ultimately) real? 2. Who is well off? 3. Who is a really good person? 4. How do I become a genuinely good person?
This is a beautiful reflection, thank you. Who is best positioned to answer those 4 questions? How does one become an "expert" in them? Can or should they part of training in the helping professions, from education to health? How would or could that work in a pluralistic / secular society?
Thank you for your response. These are good questions.
Who is best positioned to answer those 4 questions?
>>> Such a thought provoking question. According to a principled pluralism, I am glad for each community to answer them for themselves then live it out in the public sphere. I am not saying that the answers are relative. I believe there are true and false, right and wrong answers to these questions. Yet I believe these questions and answers should be put into practice and tried in the public sphere (contra secularism's tendency to sequester faith commitments into the private/personal sphere of one's life).
How does one become an "expert" in them?
>>> It depends on each tradition. For some, it comes from apprenticing oneself to a textual tradition; or a living person who embodies the virtues and values; or empirical research methods.
Can or should they part of training in the helping professions, from education to health?
>>> Yes, because I believe they already are implicitly a part of the training. I'd prefer explicit honesty about faith commitments, held values, metaphysical assumptions, etc.
How would or could that work in a pluralistic / secular society?
>>> It seems as if a truly pluralistic / secular society would have different therapists for each worldview (e.g. Buddhist counselors, Secular counselors, Christian counselors). First, one would be able to see who received the most help towards their vision and definition of "wellbeing." Second, one would be able to see which visions and definitions of wellbeing are most prosocial (yet again we'd have to define this).
I recognize my views has a certain naivety about this in theory vs. practice. I do believe the answers to these four questions are knowable and I do believe that they can be validated in practice.
Let me clarify: my first question about desire is me modeling AMA to myself. It's also a way to offer a prompt for those who seek not to offer a question in the thread or else to meditate on something that might motivate a question. All questions welcome in the thread! No you don't need to answer my question about desire but you are welcome to if you want.
Living a human life teaches us that desire is insatiable and infinite.
What does desire seek? Desire seeks to be satisfied by what it perceives to be good. The perception of what's good can be imperfect or erroneous, but desire nevertheless always seeks to be fulfilled by something it perceives as good.
What good can satisfy an otherwise insatiable and infinite desire for goodness? Only an infinite goodness.
So, ultimately, the question is, "What is goodness? What infinite goodness can satisfy an infinite desire?" Determining what is the greater (or greatest) good is the exercise of philosophy and the pursuit of religion.
(I think we're all still working that one out. Probably not as earnestly as we should, but there it is.)
Ethics is, imo, the art of dwelling, perhaps even accompanying. Tech is the art of controlling and mastering. There is some overlap between the two and also some divergence. I don't think either can serve the other, but having a sense of the need for both enhances the appreciation for each, much like working 6 days enhances the experience of resting on the seventh day and vice versa. Virtue Ethics ia aSabbath from technological thinking, which is focused on things like impact, scale, efficiency, etc.
I think, in a very practical way, technology can and has served the interests of ethics in terms of adoption and acceptance. Imagine an artificial meat is created that is both cheap and delicious. This would have an immediate and likely universal impact on the ethical acceptance of factory farming. It's in this way that I wonder if "serving ethics" can offer any alternative to the perceived march of technology as deterministic and amoral. Then again, does technological mediation of this sort simply remove these quandaries from the ethical domain? But again, isn't that extremely ethical?
Do you believe in any “stuff” that is not encompassed by current models of the physical universe? I am not using terms such as “spirit” or “chi” since any “stuff” that is outside of our current physical models is likely not subject to analysis using language.
A person’s answer to this question may have relevance to the question of “what and why should I desire?”
My quibble is with the phrase "believe in," but yes, I think some experience is too rich, nuanced and singular for models, which are always after the fact. The miraculous is not reproducible or measurable but that doesn't mean it isn't possible or available. I don't lay my foundations on quack metaphysics, but I also think staunch empiricism misses something that, as Heidegger put it, "irrationalism sees, albeit with a squint."
Agnes Callard said something on your podcast that I can't figure out. She said that Socrates was a desymbolizer that desymbolized "up" compared to everyone else (Girard, Foucault, Robin Hanson, etc) who desymbolize "down". She described how Socrates would explain to people that what they wanted was more elevated than what they thought they wanted. That sounds like someone who people would like. But obviously Socrates made a lot of enemies. So I don't understand what she was trying to explain.
