"You see this goblet?" asks Achaan Chaa, the Thai meditation master.
"For me this glass is already broken. I enjoy it; I drink out of it.
It holds my water admirably, sometimes even reflecting the sun in
beautiful patterns. If I should tap it, it has a lovely ring to it.
But when I put this glass on the shelf and the wind knocks it over
or my elbow brushes it off the table and it falls to the ground and
shatters, I say, ‘Of course.’
When I understand that the glass is already broken,
every moment with it is precious."
Oh, come on, folks. The DFW piece is ignorant whining. Some problems:
1. The great many people who live "unexamined lives" tend to be much happier: conservatives are happier than liberals, people in the Midwest are happier than people on the coasts, etc.
2. The default settings are really, really good. You should be extremely skeptical whenever anybody tries to sell you that everyone is born "wrong" and needs to be "fixed" (circumcision, original sin, chiropractic adjustments for all children, etc.). (Vaccination and water fluoridation are the only exceptions I know of, and those are supported by actual science.)
3. Same with anyone saying, "If you don't do this one thing, your whole life is going to be HORRRRRRIBLE!!!"
4. Standard religions most certainly do eat people alive: the people who desperately obsess about them the way his (mostly imaginary) targets obsess about money, power, etc.
5. The real message of the article is the style, and what it says, sentence after sentence, is: "The older, wiser fish knows that life is crap, crap, crap, crap, crap, crap, crap, crap, crap, crap. And BTW, you know I'm the older, wiser fish, because I'm such a soul-sapping drag. Oh, and BTW, I'm the older, wiser fish, and you're not, and if you can't see that, that only proves what a naïve little twit you are. One day, all you goddamned self-centered little successful optimistic goddamned twits will all be sorry!!!"
> or that the Hummer that just cut me off is maybe being driven by a father whose little child is hurt or sick in the seat next to him, and he's trying to rush to the hospital,
Yes, you can choose what your mind does, but this is simply playing make-believe. No self-respecting mind is going to eat this for more then 10 minutes. Changing your thinking works, but it has to be a bit more subtle (and complicated) then this.
One of the reasons I gave up blogging is that it caused me to use up topics that deserved more work on little, quickly written blog posts. That's why I wasn't in a hurry to republish this.
God damn ... I remember reading that piece years ago and thinking to myself, "Man, DFW really knows what's up. Deep down, he's really got it together. There's a lot of fucked up shit in this world, and he's looked at it head on, and come to grips with it, and has the bravery and strength to move on."
And then he killed himself. The world is such a strange place.
Graham's Razor: If you have to choose between two theories, prefer the one that doesn't center on you.. (With apologies to Mr. Occam.)
BTW, I think the last line might be better phrased as "See indifference." The ubiquity of causation requires that much/most of the word isn't random. It just doesn't give a damn about us. "Seeing indifference", and how to get past it, is probably also a good starting point for new businesses pondering their marketing plan.
I love the tension between these two ideas. The universe must be organized in a way that supports your existence, because, well, you exist. But your existence is just a fluke, made possible by the fact that the universe is what it is. The universe wasn't created for your convenience.
It's probably not a coincidence that Mr. Graham revisited this essay after having his first child; there's nothing quite like parenthood for ejecting you from the center of your own universe.
"They have a saying in Chicago Mr. Bond "Once is
happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's
enemy action." Auric Goldfinger to James Bond in Ian
Fleming's "Goldfinger"
I think people who pursue startups see the world as revolving around them.
In any case, I would like to know about tech examples of this:
So if you want to discover things that have been overlooked till now, one really good place to look is in our blind spot: in our natural, naive belief that it's all about us. And expect to encounter ferocious opposition if you do.
No, it turns out, we're not even the protagonists: we're just the latest model vehicle our genes have constructed to travel around in.
PG: Did you write this on etherpad? Can you share that link? I wanted to get a look at how this essay was shaped, specifically the above mentioned sentence. Thanks!
For me, Dawkins had a similar effect but on a different topic. I'm younger than pg, so maybe I grew up with the idea that we are just another species on its way.
What I did get snapped into was understanding 2 things about evolution by natural selection:
1) It is an abstract principle. It exists very comfortably outside of genetics or even biology in a very similar way to numbers existing outside of apples and oranges.
2) It is creation. That is, it has abilities so similar to what we call creativity that it can very plausibly be called creativity.
Just defining and demonstrating memes along with his description of some classroom experiment drawing boats brought those two things home. After that, I got why biologists are so in love with evolution.
Biology happens to utilise this powerful principle. Happens to. There may be many such powerful principles out there without a flagship product. Undiscovered.
More recommendations of books that can change our thinking, please...
In the tradition of Darwin and Dawkins, I heartily recommend Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Pinker's always worth reading, and for me this is his best. Broader and deeper than his more linguistic work.
Following along the Dawkins theme from the essay: Dennett (Freedom Evolves, or others) takes the implications very far. I suppose there's nothing that will cause a little mental revolution, but it's definitely "consciousness raising".
