Hrm… Interesting, though having read this I find myself actually a bit scared of such states.
What I mean is this: I have this vague suspicion from reading Crowley’s essay that it basically all these exercises, among other things, effectively hack both our goal systems and the part of ourselves that, well, keeps track of what’s “us” vs something else. While messing with that a bit may be a potentially interesting experience, I’m not sure it’d be a good idea to end up in a state where some earlier selected arbitrary object is then identified with me… That is, to the point that I think of that object as myself just as much as, well, any other part of me.
There are some real risks, but also some sources of tremendous fear that turn out to be illusory. Here I’m not talking about fear like “I imagine something bad” but fear as in “I was paralyzed by heartstopping terror and couldn’t go on”.
The most fundamental point is that our bodies have layers and layers of homeostasis and self-organizing that act as safety nets. “You” don’t have to hold yourself together or make sure you identify with your own body—that’s automatic. You probably could identify yourself as a hamburger with the right meditation techniques or drugs, but it wouldn’t last. The lower levels would kick in and re-establish your survival oriented awareness of your body, etc.
On the other hand, undermining the stable mental organization we all identify as “me” produces extreme terror and disorientation. Henk Barendregt describes this in more detail than Crowley, with less rhetorical decoration. Again, however, the self-organizing processes in the body and brain regenerate some locally stable sense of “me” even if the previous “me” is completely disrupted. Apparently we can’t function without some temporarily stable “me”, but with enough practice we get used to dissolving the current “me” and letting a new one form.
The real risks from drugs are probably greater than the real risks from meditation, just because drugs can get you into states without developing commensurate skills and self-perceptions, so you may have a harder time regrouping. Persistent problems aren’t due to e.g. identifying with arbitrary outside objects, but rather getting into some internal more or less stable state. Paranoia is an example of the kind of state I mean, but too vague to be really useful for analysis. Unfortunately I don’t know of any good vocabulary for analyzing the set of states that are possible.
My sense is that getting “stuck” in in an inconvenient state via meditation is extremely rare. Much more common is that this sort of discipline expands the range of states accessible.
What I’m saying is that I’m not sure this doesn’t amount to, well, hacking my goal system in a bad way, in a way I ought to be rationally terrified of.
And I think actually ending up in a state where I think of such and such random object as “actually me”, is itself perhaps a bad thing unless it’s brief or I can remember and act on the knowledge that it’s not.
ie, if I was uploaded, and a convenient little interface was handed to me that let me click a button to twiddle what amounts to the pleasure centers in my brain, I’d want to do the equivalent of run away screaming rather than try it once.
Because once is enough to start poking and prodding at the reinforcement mechanisms/goal system of my brain, etc etc...
ie, now it’s not all that obvious to me that these states don’t amount to a crude form of “hacking my own mind into a limited wirehead state”
Which, of course, once it happens, will be in such a way that it would also trigger the stuff that gives a sense of satisfaction of “job well done”, thus I’ll end up believing it to be noble, wonderful, etc etc etc...
This is the nature of my concern. Perhaps it’s silly, but having read Crowley’s essay, that’s kinda an impression I’m getting about these mental states. Basically, a severe hack that alters my goal system in ways that my current goal system may even be absolutely horrified at if I really understood what was going on.
Maybe I’m completely wrong, though, my fears unfounded.
Actually, something I’d be interested in is hearing from rationalists, especially some here, who have actually experienced these states. Not just “meditated and tried to reach these states”, but actually got there or been in those states.
I understand there’re a bunch of low level “safety nets” built into us, that makes sense. But also, that may be why these techniques/training is so difficult. Because we’re subverting those bits of ourselves. I’m interested in self observing, etc etc...
It might be useful to think about the simple fact that if you’re a hunter of small game, you’re probably going to spend an awful lot of time sitting around staring at things, and that maybe evolution has a good reason for wanting it to feel good… not to mention developing your ability to concentrate, if your hunting pattern requires such concentration. What’s more, it’s a kind of exercise that humans haven’t gotten much of since we switched to agriculture.
Note, too, that it’s only since we’ve had agriculture that we started having religions offering salvation and release from suffering… maybe there’s a connection there.