I think she was saying that many people reduce ideas to their base cause where Socrates took things that seemed base and elevated them. for freud, the base cause of a desire is the oedipal complex. but for socrates it's the soul's desire for virtue or knowledge or something like that
Any rational analysis of desire is, by definition, anthropocentric. Humans cannot expect to view through the finite lens of their physical senses an infinite reality. While satisfaction of desire fulfills quotidian, anthropocentric needs and values humanity cannot expect to exist in harmony with a universe that is infinite and incomprehensible without making serious attempts at comprehending the incomprehensible. Our approach to such comprehension is only asymptotic to the Reality we seek to understand; we can get closer and closer, but we can never fully comprehend. Still we must, and do, try. Science, religion, philosophy, meditation, Zen koans, all are paths trying for the same destination.
Is there any merit to perennial philosophy of Aldous Huxley and William James who argue that all the world's religious and spiritual traditions share a single metaphysical core of (something like) a non-dual religious experience or divine knowledge?
yes, I think so, but I also think perennial philosophy is only half of the equation. The particularists need to know that all is One and the all is Oners would do well to find the garments needed to express and preserve that insight in a specific way, ideally one with cultural longevity and depth.
It seems to me that a great paradox lies at the heart of desire, which we see most clearly in the experience of interpersonal love: we all desire to experience the full, sincere love of another, but the only way to achieve that is by abandoning one's focus on one's own desire and placing the other's (the lover's) wellbeing and desire at the center of our concern and actions. Only then might you merit the full and sincere love of one who can satisfy your desire. The goal will always elude us if we focus merely on it itself.
How does this dynamic map onto philosophy and today's numerous wellness theories?
There’s a way of framing what you say as a gambit —as in chess. Self sacrifice for higher gain. Save now and spend more later. But to take it up a notch is strange: can we sacrifice having a goal itself so as to find ourselves more satisfied? Can we abandon the abstraction of love to redefine it in a more immediate singular way? Yes, but I don’t think it’s easy to describe precisely because it’s so subtle. Magic doesn’t scale.
Is enlightenment (as understood within the context of Eastern traditions and religion) a "real" thing? Is it permanent? Is there any analog to such a thing within Judaism?
Is it possible to live in a state of constant pure joy and egolessness? Is it possible to do so for a second or a minute? I can't say yes to the first but maybe I've tasted glimmers of such moments. For me, the rub isn't whether enlightenment is possible but whether it's desirable. I think the Eastern conception has much to teach but also gets fetishized and turned into a form of spiritual bypass, esp. in the West. Better to pursue Enlightenment in small doses and better yet give up the ghost of trying to excel at it. That said, presence and mindfulness are goods; they should be weighed in a basket with other goods that are not emphasized as much, like investing in family life, or trying to change the environment when possible, rather than just accept suffering and detaching.
"Should" is tricky, it presumes a right answer of a sort. If we claim perhaps there are some moral boundaries (you shouldn't choose to hurt others), the rest is about maximising your own potential. To the extent that it gives you a sense of ongoing happiness and satisfaction.
do you believe that civil discourse or hermeneutics or philosophy can and should take on the task of turning around a crumbling civil accord and plagues of dangerous misinformation? If so, might it be helpful to adopt the "prophetic conceit"? What can we learn from the intellectual response to previous eras and examples of extremism and misinformation in the West?
dangerous misinformation, especially propaganda, is an age old problem exacerbated by scale and tech; none of the avenues mentioned can address fully. The question of how to change cultural discourse amongst masses is different than the question of how to make elites better. I think hermeneutics, philosophy, and to some extent civil discourse would all improve inner life and social relations, but their primary value is not as a prophylactic against deceit. Of the three hermeneutics may be the best tool, but human nature is weak and I am not optimistic that poets and close readers are immune to conspiratorial thinking.
prophetic conceit is sort of like the Benedict Option, I don't think it's effective at changing society, but may be helpful for drawing a line in the sand and creating a refuge...
I believe desire comes from three sources:
1. The first source is innate either biologically hardwired into our bodies (e.g. an infant's desire for milk) or spiritually embedded (e.g. Pascal's God-shaped hole).
2. The second is psychosocially determined (e.g. Girard's mimetic theory, marketing, peer group, etc).
3. The third is religious in that we are "bound" by a tradition, a text, a community, rituals, a metanarrative, revelation, etc. to train us in what to desire.
