This is an amazing essay. For me it brought specificity to observations I had rattling around in my brain. Something like ‘everyone has a theology’ is about as far as I got. Have observed my own youthful fears of the world ending with my generation being replicated with the climate “crisis” and hypothesized that it’s a common rite of passage. I’m looking forward to what more you have to say on this topic.
"He who lives by the sword dies by the sword, and he who pins his faith to empiricism and logic will see his faith broken on those very same instruments"
More generally, I hear some people, some frogs included, saying Christianity has good life guidelines (how to live) but obsolete metaphysics (how the world is). I have the opposite problem: much of the life style advice seems lame, but the metaphysics is fine (beliefmap.org again). Nietzsche seems right about the pale Christian vibe. So does Kierkegaard. Though both in different, and partly incompatible, ways. (N. wants you live epic Homeric life, unlike K. in his ideal of the admirable but non-epic Christian knight.) Once more, both N. and K. are wrong about the Christian metaphysics, they underestimate how smart and deep it is. Note that I dislike here, like they would, the current domesticated mediocre lifeless ugly dead-inside smothering (pseudo)Christian life "wisdom". Not the core Christian moral wisdom (the decalogue, classical forgiveness and charity, and the like; though Nietzsche often seems to dislike those too).
So I agree with you (and 2CB and BAP) that a merge of Nietzsche and Christianity might be promising. Maybe your forthcoming pt. 3 podcast on religion will help.
I have been waiting for a new podcast episode to come, and finally not just one episode I am getting- it's a three-part series! And for free?
My favorite section was the eschatology. Even though the later sections felt shorter, they were not lacking. Really amazing show and I await the next episode.
Always, have I seen ritualistic behavior as unavoidable. Thus, I strive for the noble ritual!
Dec 10, 2022·edited Dec 11, 2022Liked by Zero HP Lovecraft
"Progressive society is negrolatrous, which means that they worship Africans. Consequently, and owing I think to the trace of Christianity in progressive society, it is forbidden to ever say the name of God."
To this day, the "sacred name" cannot be fully known, as the pious have gone through great lengths to obscure its written form and punish offenders who dare say it aloud. The true meaning, otherwise conveyed by a complete expression of the sacred name, is lost to the reader.
Instead, all we have are some the consonants with little clue as to the direction or rules of pronounciation: NGRH.
EDIT: I was a fool to think this idea wasn't already used in the description.
I read the original thread years ago and was profoundly impacted by it, but I think your revision of “evangelism” into “telos” has nearly perfected the framework--explanatory power has improved over phenomena like Mormons from Utah sending their kids to Brazil on missions, vs. Jewish to Catholic converts among Austro Hungarian nobles encouraging their kids to become musicians and philosophers, vs. Communists encouraging their young members to become trans/gay/hookers/ugly, even as the explicit “evangelistic” value of some of these behaviors is not immediately obvious. Very excited for the next episode!
On a parasocial note I think one of the reasons I identify so strongly with your work is that we apparently grew up under similar religious training, although my parents never changed denomination. “Online protestants” don’t really seem to exist, or at least not to the extent that e-Caths or Orthodox do, possibly because so many of us ended up atheists-favorable-to-religion or whatever I am. Again, excellent episode and can’t wait for the next one!
I loved the essay. I think humans all have an intrinsic religious instinct and that can be quite beneficial. The problem with religion is not the belief of people in something better or higher than us but the blind faith that most adherents seem to acquire. I believe that modernity has made it quite hard to believe in anything beyond the individual, and people who belong to religious groups seem to stick quite hard to the dogma and lack any of the real faith
Where does the need to "manage the unmanageable" fit in this framework? Arguably one of the earliest functions of religious practice was to try to control/appease/supplicate powerful aspects of the world that lie beyond our ordinary understanding. "Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it" is not a syllogism exclusive to politicians.
Religious schemes of the form
1. Sacrifice a chicken to the corn god
2. ???
3. Profit?
were ubiquitous among pre-moderns, and the motivation for spiritual rituals aimed at material ends doesn't seem map cleanly to any of these proposed categories. Inasmuch as it's about a practical application of the connections between the spiritual and material worlds, it's *closer* to 'gnosis', but the knowledge here need not be esoteric. I'll be glad to remind you that the more chickens we collectively sacrifice, the more pleased the corn god will be, and the psychological payoff for me reminding you of this isn't (mainly) from feelings of superiority for knowing something you don't, it's from relieving my anxiety about the corn god's taking our community's harvest away.
The modern's machine-world understanding obviously limits the scope of this religious motivation today, but it's too prominent in historical practice to ignore, and few moderns are completely beyond wishing for an accessible intercessor. Where does, say, prayer directed to a saint for the healing of a loved one fit into this model?
