Dudeism? What in the world are they blathering about?
It turns out Dudeism is a thing. Wikipedia summarizes it best:
The Dudeist belief system is essentially a modernized form of Taoism purged of all of its metaphysical and medical doctrines. Dudeism advocates and encourages the practice of “going with the flow”, “being cool headed”, and “taking it easy” in the face of life’s difficulties, believing that this is the only way to live in harmony with our inner nature and the challenges of interacting with other people. It also aims to assuage feelings of inadequacy that arise in societies which place a heavy emphasis on achievement and personal fortune. Consequently, simple everyday pleasures like bathing, bowling, and hanging out with friends are seen as far preferable to the accumulation of wealth and the spending of money as a means to achieve happiness and spiritual fulfillment.
I thought it’d be worth bringing to attention here, because if there’s one adjective that would not apply to the online LW community, it’s “laid back”. Note that many of us are lazy, but we struggle with laziness, we keep looking for self-help and trying to figure out our motivation systems and trying so hard to achieve. Other urges and “sufferings” we struggle with are the need to fit in, the need to make sense of the world, the need to be perfectly clear in thought and expression (and the need to demand that of others), and so on and so forth.
How much could we benefit from being more laid-back, from openly and deliberately saying “fuck it”? From doing what we actually want to do without regard for what’s expected of us?
The thoughts on this post aren’t very well-articulated, and perhaps I’m misjudging LW completely, but, um, you know, that’s just, like, uh, my opinion, man. Obviously, it’s open for debate; that’s what we’re here for, yes?
I thought it’d be worth bringing to attention here, because if there’s one adjective that would not apply to the online LW community, it’s “laid back”.
Hmm. I have pretty strong Daoist / Stoic tendencies, and a large part of that deals with rejection of “should-ness;” that is, things are as they are, and carrying around a view of how the world “should” be that disagrees with the actual world is, on net, harmful.
I’ve gotten some pushback from LWers on that view, as they use the delta between their should-world and their is-world to motivate themselves to act. As far as I can tell, that isn’t necessary; one can be motivated by the is-world directly, and if one reasons in the is-world one is more likely to make successful plans than if one reasons in the should-world (which is where one will reason, since diffs between the should-world and is-world are defects!).
But I think that LW is useful at dissolving that pushback; the practice of cashing out beliefs as predictions about the world rather than tribal identifications or moral claims is basically the practice of living in the is-world instead of the should-world.
diffs between the should-world and is-world are defects
My understanding is that defects are like speed-bumps and potholes, pieces where the harmonious flow of reality is interrupted, dissonances and irregularities. Going with the flow and being in harmony with the world requires more sensitivity, training, and awareness than simply letting oneself get carried by the current. It’s the difference between ‘surfing’ waves, and ‘getting engulfed’ by them, yes?
How much could we benefit from being more laid-back, from openly and deliberately saying “fuck it”? From doing what we actually want to do without regard for what’s expected of us?
I would say substantially. LW largely seems to advocate for preference utilitarianism, whereas EA and animal rights subsets of the group often come suspiciously close to deontological “whatever you do care about, here is what you should care about”. As a matter of fact, the whole advocacy for consistency in ethics (e.g. “shut up and multiply”) can backfire since System 1′s values are not necessarily consistent. I’m not suggesting giving up on these attempts, but I guess that many people would benefit from being able to listen to System 1′s voice saying “I want to invent a lightsaber” without having System 2 immediately scream “but people in Africa are suffering, and you’re just being scope insensitive”.
Well, sorting out system 1′s inconsistencies can help one feel happier and more at peace with oneself. You can’t achieve serenity just by giving in to all your impulses, because they contradict each other.
Sure, and I found that incredibly useful in my life as well—particularly, it helps to stop feeling bad about what’s considered morally questionable, but doesn’t in fact hurt anybody. But some people may go way over the top on that, and it may be useful to throttle down as well.
Nah, he’s no hero, he’s just a selfish man. But, of all the characters, he is the only one who is honest about doing nothing, while every other character on the film (and many, many people in Real Life) go to great lengths to sustain the illusion of activity and productiveness.
That doesn’t make him any better, he’s just failing in a different way. Nul points.
(and many, many people in Real Life) go to great lengths to sustain the illusion of activity and productiveness.
And then, some people are active and productive. I don’t know the film, but from your description of it, it’s about a bunch of losers, in a fictional world from which every other possibility is excluded. Why should I take notice of anything in it?
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?
and Matthew 6:34:
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
Jesus and the early Christians were all about proselytising, sacrifice, and martyrdom. The Dude is about none of those things. He doesn’t try and persuade others to become Dude-like, and he doesn’t stand up for what he believes in—if he believes in anything. The Dude isn’t a preacher, he’s a bowler. He’s all about going with the flow, in his own little way.
All true, my comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek :-) The early Christians tended to be awfully serious fellows. That quote from Matthew, though, was popular in the California hippy scene much, much later :-D
The pre-ecclesiastical Jesus of Nazareth is referenced as a Dude avant-la-lettre (as are Sidhartha, Laozi, Epicurus, Heraclitus, and other counter-culturals that gained a cult following). Not to be confused with Jesus of North Hollywood, who is the opposite of a Dude.