Interesting observation. It is hard to find an in-depth article in Google Scholar on the idea that meditation or similar practices evolved to help us deal with stress and hone concentration. A recent study showed that nuns and monks who prayed or meditate showed increased activity in the parts of the brain implicated in analytical thinking and stress management.
My question is are these simply tricks we learned to deal with stress, or were they are part of human evolution to help cope with stress?
I cannot believe on a site supposedly devoted to rationality, you appear to be seriously discussing the English occultist, Qabalist, heroin addict, and “ceremonial sex magician.” Are you seriously suggesting we begin reading Tarot cards, and invoking angels with Egyptian names with “magic wands?” Forgive me, but Yvain, are you recruiting for the OTO here? This is crazy talk. I mean, seriously deranged. You are NOT accurately describing who Crowley was or what he believed.
I cannot believe in a comment supposedly devoted to rationality, you appear to be seriously dismissing someone based on the fact that they fact that they took drugs. Are you seriously suggesting we never look for any ideas that don’t originate in whatever in-group we’ve declared ourselves a part of? Forgive me, but crazytalk, are you recruiting for Evangelical Christians here? This is crazytalk. I mean, seriously reading a lot into one reference to a pretty reasonable essay. You are NOT accurately describing what Yvain said or what he advocates.
I suggest loql you read Liber 777 for yourself and then tell me how rational Crowley was. Clearly none of you have a real clue who he was or what he wrote. He was a first-class crackpot. Downvote me all you want, but that just says more about how off-base LW has become.
I’ve read a couple of his things and I know how insane he can be. I freely admit that he was an utter raving loony. I just happen to think this particular essay offers a plausible explanation of religious experience. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Have you read the essay? Do you disagree with it? Would you have objected to it if I’d published it under my own name?
Downvote me all you want, but that just says more about how off-base LW has become.
“Downvote me all you want” is just always a faux pas. “This place has gone way downhill” is rarely worth saying anywhere, and is additionally silly in so new a community as LW. I agree with you about Crowley (who I learned about due to sharing a surname with him) but please don’t reach for these cliches.
Hrm… Interesting, though having read this I find myself actually a bit scared of such states.
What I mean is this: I have this vague suspicion from reading Crowley’s essay that it basically all these exercises, among other things, effectively hack both our goal systems and the part of ourselves that, well, keeps track of what’s “us” vs something else. While messing with that a bit may be a potentially interesting experience, I’m not sure it’d be a good idea to end up in a state where some earlier selected arbitrary object is then identified with me… That is, to the point that I think of that object as myself just as much as, well, any other part of me.
Or maybe I’m being stupid here?
There are some real risks, but also some sources of tremendous fear that turn out to be illusory. Here I’m not talking about fear like “I imagine something bad” but fear as in “I was paralyzed by heartstopping terror and couldn’t go on”.
The most fundamental point is that our bodies have layers and layers of homeostasis and self-organizing that act as safety nets. “You” don’t have to hold yourself together or make sure you identify with your own body—that’s automatic. You probably could identify yourself as a hamburger with the right meditation techniques or drugs, but it wouldn’t last. The lower levels would kick in and re-establish your survival oriented awareness of your body, etc.
On the other hand, undermining the stable mental organization we all identify as “me” produces extreme terror and disorientation. Henk Barendregt describes this in more detail than Crowley, with less rhetorical decoration. Again, however, the self-organizing processes in the body and brain regenerate some locally stable sense of “me” even if the previous “me” is completely disrupted. Apparently we can’t function without some temporarily stable “me”, but with enough practice we get used to dissolving the current “me” and letting a new one form.
The real risks from drugs are probably greater than the real risks from meditation, just because drugs can get you into states without developing commensurate skills and self-perceptions, so you may have a harder time regrouping. Persistent problems aren’t due to e.g. identifying with arbitrary outside objects, but rather getting into some internal more or less stable state. Paranoia is an example of the kind of state I mean, but too vague to be really useful for analysis. Unfortunately I don’t know of any good vocabulary for analyzing the set of states that are possible.
My sense is that getting “stuck” in in an inconvenient state via meditation is extremely rare. Much more common is that this sort of discipline expands the range of states accessible.
What I’m saying is that I’m not sure this doesn’t amount to, well, hacking my goal system in a bad way, in a way I ought to be rationally terrified of.