Funnily enough, seeing the vacuousness of ecstatic experiences means you got quite close to enlightenment. What might be missing:
1. You haven't seen the vacuousness of doubt and skepticism
2. You believe that whatever negative emotion you feel means you aren't enlightened (they are vacuous also).
3. Maybe you believe there is no such thing as enlightenment (kinda true).
Enlightenment is no peak state. It's just the realization that everything that goes on in your mind is the movie, but you are not the movie, you are the screen. Possibly you may have heard this before, and I know I did years ago but it didn't sink in at the time. That actually is all there is to get regarding enlightenment. For the mystically inclined, they think there is something more, and if they could see past the desire for something more, they would be enlightened.
For you, possibly you don't believe in enlightenment, but certainly you don't think your mind is perfect. Improvement is possible, and the way to get it is disappointment, as Chogyam Trungpa said.
Ordinary cognition is to be stuck vacillating between the positive and the negative, which is why ecstasies are not enough: they are unstable, they go away and you sink back down. They also can be dangerous, as they can lead to delusion and ego inflation if they don't go away. But enlightenment is grasping something that is neither positive nor negative: metaphysical Zero. Once understood, you realize it's always been there, and yet, it's different to be conscious of it. Negative emotion arises and then it just goes away to no effect, and this includes doubt. At that point you are free to enjoy the positive, but from a place of stability this time, not a place of need.
I actually did stop meditating upon enlightenment (technically I wasn't practicing when it happened, but there was a time I took it fairly seriously). It isn't fun, and there isn't anything more to get there, now that existence has become an epiphany. Not all the time, but often enough.
"What would a disruptive idea of spirituality be for the 21st century? When I say disruptive idea, I'm talking about a thing that is so new and outside the framework of how we currently understand things, that although it takes little effort or investment to start, it has potential to overtake the entire playing field... I am not saying 'what would a new religion look like,' I'm saying what could a new understanding of religion or spirituality be in the data-driven infocracy that we live in today."
I misplaced this comment to pt 2 (I've just deleted it there), so here it goes again:
Sir, I wonder what you think about some allegedly intersubjective mystical experiences like some of those induced by the Buddhist fire kasina practice promoted, e.g., by D. Ingram.
In the 1st ch. of https://firekasina.org/fire-kasina-book/ he claims people in deep concentration on kasina retreats can see what others visualize or manifest by will and without telling a word beforehand.
This is an amazing essay. For me it brought specificity to observations I had rattling around in my brain. Something like ‘everyone has a theology’ is about as far as I got. Have observed my own youthful fears of the world ending with my generation being replicated with the climate “crisis” and hypothesized that it’s a common rite of passage. I’m looking forward to what more you have to say on this topic.
"He who lives by the sword dies by the sword, and he who pins his faith to empiricism and logic will see his faith broken on those very same instruments"
You underestimate how smart and deep some Christians are. They know all the moves and at the same time ain't shallow sophist. Take a look at beliefmap.org, e.g. this section, https://beliefmap.org/jesus/exist#witness-testimony
More generally, I hear some people, some frogs included, saying Christianity has good life guidelines (how to live) but obsolete metaphysics (how the world is). I have the opposite problem: much of the life style advice seems lame, but the metaphysics is fine (beliefmap.org again). Nietzsche seems right about the pale Christian vibe. So does Kierkegaard. Though both in different, and partly incompatible, ways. (N. wants you live epic Homeric life, unlike K. in his ideal of the admirable but non-epic Christian knight.) Once more, both N. and K. are wrong about the Christian metaphysics, they underestimate how smart and deep it is. Note that I dislike here, like they would, the current domesticated mediocre lifeless ugly dead-inside smothering (pseudo)Christian life "wisdom". Not the core Christian moral wisdom (the decalogue, classical forgiveness and charity, and the like; though Nietzsche often seems to dislike those too).
So I agree with you (and 2CB and BAP) that a merge of Nietzsche and Christianity might be promising. Maybe your forthcoming pt. 3 podcast on religion will help.
I have been waiting for a new podcast episode to come, and finally not just one episode I am getting- it's a three-part series! And for free?
My favorite section was the eschatology. Even though the later sections felt shorter, they were not lacking. Really amazing show and I await the next episode.
Always, have I seen ritualistic behavior as unavoidable. Thus, I strive for the noble ritual!
"Progressive society is negrolatrous, which means that they worship Africans. Consequently, and owing I think to the trace of Christianity in progressive society, it is forbidden to ever say the name of God."
To this day, the "sacred name" cannot be fully known, as the pious have gone through great lengths to obscure its written form and punish offenders who dare say it aloud. The true meaning, otherwise conveyed by a complete expression of the sacred name, is lost to the reader.
Instead, all we have are some the consonants with little clue as to the direction or rules of pronounciation: NGRH.
EDIT: I was a fool to think this idea wasn't already used in the description.
I read the original thread years ago and was profoundly impacted by it, but I think your revision of “evangelism” into “telos” has nearly perfected the framework--explanatory power has improved over phenomena like Mormons from Utah sending their kids to Brazil on missions, vs. Jewish to Catholic converts among Austro Hungarian nobles encouraging their kids to become musicians and philosophers, vs. Communists encouraging their young members to become trans/gay/hookers/ugly, even as the explicit “evangelistic” value of some of these behaviors is not immediately obvious. Very excited for the next episode!