I thought it’d be worth bringing to attention here, because if there’s one adjective that would not apply to the online LW community, it’s “laid back”. Note that many of us are lazy, but we struggle with laziness, we keep looking for self-help and trying to figure out our motivation systems and trying so hard to achieve. Other urges and “sufferings” we struggle with are the need to fit in, the need to make sense of the world, the need to be perfectly clear in thought and expression (and the need to demand that of others), and so on and so forth.
QFT
I could speculate why this is the way it is but that would be too much work to type up.
Dudeism? What in the world are they blathering about?
It turns out Dudeism is a thing. Wikipedia summarizes it best:
I thought it’d be worth bringing to attention here, because if there’s one adjective that would not apply to the online LW community, it’s “laid back”. Note that many of us are lazy, but we struggle with laziness, we keep looking for self-help and trying to figure out our motivation systems and trying so hard to achieve. Other urges and “sufferings” we struggle with are the need to fit in, the need to make sense of the world, the need to be perfectly clear in thought and expression (and the need to demand that of others), and so on and so forth.
How much could we benefit from being more laid-back, from openly and deliberately saying “fuck it”? From doing what we actually want to do without regard for what’s expected of us?
The thoughts on this post aren’t very well-articulated, and perhaps I’m misjudging LW completely, but, um, you know, that’s just, like, uh, my opinion, man. Obviously, it’s open for debate; that’s what we’re here for, yes?
Hmm. I have pretty strong Daoist / Stoic tendencies, and a large part of that deals with rejection of “should-ness;” that is, things are as they are, and carrying around a view of how the world “should” be that disagrees with the actual world is, on net, harmful.
I’ve gotten some pushback from LWers on that view, as they use the delta between their should-world and their is-world to motivate themselves to act. As far as I can tell, that isn’t necessary; one can be motivated by the is-world directly, and if one reasons in the is-world one is more likely to make successful plans than if one reasons in the should-world (which is where one will reason, since diffs between the should-world and is-world are defects!).
But I think that LW is useful at dissolving that pushback; the practice of cashing out beliefs as predictions about the world rather than tribal identifications or moral claims is basically the practice of living in the is-world instead of the should-world.
My understanding is that defects are like speed-bumps and potholes, pieces where the harmonious flow of reality is interrupted, dissonances and irregularities. Going with the flow and being in harmony with the world requires more sensitivity, training, and awareness than simply letting oneself get carried by the current. It’s the difference between ‘surfing’ waves, and ‘getting engulfed’ by them, yes?
I would say substantially. LW largely seems to advocate for preference utilitarianism, whereas EA and animal rights subsets of the group often come suspiciously close to deontological “whatever you do care about, here is what you should care about”. As a matter of fact, the whole advocacy for consistency in ethics (e.g. “shut up and multiply”) can backfire since System 1′s values are not necessarily consistent. I’m not suggesting giving up on these attempts, but I guess that many people would benefit from being able to listen to System 1′s voice saying “I want to invent a lightsaber” without having System 2 immediately scream “but people in Africa are suffering, and you’re just being scope insensitive”.
Well, sorting out system 1′s inconsistencies can help one feel happier and more at peace with oneself. You can’t achieve serenity just by giving in to all your impulses, because they contradict each other.
Sure, and I found that incredibly useful in my life as well—particularly, it helps to stop feeling bad about what’s considered morally questionable, but doesn’t in fact hurt anybody. But some people may go way over the top on that, and it may be useful to throttle down as well.
I think the steelman of “The Dude” is that you shouldn’t run your mind like a police state, it’s cutting against the grain.
But “The Dude” is kinda “trampy,” for lack of a better word, I don’t think he’s a diamond in the rough or anything like that.
Nah, he’s no hero, he’s just a selfish man. But, of all the characters, he is the only one who is honest about doing nothing, while every other character on the film (and many, many people in Real Life) go to great lengths to sustain the illusion of activity and productiveness.
That doesn’t make him any better, he’s just failing in a different way. Nul points.
And then, some people are active and productive. I don’t know the film, but from your description of it, it’s about a bunch of losers, in a fictional world from which every other possibility is excluded. Why should I take notice of anything in it?
Because there’s a grain of truth in it that extends far beyond its admittedly limited scope.
I prefer larger doses.
Raymond Smullyan’s The Tao is Silent is possibly relevant.
There is, well, y’know, early Christianity… :-)
Matthew 6:25-27:
and Matthew 6:34:
Jesus and the early Christians were all about proselytising, sacrifice, and martyrdom. The Dude is about none of those things. He doesn’t try and persuade others to become Dude-like, and he doesn’t stand up for what he believes in—if he believes in anything. The Dude isn’t a preacher, he’s a bowler. He’s all about going with the flow, in his own little way.
All true, my comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek :-) The early Christians tended to be awfully serious fellows. That quote from Matthew, though, was popular in the California hippy scene much, much later :-D
The pre-ecclesiastical Jesus of Nazareth is referenced as a Dude avant-la-lettre (as are Sidhartha, Laozi, Epicurus, Heraclitus, and other counter-culturals that gained a cult following). Not to be confused with Jesus of North Hollywood, who is the opposite of a Dude.
Also, again with the smileying. :-(
Chill, dude :-P
The Dude abides… {B{í=
QFT
I could speculate why this is the way it is but that would be too much work to type up.