I think your question actually demonstrates a principle behind this essay. Paradigm shifts come from discarding assumptions. Often, this is embodied as correcting the question instead of the answer.
To me, the most convincing atheist argument has always been some variation of Russell's teapot.
Accepting Russell's argument (which I think is very hard not to without challenging knowledge generally) you cease to ask that question. Just because religion happens to usually come before atheism doesn't mean that atheism needs to prove itself. The burden of proof is on the theist because of the nature of the claim.
There is no need to prove that gods do not exist to be an atheist.
Who said "proved"? If you change the question to "So there's good reason to think the human race wasn't created by God in his image as described in the book of Genesis?", though, I'm sure PG would be happy to answer yes.
The reality is quite the opposite. The history of ides is not a history of gradually discarding the assumption that it's all about us - rather, it's a history of building up and defending the assumption that it's all about us. Why? Because if there is no God, there is no ultimate being which we are accountable to. Although evolution doesn't have to lead to the conclusion that there is no God, we happily assume it does---because then we can all be our own gods, making up our own rules. Sure, we might not think the sun revolves around our world any more, but we are selfish in many many other (more subtle) ways.
Thats not really accurate. There is a difference between believing its "all about us" and believing "we can do whatever we want." They are in many ways counter to each other.
If what we do doesn't have any meaning (i.e. if no one is watching) then we might as well do anything we want. By discarding the idea of god, its true that we do tend to place ourselves as the highest beings in existence, but that doesn't mean we put ourselves at the center, we just discard the idea that there is a center.
> Although evolution doesn't have to lead to the conclusion that there is no God, we happily assume it does---because then we can all be our own gods, making up our own rules.
That's insulting, and (more importantly) it doesn't seem to have any factual backing. Got evidence? Because I don't know a single formerly-religious-person for whom that sort of thing was even a consideration.
And come on, everybody makes up their moral rules or inherits them from their community, or usually some combination of both. Some of them attribute the results to God, but the difference is minimal.
When something bad happens most of the times its the situation/randomness that is the cause, when something good happens most of the time it is caused by a person.
Humans are the vehicles of anti-randomness, we make patterns.
Conversely, if you have to choose between two theories, prefer the one that doesn't center on you.
This is exactly my primary article of faith in life. (By faith I mean the stuff I fill the missing gaps in my knowledge with in order to make actionable decisions.)
Nay:
See randomness.
1. I'm not sure what this even means. How does one learn to see randomness and just what are they seeing when they see it?
2. It's not the positive version of "stop inserting yourself in the chain of causality". (Is there even a positive way to say "stop doing that thing you're doing"?)
"See randomness" has been a favorite proverb of mine ever since I read it. I also tend to use it when evaluating systems / situations from a risk management perspective (eg. raising kids).
While this makes perfect sense from an intellectual standpoint, pragmatically speaking it won't help you much in day to day life.
Self-centrism, while no doubt obstructive in the search for a cure to cancer can be quite useful when say, asking for a raise or deciding whether to ask that girl out.
I find it quite useful, when unsure about something, to assume the option that is most beneficial to you.
This positive self-centrism could also come in quite handy when starting a startup.
So - if evolution does not have a purpose - let's make it our mission, as human beings, to seek for truth in life and for life in a world more resilient to the randomness of the universe.
[+] [-] nreece|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unalone|16 years ago|reply
Thank you very much for posting.
[+] [-] look_lookatme|16 years ago|reply
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178211966454607.html
[+] [-] bkovitz|16 years ago|reply
1. The great many people who live "unexamined lives" tend to be much happier: conservatives are happier than liberals, people in the Midwest are happier than people on the coasts, etc.
2. The default settings are really, really good. You should be extremely skeptical whenever anybody tries to sell you that everyone is born "wrong" and needs to be "fixed" (circumcision, original sin, chiropractic adjustments for all children, etc.). (Vaccination and water fluoridation are the only exceptions I know of, and those are supported by actual science.)
3. Same with anyone saying, "If you don't do this one thing, your whole life is going to be HORRRRRRIBLE!!!"
4. Standard religions most certainly do eat people alive: the people who desperately obsess about them the way his (mostly imaginary) targets obsess about money, power, etc.
5. The real message of the article is the style, and what it says, sentence after sentence, is: "The older, wiser fish knows that life is crap, crap, crap, crap, crap, crap, crap, crap, crap, crap. And BTW, you know I'm the older, wiser fish, because I'm such a soul-sapping drag. Oh, and BTW, I'm the older, wiser fish, and you're not, and if you can't see that, that only proves what a naïve little twit you are. One day, all you goddamned self-centered little successful optimistic goddamned twits will all be sorry!!!"
[+] [-] radu_floricica|16 years ago|reply
Yes, you can choose what your mind does, but this is simply playing make-believe. No self-respecting mind is going to eat this for more then 10 minutes. Changing your thinking works, but it has to be a bit more subtle (and complicated) then this.
I really liked this: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/minsky07/minsky07_index.html
[+] [-] pg|16 years ago|reply
One of the reasons I gave up blogging is that it caused me to use up topics that deserved more work on little, quickly written blog posts. That's why I wasn't in a hurry to republish this.