And I think actually ending up in a state where I think of such and such random object as “actually me”, is itself perhaps a bad thing unless it’s brief or I can remember and act on the knowledge that it’s not.
ie, if I was uploaded, and a convenient little interface was handed to me that let me click a button to twiddle what amounts to the pleasure centers in my brain, I’d want to do the equivalent of run away screaming rather than try it once.
Because once is enough to start poking and prodding at the reinforcement mechanisms/goal system of my brain, etc etc...
ie, now it’s not all that obvious to me that these states don’t amount to a crude form of “hacking my own mind into a limited wirehead state”
Which, of course, once it happens, will be in such a way that it would also trigger the stuff that gives a sense of satisfaction of “job well done”, thus I’ll end up believing it to be noble, wonderful, etc etc etc...
This is the nature of my concern. Perhaps it’s silly, but having read Crowley’s essay, that’s kinda an impression I’m getting about these mental states. Basically, a severe hack that alters my goal system in ways that my current goal system may even be absolutely horrified at if I really understood what was going on.
Maybe I’m completely wrong, though, my fears unfounded.
Actually, something I’d be interested in is hearing from rationalists, especially some here, who have actually experienced these states. Not just “meditated and tried to reach these states”, but actually got there or been in those states.
I understand there’re a bunch of low level “safety nets” built into us, that makes sense. But also, that may be why these techniques/training is so difficult. Because we’re subverting those bits of ourselves. I’m interested in self observing, etc etc...
It might be useful to think about the simple fact that if you’re a hunter of small game, you’re probably going to spend an awful lot of time sitting around staring at things, and that maybe evolution has a good reason for wanting it to feel good… not to mention developing your ability to concentrate, if your hunting pattern requires such concentration. What’s more, it’s a kind of exercise that humans haven’t gotten much of since we switched to agriculture.
Note, too, that it’s only since we’ve had agriculture that we started having religions offering salvation and release from suffering… maybe there’s a connection there.
Hrm, that’s a point, though I suspect even in our hunter gatherer days, we didn’t push ourselves to the extent these practices do.
But still, you do have a point.
Interesting observation. It is hard to find an in-depth article in Google Scholar on the idea that meditation or similar practices evolved to help us deal with stress and hone concentration. A recent study showed that nuns and monks who prayed or meditate showed increased activity in the parts of the brain implicated in analytical thinking and stress management.
My question is are these simply tricks we learned to deal with stress, or were they are part of human evolution to help cope with stress?
http://intro2psych.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/and-this-is-your-brain-on-prayers/
I cannot believe on a site supposedly devoted to rationality, you appear to be seriously discussing the English occultist, Qabalist, heroin addict, and “ceremonial sex magician.” Are you seriously suggesting we begin reading Tarot cards, and invoking angels with Egyptian names with “magic wands?” Forgive me, but Yvain, are you recruiting for the OTO here? This is crazy talk. I mean, seriously deranged. You are NOT accurately describing who Crowley was or what he believed.
I cannot believe in a comment supposedly devoted to rationality, you appear to be seriously dismissing someone based on the fact that they fact that they took drugs. Are you seriously suggesting we never look for any ideas that don’t originate in whatever in-group we’ve declared ourselves a part of? Forgive me, but crazytalk, are you recruiting for Evangelical Christians here? This is crazytalk. I mean, seriously reading a lot into one reference to a pretty reasonable essay. You are NOT accurately describing what Yvain said or what he advocates.
I suggest loql you read Liber 777 for yourself and then tell me how rational Crowley was. Clearly none of you have a real clue who he was or what he wrote. He was a first-class crackpot. Downvote me all you want, but that just says more about how off-base LW has become.
I’ve read a couple of his things and I know how insane he can be. I freely admit that he was an utter raving loony. I just happen to think this particular essay offers a plausible explanation of religious experience. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Have you read the essay? Do you disagree with it? Would you have objected to it if I’d published it under my own name?
I didn’t claim that Crowley was rational. This seems to be a trend in your commentary, along with a heavy reliance on ad hominem.
“Downvote me all you want” is just always a faux pas. “This place has gone way downhill” is rarely worth saying anywhere, and is additionally silly in so new a community as LW. I agree with you about Crowley (who I learned about due to sharing a surname with him) but please don’t reach for these cliches.