Self-help gurus presume and even shape all three sources. As a psychotherapist, I am often concerned that my field is not explicit about its definition of mental health and all of the value-laden assumptions that go into it. This is true of wellness as well. Secularism's subtraction story leads us to believe we live in a values-vacuum, now that we've done away with God. We do not. These four questions come to bear: 1. What is (ultimately) real? 2. Who is well off? 3. Who is a really good person? 4. How do I become a genuinely good person?
This is a beautiful reflection, thank you. Who is best positioned to answer those 4 questions? How does one become an "expert" in them? Can or should they part of training in the helping professions, from education to health? How would or could that work in a pluralistic / secular society?
Thank you for your response. These are good questions.
Who is best positioned to answer those 4 questions?
>>> Such a thought provoking question. According to a principled pluralism, I am glad for each community to answer them for themselves then live it out in the public sphere. I am not saying that the answers are relative. I believe there are true and false, right and wrong answers to these questions. Yet I believe these questions and answers should be put into practice and tried in the public sphere (contra secularism's tendency to sequester faith commitments into the private/personal sphere of one's life).
How does one become an "expert" in them?
>>> It depends on each tradition. For some, it comes from apprenticing oneself to a textual tradition; or a living person who embodies the virtues and values; or empirical research methods.
Can or should they part of training in the helping professions, from education to health?
>>> Yes, because I believe they already are implicitly a part of the training. I'd prefer explicit honesty about faith commitments, held values, metaphysical assumptions, etc.
How would or could that work in a pluralistic / secular society?
>>> It seems as if a truly pluralistic / secular society would have different therapists for each worldview (e.g. Buddhist counselors, Secular counselors, Christian counselors). First, one would be able to see who received the most help towards their vision and definition of "wellbeing." Second, one would be able to see which visions and definitions of wellbeing are most prosocial (yet again we'd have to define this).
I recognize my views has a certain naivety about this in theory vs. practice. I do believe the answers to these four questions are knowable and I do believe that they can be validated in practice.
@benjamin I really resonate with your answers here. Well put.
Let me clarify: my first question about desire is me modeling AMA to myself. It's also a way to offer a prompt for those who seek not to offer a question in the thread or else to meditate on something that might motivate a question. All questions welcome in the thread! No you don't need to answer my question about desire but you are welcome to if you want.
Living a human life teaches us that desire is insatiable and infinite.
What does desire seek? Desire seeks to be satisfied by what it perceives to be good. The perception of what's good can be imperfect or erroneous, but desire nevertheless always seeks to be fulfilled by something it perceives as good.
What good can satisfy an otherwise insatiable and infinite desire for goodness? Only an infinite goodness.
So, ultimately, the question is, "What is goodness? What infinite goodness can satisfy an infinite desire?" Determining what is the greater (or greatest) good is the exercise of philosophy and the pursuit of religion.
(I think we're all still working that one out. Probably not as earnestly as we should, but there it is.)
If you were to pen a third substack, what would it be on, and why?
how to read and relate to art, poetry, and/or pop culture. Micro-analysis of artifacts from daily life.
How can technology serve ethics instead of vice versa?
Ethics is, imo, the art of dwelling, perhaps even accompanying. Tech is the art of controlling and mastering. There is some overlap between the two and also some divergence. I don't think either can serve the other, but having a sense of the need for both enhances the appreciation for each, much like working 6 days enhances the experience of resting on the seventh day and vice versa. Virtue Ethics ia aSabbath from technological thinking, which is focused on things like impact, scale, efficiency, etc.
I think, in a very practical way, technology can and has served the interests of ethics in terms of adoption and acceptance. Imagine an artificial meat is created that is both cheap and delicious. This would have an immediate and likely universal impact on the ethical acceptance of factory farming. It's in this way that I wonder if "serving ethics" can offer any alternative to the perceived march of technology as deterministic and amoral. Then again, does technological mediation of this sort simply remove these quandaries from the ethical domain? But again, isn't that extremely ethical?
Do you believe in any “stuff” that is not encompassed by current models of the physical universe? I am not using terms such as “spirit” or “chi” since any “stuff” that is outside of our current physical models is likely not subject to analysis using language.
A person’s answer to this question may have relevance to the question of “what and why should I desire?”
My quibble is with the phrase "believe in," but yes, I think some experience is too rich, nuanced and singular for models, which are always after the fact. The miraculous is not reproducible or measurable but that doesn't mean it isn't possible or available. I don't lay my foundations on quack metaphysics, but I also think staunch empiricism misses something that, as Heidegger put it, "irrationalism sees, albeit with a squint."