[+] [-] thunk|16 years ago|reply
And then he killed himself. The world is such a strange place.
[+] [-] caffeine|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nazgulnarsil|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miked|16 years ago|reply
BTW, I think the last line might be better phrased as "See indifference." The ubiquity of causation requires that much/most of the word isn't random. It just doesn't give a damn about us. "Seeing indifference", and how to get past it, is probably also a good starting point for new businesses pondering their marketing plan.
[+] [-] cwp|16 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle
and "See yourself"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
I love the tension between these two ideas. The universe must be organized in a way that supports your existence, because, well, you exist. But your existence is just a fluke, made possible by the fact that the universe is what it is. The universe wasn't created for your convenience.
[+] [-] projectileboy|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pg|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sovande|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] idlewords|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thunk|16 years ago|reply
Try not to examine it too closely without proper guidance, though: it's a little more than just fuzzy.
[+] [-] gruseom|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anc2020|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] palsecam|16 years ago|reply
It is said to be Napoléon Bonaparte.
> ...but it is a powerful idea.
Yes anyway, this is what matters and this is "true".
[+] [-] skmurphy|16 years ago|reply
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] amichail|16 years ago|reply
In any case, I would like to know about tech examples of this:
So if you want to discover things that have been overlooked till now, one really good place to look is in our blind spot: in our natural, naive belief that it's all about us. And expect to encounter ferocious opposition if you do.
[+] [-] prakash|16 years ago|reply
PG: Did you write this on etherpad? Can you share that link? I wanted to get a look at how this essay was shaped, specifically the above mentioned sentence. Thanks!
[+] [-] hrishi|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pg|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kirubakaran|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] netsp|16 years ago|reply
What I did get snapped into was understanding 2 things about evolution by natural selection:
1) It is an abstract principle. It exists very comfortably outside of genetics or even biology in a very similar way to numbers existing outside of apples and oranges.
2) It is creation. That is, it has abilities so similar to what we call creativity that it can very plausibly be called creativity.
Just defining and demonstrating memes along with his description of some classroom experiment drawing boats brought those two things home. After that, I got why biologists are so in love with evolution.
Biology happens to utilise this powerful principle. Happens to. There may be many such powerful principles out there without a flagship product. Undiscovered.
[+] [-] miked|16 years ago|reply
In the tradition of Darwin and Dawkins, I heartily recommend Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Pinker's always worth reading, and for me this is his best. Broader and deeper than his more linguistic work.
[+] [-] igorhvr|16 years ago|reply
( http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4363 )
That book truly changed the way I lived and the way I thought.
[+] [-] fburnaby|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cschep|16 years ago|reply
I'm not convinced.
[+] [-] netsp|16 years ago|reply
To me, the most convincing atheist argument has always been some variation of Russell's teapot.
Accepting Russell's argument (which I think is very hard not to without challenging knowledge generally) you cease to ask that question. Just because religion happens to usually come before atheism doesn't mean that atheism needs to prove itself. The burden of proof is on the theist because of the nature of the claim.
There is no need to prove that gods do not exist to be an atheist.
[+] [-] gjm11|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andreyf|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] col16|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roundsquare|16 years ago|reply
If what we do doesn't have any meaning (i.e. if no one is watching) then we might as well do anything we want. By discarding the idea of god, its true that we do tend to place ourselves as the highest beings in existence, but that doesn't mean we put ourselves at the center, we just discard the idea that there is a center.
[+] [-] sketerpot|16 years ago|reply
That's insulting, and (more importantly) it doesn't seem to have any factual backing. Got evidence? Because I don't know a single formerly-religious-person for whom that sort of thing was even a consideration.
And come on, everybody makes up their moral rules or inherits them from their community, or usually some combination of both. Some of them attribute the results to God, but the difference is minimal.
[+] [-] bluishgreen|16 years ago|reply
Humans are the vehicles of anti-randomness, we make patterns.
[+] [-] davidmathers|16 years ago|reply
Yay:
Conversely, if you have to choose between two theories, prefer the one that doesn't center on you.
This is exactly my primary article of faith in life. (By faith I mean the stuff I fill the missing gaps in my knowledge with in order to make actionable decisions.)
Nay:
See randomness.
1. I'm not sure what this even means. How does one learn to see randomness and just what are they seeing when they see it?
2. It's not the positive version of "stop inserting yourself in the chain of causality". (Is there even a positive way to say "stop doing that thing you're doing"?)
I say pick b.
b is not random. It's just not about you.
[+] [-] pg|16 years ago|reply
I meant you should actively seek out ways in which you're seeing patterns where there aren't any.
[+] [-] rgrieselhuber|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulodeon|16 years ago|reply
Self-centrism, while no doubt obstructive in the search for a cure to cancer can be quite useful when say, asking for a raise or deciding whether to ask that girl out.
I find it quite useful, when unsure about something, to assume the option that is most beneficial to you.
This positive self-centrism could also come in quite handy when starting a startup.
[+] [-] mwerty|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arijo|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ibsulon|16 years ago|reply