On a parasocial note I think one of the reasons I identify so strongly with your work is that we apparently grew up under similar religious training, although my parents never changed denomination. “Online protestants” don’t really seem to exist, or at least not to the extent that e-Caths or Orthodox do, possibly because so many of us ended up atheists-favorable-to-religion or whatever I am. Again, excellent episode and can’t wait for the next one!
I loved the essay. I think humans all have an intrinsic religious instinct and that can be quite beneficial. The problem with religion is not the belief of people in something better or higher than us but the blind faith that most adherents seem to acquire. I believe that modernity has made it quite hard to believe in anything beyond the individual, and people who belong to religious groups seem to stick quite hard to the dogma and lack any of the real faith
Love the Chrono Trigger music intro and outro.
Very interesting episode dude
“In any case [both] the sacred cows could lose weight” KEK
Mfw I have an especially relevant meme and substack comments don't support images.
ಥ_ಥ
“If all women walked around bare breasted it seems likely that the breast would cease to titillate.”
Good sentence. Artful, even. Bad example tho.
It was hard to put aside my baked in beliefs but I think I did it enough that I was able to appreciate the essay
Yesssssssssss
Where does the need to "manage the unmanageable" fit in this framework? Arguably one of the earliest functions of religious practice was to try to control/appease/supplicate powerful aspects of the world that lie beyond our ordinary understanding. "Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it" is not a syllogism exclusive to politicians.
Religious schemes of the form
1. Sacrifice a chicken to the corn god
2. ???
3. Profit?
were ubiquitous among pre-moderns, and the motivation for spiritual rituals aimed at material ends doesn't seem map cleanly to any of these proposed categories. Inasmuch as it's about a practical application of the connections between the spiritual and material worlds, it's *closer* to 'gnosis', but the knowledge here need not be esoteric. I'll be glad to remind you that the more chickens we collectively sacrifice, the more pleased the corn god will be, and the psychological payoff for me reminding you of this isn't (mainly) from feelings of superiority for knowing something you don't, it's from relieving my anxiety about the corn god's taking our community's harvest away.
The modern's machine-world understanding obviously limits the scope of this religious motivation today, but it's too prominent in historical practice to ignore, and few moderns are completely beyond wishing for an accessible intercessor. Where does, say, prayer directed to a saint for the healing of a loved one fit into this model?
Funnily enough, seeing the vacuousness of ecstatic experiences means you got quite close to enlightenment. What might be missing:
1. You haven't seen the vacuousness of doubt and skepticism
2. You believe that whatever negative emotion you feel means you aren't enlightened (they are vacuous also).
3. Maybe you believe there is no such thing as enlightenment (kinda true).
Enlightenment is no peak state. It's just the realization that everything that goes on in your mind is the movie, but you are not the movie, you are the screen. Possibly you may have heard this before, and I know I did years ago but it didn't sink in at the time. That actually is all there is to get regarding enlightenment. For the mystically inclined, they think there is something more, and if they could see past the desire for something more, they would be enlightened.
For you, possibly you don't believe in enlightenment, but certainly you don't think your mind is perfect. Improvement is possible, and the way to get it is disappointment, as Chogyam Trungpa said.
Ordinary cognition is to be stuck vacillating between the positive and the negative, which is why ecstasies are not enough: they are unstable, they go away and you sink back down. They also can be dangerous, as they can lead to delusion and ego inflation if they don't go away. But enlightenment is grasping something that is neither positive nor negative: metaphysical Zero. Once understood, you realize it's always been there, and yet, it's different to be conscious of it. Negative emotion arises and then it just goes away to no effect, and this includes doubt. At that point you are free to enjoy the positive, but from a place of stability this time, not a place of need.
I actually did stop meditating upon enlightenment (technically I wasn't practicing when it happened, but there was a time I took it fairly seriously). It isn't fun, and there isn't anything more to get there, now that existence has become an epiphany. Not all the time, but often enough.
This is interesting and maybe relevant for pt 3.
"What would a disruptive idea of spirituality be for the 21st century? When I say disruptive idea, I'm talking about a thing that is so new and outside the framework of how we currently understand things, that although it takes little effort or investment to start, it has potential to overtake the entire playing field... I am not saying 'what would a new religion look like,' I'm saying what could a new understanding of religion or spirituality be in the data-driven infocracy that we live in today."
https://www.otherlife.co/signs94/?ref=other-life-newsletter
I misplaced this comment to pt 2 (I've just deleted it there), so here it goes again:
Sir, I wonder what you think about some allegedly intersubjective mystical experiences like some of those induced by the Buddhist fire kasina practice promoted, e.g., by D. Ingram.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW884GpnDvc
In the 1st ch. of https://firekasina.org/fire-kasina-book/ he claims people in deep concentration on kasina retreats can see what others visualize or manifest by will and without telling a word beforehand.
I know you posted some tweets about him.