Thank you very much for this heartfelt and impactful post.
This piece might also be of interest to you and readers. It is precisely one such "alternatives to existing ideas" that you called for in the post as the thing that's most needed right now. It talks about the Golden Rule as the transcendent value that is the basis for a good society. As well as on how we can completely remove from power over us the affliction that is the SOURCE and ROOT of the problems facing humanity on this planet, and create from the bottom up a relational society which is based on the Golden Rule. An incredibly wise and profound piece, IMHO, and precisely what's needed right now https://www.pdrboston.org/religion-the-golden-rule-revolution.
PS. A more condensced version of that article is here https://www.pdrboston.org/the-golden-rule (though if one has rbe time then i highly recommed reading the longer and more detailed piece in the firat link)
Wow. This is a huge article full of some really hard-hitting and necessary ideas and directions. I make up that it perhaps would have been better as a series, or with more clear reflective points or actions - not because I do not agree with what is being stated, but that collective reflection and contribution does lead to the mutual growth and flourishing we want. You cannot tell people to grow up, basically.
There’s definitely a lot here. Maybe this is a way of getting started with the unpacking. I wonder what specific points you would like to see further unpacked…
Well, a short question that is anything but simple, but certainly deserving of an attempted response. I suppose, from where I come at things, relationship does not just "touch at our identity", it is the basis of who we think we are. I am because you are, in the classic phrase.
Now where that leads me to in the article is your statement saying it is all about "how we relate to ourselves, each other, and to the rest of reality." Wonderful! This I believe is starting to give a nod towards our developmental development, so to speak. What does that statement actually add up to. What do we value, what is object, what is subject, and therefore how we make ourselves up to be anything - and our persistent stories and patterns in the "us" we create. Maybe some thought experiments or questions for reflection around those might be one area to "set people up" for some other things to come, or give room to breathe and reflect.
This is a good point and, as you say, a worthy subject of a whole other essay. I had to stop using Sam Harris' meditation app (which is quite okay otherwise) because he went so much on my nerves saying "you have no self." Of course, Sam, the self is not an immutable thing! In contrast, I consider my self to be very real. It's a self-manufacturing (autopoietic) nexus that integrates many influences from its surroundings into its own autonomous dynamics. For instance, unlike your car burning its gas without being changed by the combustion process, you literally *become* the food you are eating. By analogy, we, as mind-bodies, become our experiences, including our relationships. We integrate them into the autonomous dynamics that constitute our selves. We decide how to act in this context. Our actions originate from within the self-nexus. But they are nothing without the context. It's both-and, not either-or. You are both you, *and* you are (literally) your relationships.
In my work as an organismic biologist, I use the mathematical theory of categories, which is interesting in this respect, as it defines objects exclusively through their (contextual) relations. (This in contrast to set theory, which defines objects, or sets, by the elements they contain, that is, their intrinsic properties.) If you are interested in more details about this, I'm writing about it in my emerging book project "Beyond the Age of Machines:" https://www.expandingpossibilities.org/an-emerging-book.html. In category theory, you (as an "object") are exactly the way your relate to your surroundings. The objects of study in science are defined by the way they interact with the scientist and her measuring devices. And if you consider the self as locus of activity (as I do), then this is also applicable: you are exactly what you do, in your particular context. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thank you. Yogi (johannes Jaeger) is the author of the piece so let’s see if he has comments. A lot of the conversations on L&P are about this sort of relation “all the way up and all the way down”. Makes me think of the conversation Mirko had with Ezequiel Di Paolo about autopoesis for example. I wonder if that enactive tradition of philosophy is closer to what you mean
What a great piece!
'why not go for the widest possible diversity of approaches?' Here Here!!!! For we can learn much more from such an expansive view.
Thank you very much for this heartfelt and impactful post.
This piece might also be of interest to you and readers. It is precisely one such "alternatives to existing ideas" that you called for in the post as the thing that's most needed right now. It talks about the Golden Rule as the transcendent value that is the basis for a good society. As well as on how we can completely remove from power over us the affliction that is the SOURCE and ROOT of the problems facing humanity on this planet, and create from the bottom up a relational society which is based on the Golden Rule. An incredibly wise and profound piece, IMHO, and precisely what's needed right now https://www.pdrboston.org/religion-the-golden-rule-revolution.
PS. A more condensced version of that article is here https://www.pdrboston.org/the-golden-rule (though if one has rbe time then i highly recommed reading the longer and more detailed piece in the firat link)
PPS. And i have written about what this might look like in the specific context of the conflict in palestine/israel (though this is applicable to anywhere on the planet) https://open.substack.com/pub/headandheart1/p/my-perspective-on-the-conflict-in
Wow. This is a huge article full of some really hard-hitting and necessary ideas and directions. I make up that it perhaps would have been better as a series, or with more clear reflective points or actions - not because I do not agree with what is being stated, but that collective reflection and contribution does lead to the mutual growth and flourishing we want. You cannot tell people to grow up, basically.
There’s definitely a lot here. Maybe this is a way of getting started with the unpacking. I wonder what specific points you would like to see further unpacked…
Well, a short question that is anything but simple, but certainly deserving of an attempted response. I suppose, from where I come at things, relationship does not just "touch at our identity", it is the basis of who we think we are. I am because you are, in the classic phrase.
Now where that leads me to in the article is your statement saying it is all about "how we relate to ourselves, each other, and to the rest of reality." Wonderful! This I believe is starting to give a nod towards our developmental development, so to speak. What does that statement actually add up to. What do we value, what is object, what is subject, and therefore how we make ourselves up to be anything - and our persistent stories and patterns in the "us" we create. Maybe some thought experiments or questions for reflection around those might be one area to "set people up" for some other things to come, or give room to breathe and reflect.
This is a good point and, as you say, a worthy subject of a whole other essay. I had to stop using Sam Harris' meditation app (which is quite okay otherwise) because he went so much on my nerves saying "you have no self." Of course, Sam, the self is not an immutable thing! In contrast, I consider my self to be very real. It's a self-manufacturing (autopoietic) nexus that integrates many influences from its surroundings into its own autonomous dynamics. For instance, unlike your car burning its gas without being changed by the combustion process, you literally *become* the food you are eating. By analogy, we, as mind-bodies, become our experiences, including our relationships. We integrate them into the autonomous dynamics that constitute our selves. We decide how to act in this context. Our actions originate from within the self-nexus. But they are nothing without the context. It's both-and, not either-or. You are both you, *and* you are (literally) your relationships.
In my work as an organismic biologist, I use the mathematical theory of categories, which is interesting in this respect, as it defines objects exclusively through their (contextual) relations. (This in contrast to set theory, which defines objects, or sets, by the elements they contain, that is, their intrinsic properties.) If you are interested in more details about this, I'm writing about it in my emerging book project "Beyond the Age of Machines:" https://www.expandingpossibilities.org/an-emerging-book.html. In category theory, you (as an "object") are exactly the way your relate to your surroundings. The objects of study in science are defined by the way they interact with the scientist and her measuring devices. And if you consider the self as locus of activity (as I do), then this is also applicable: you are exactly what you do, in your particular context. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thank you. Yogi (johannes Jaeger) is the author of the piece so let’s see if he has comments. A lot of the conversations on L&P are about this sort of relation “all the way up and all the way down”. Makes me think of the conversation Mirko had with Ezequiel Di Paolo about autopoesis for example. I wonder if that enactive tradition of philosophy is closer to what you mean
Here is the conversation with Mirko and philosopher Ezequiel Di Paolo https://lovephilosophy.substack.com/p/bringing-forth-worlds-with-philosopher
Loved this one!