Agnes Callard said something on your podcast that I can't figure out. She said that Socrates was a desymbolizer that desymbolized "up" compared to everyone else (Girard, Foucault, Robin Hanson, etc) who desymbolize "down". She described how Socrates would explain to people that what they wanted was more elevated than what they thought they wanted. That sounds like someone who people would like. But obviously Socrates made a lot of enemies. So I don't understand what she was trying to explain.
Do you understand what she meant?
I think she was saying that many people reduce ideas to their base cause where Socrates took things that seemed base and elevated them. for freud, the base cause of a desire is the oedipal complex. but for socrates it's the soul's desire for virtue or knowledge or something like that
That's helpful. Thank you!
Any rational analysis of desire is, by definition, anthropocentric. Humans cannot expect to view through the finite lens of their physical senses an infinite reality. While satisfaction of desire fulfills quotidian, anthropocentric needs and values humanity cannot expect to exist in harmony with a universe that is infinite and incomprehensible without making serious attempts at comprehending the incomprehensible. Our approach to such comprehension is only asymptotic to the Reality we seek to understand; we can get closer and closer, but we can never fully comprehend. Still we must, and do, try. Science, religion, philosophy, meditation, Zen koans, all are paths trying for the same destination.
Is there any merit to perennial philosophy of Aldous Huxley and William James who argue that all the world's religious and spiritual traditions share a single metaphysical core of (something like) a non-dual religious experience or divine knowledge?
yes, I think so, but I also think perennial philosophy is only half of the equation. The particularists need to know that all is One and the all is Oners would do well to find the garments needed to express and preserve that insight in a specific way, ideally one with cultural longevity and depth.
It seems to me that a great paradox lies at the heart of desire, which we see most clearly in the experience of interpersonal love: we all desire to experience the full, sincere love of another, but the only way to achieve that is by abandoning one's focus on one's own desire and placing the other's (the lover's) wellbeing and desire at the center of our concern and actions. Only then might you merit the full and sincere love of one who can satisfy your desire. The goal will always elude us if we focus merely on it itself.
How does this dynamic map onto philosophy and today's numerous wellness theories?
There’s a way of framing what you say as a gambit —as in chess. Self sacrifice for higher gain. Save now and spend more later. But to take it up a notch is strange: can we sacrifice having a goal itself so as to find ourselves more satisfied? Can we abandon the abstraction of love to redefine it in a more immediate singular way? Yes, but I don’t think it’s easy to describe precisely because it’s so subtle. Magic doesn’t scale.
Is enlightenment (as understood within the context of Eastern traditions and religion) a "real" thing? Is it permanent? Is there any analog to such a thing within Judaism?
Is it possible to live in a state of constant pure joy and egolessness? Is it possible to do so for a second or a minute? I can't say yes to the first but maybe I've tasted glimmers of such moments. For me, the rub isn't whether enlightenment is possible but whether it's desirable. I think the Eastern conception has much to teach but also gets fetishized and turned into a form of spiritual bypass, esp. in the West. Better to pursue Enlightenment in small doses and better yet give up the ghost of trying to excel at it. That said, presence and mindfulness are goods; they should be weighed in a basket with other goods that are not emphasized as much, like investing in family life, or trying to change the environment when possible, rather than just accept suffering and detaching.
"Should" is tricky, it presumes a right answer of a sort. If we claim perhaps there are some moral boundaries (you shouldn't choose to hurt others), the rest is about maximising your own potential. To the extent that it gives you a sense of ongoing happiness and satisfaction.
do you believe that civil discourse or hermeneutics or philosophy can and should take on the task of turning around a crumbling civil accord and plagues of dangerous misinformation? If so, might it be helpful to adopt the "prophetic conceit"? What can we learn from the intellectual response to previous eras and examples of extremism and misinformation in the West?
dangerous misinformation, especially propaganda, is an age old problem exacerbated by scale and tech; none of the avenues mentioned can address fully. The question of how to change cultural discourse amongst masses is different than the question of how to make elites better. I think hermeneutics, philosophy, and to some extent civil discourse would all improve inner life and social relations, but their primary value is not as a prophylactic against deceit. Of the three hermeneutics may be the best tool, but human nature is weak and I am not optimistic that poets and close readers are immune to conspiratorial thinking.
prophetic conceit is sort of like the Benedict Option, I don't think it's effective at changing society, but may be helpful for drawing a line in the sand and creating a refuge...
Maybe the reframe here is not on the objects of desire specifically but on the project of making a life, ie who do I desire to become?