“Guys, let me share something with you I am really excited about. I have been studying the bible pretty hard, including reading several translations of the original Hebrew in my quest to master the Core Teachings of Jesus, and putting these teachings into practice (and I have reached Nebula Level 4.2, so know what I am talking about). Based on my experiences, and extensive discussions with a variety of my priests, I have figured out the core practice that Lord Jesus taught, and I am going to break it down for you in a way that is easy to understand for a modern audience, in order that Jesus’s teachings can be spread onto the globe and help as many people as possible.
How might this be received differently on Less Wrong? Is Buddhism just hip right now?
b)
I do find this post useful though. “Insight” in some Buddhism practices is hard to explain, so this attempt is very welcome.
I am not a fan of the “random miswiring” metaphor. What is random about adaptive responses to stressors based on your genotype and lifetime experiences? Idiosyncratic, yes, but not random. But talking about efficiency makes more sense to me e.g. “’this type of circuit only needs 20 nand gates, why are there 60...”
Other authors in the somatic tradition have focused on physical tension as the key thing that gets unravelled in these practices—so circuits with too much activity. See for example, Will Johnson, who integrates Buddhism practices and Western Somatic practices, who talks about Sankharas here and relates it to Reich.
Also worth noting this aligns pretty well with SquirrelFromHells BeWellTuned
I think this is where the action is (and where more works needs to be done):
“This would require more speculation about somatic theories that don’t yet have a good evidence base. Subjectively, it feels like building up insights into particular kinds of linkages between physical sensations, feelings, and mental reactions causes areas of your backlog that are particularly heavy in those linkages to get some activation and thus be available to consciousness.”
I think it’s just that rationalists are not skeptics; we don’t automatically dismiss things because they sound “woo”. If Lord Jesus came up with a helpful mental technique, I’m all ears.
It think it’s a mistake to call someone who automatically either accepts or rejects an idea a skeptic. The core of classic skepticism is to accept that you don’t know. The fact that you have people who call themselves skeptics but who have a quite strong sense that they know the Truth (e.g. new atheists), doesn’t make them skeptics.
I expect this to be harder but still doable—Christianity is more of a central case of a “religion” than Judaism or Buddhism, so I expect the translation work to be more difficult. The essay someone else linked to on the idea of a Buddhism 2.0 oriented towards praxis instead of doctrine seems like it would be harder to do with Christianity, especially Protestant faith-oriented variants.
I do know a person for whom the trinity wasn’t just doctrine but for whom it was a mental model that had practical use in a discussion that wasn’t about Christianity.
It’s my impression that many Christian priests are as bad at theology as those people that romeostevensit calls mindlessness trainers in Buddhism. But it’s still very foreign mental territory for me.
a) Imagine a different post on LessWrong:
“Guys, let me share something with you I am really excited about. I have been studying the bible pretty hard, including reading several translations of the original Hebrew in my quest to master the Core Teachings of Jesus, and putting these teachings into practice (and I have reached Nebula Level 4.2, so know what I am talking about). Based on my experiences, and extensive discussions with a variety of my priests, I have figured out the core practice that Lord Jesus taught, and I am going to break it down for you in a way that is easy to understand for a modern audience, in order that Jesus’s teachings can be spread onto the globe and help as many people as possible.
How might this be received differently on Less Wrong? Is Buddhism just hip right now?
b) I do find this post useful though. “Insight” in some Buddhism practices is hard to explain, so this attempt is very welcome.
I am not a fan of the “random miswiring” metaphor. What is random about adaptive responses to stressors based on your genotype and lifetime experiences? Idiosyncratic, yes, but not random. But talking about efficiency makes more sense to me e.g. “’this type of circuit only needs 20 nand gates, why are there 60...”
Other authors in the somatic tradition have focused on physical tension as the key thing that gets unravelled in these practices—so circuits with too much activity. See for example, Will Johnson, who integrates Buddhism practices and Western Somatic practices, who talks about Sankharas here and relates it to Reich.
Also worth noting this aligns pretty well with SquirrelFromHells BeWellTuned
I think this is where the action is (and where more works needs to be done):
“This would require more speculation about somatic theories that don’t yet have a good evidence base. Subjectively, it feels like building up insights into particular kinds of linkages between physical sensations, feelings, and mental reactions causes areas of your backlog that are particularly heavy in those linkages to get some activation and thus be available to consciousness.”
I think it’s just that rationalists are not skeptics; we don’t automatically dismiss things because they sound “woo”. If Lord Jesus came up with a helpful mental technique, I’m all ears.
It think it’s a mistake to call someone who automatically either accepts or rejects an idea a skeptic. The core of classic skepticism is to accept that you don’t know. The fact that you have people who call themselves skeptics but who have a quite strong sense that they know the Truth (e.g. new atheists), doesn’t make them skeptics.
I don’t think Buddhisms hipness is the main point. Posts about the Jewish concept of the Sabbath have been well-received on LessWrong.
I don’t know very much about Christianity but I see no reason why someone shouldn’t be able to write an insightful post on core Christian concepts.
I expect this to be harder but still doable—Christianity is more of a central case of a “religion” than Judaism or Buddhism, so I expect the translation work to be more difficult. The essay someone else linked to on the idea of a Buddhism 2.0 oriented towards praxis instead of doctrine seems like it would be harder to do with Christianity, especially Protestant faith-oriented variants.
I do know a person for whom the trinity wasn’t just doctrine but for whom it was a mental model that had practical use in a discussion that wasn’t about Christianity.
It’s my impression that many Christian priests are as bad at theology as those people that romeostevensit calls mindlessness trainers in Buddhism. But it’s still very foreign mental territory for me.
Neat! Could you elaborate on what the person in question “used” the idea of the Trinity for?
Not really. It was a complex conversation which a lot of concepts that would be foreign to most people here. Also, it was five years ago ;)
a better word than random might have been arbitrary. i.e. predicated on causes and conditions that have little to do with the heuristics you endorse.
Appreciate the feedback and the links!