<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Slate Star Codex &#187; mysticism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://slatestarcodex.com/tag/mysticism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://slatestarcodex.com</link>
	<description>In a mad world, all blogging is psychiatry blogging</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:59:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Universal Love, Said The Cactus Person</title>
		<link>http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/21/universal-love-said-the-cactus-person/</link>
		<comments>http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/21/universal-love-said-the-cactus-person/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2015 02:42:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Alexander]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mysticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wtf]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://slatestarcodex.com/?p=3621</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Universal love,&#8221; said the cactus person. &#8220;Transcendent joy,&#8221; said the big green bat. &#8220;Right,&#8221; I said. &#8220;I&#8217;m absolutely in favor of both those things. But before we go any further, could you tell me the two prime factors of 1,522,605,027, &#8230; <a href="http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/21/universal-love-said-the-cactus-person/">Continue reading <span class="pjgm-metanav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Universal love,&#8221; said the cactus person.</p>
<p>&#8220;Transcendent joy,&#8221; said the big green bat.</p>
<p>&#8220;Right,&#8221; I said. &#8220;I&#8217;m absolutely in favor of both those things. But before we go any further, could you tell me the two prime factors of 1,522,605,027, 922,533,360, 535,618,378, 132,637,429, 718,068,114, 961,380,688, 657,908,494 ,580,122,963, 258,952,897, 654,000,350, 692,006,139?</p>
<p>&#8220;Universal love,&#8221; said the cactus person.</p>
<p>&#8220;Transcendent joy,&#8221; said the big green bat.</p>
<p>The sea was made of strontium; the beach was made of rye. Above my head, a watery sun shone in an oily sky. A thousand stars of sertraline whirled round quetiapine moons, and the sand sizzled sharp like cooking oil that hissed and sang and threatened to boil the octahedral dunes.</p>
<p>&#8220;Okay,&#8221; I said. &#8220;Fine. Let me tell you where I&#8217;m coming from. I was reading <A HREF="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else">Scott McGreal&#8217;s blog</A>, which has some <A HREF="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/dmt-aliens-and-reality-part-1">good</A> <A HREF="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/dmt-aliens-and-reality-part-2">articles</A> about so-called DMT entities, and mentions how they seem so real that users of the drug insist they&#8217;ve made contact with actual superhuman beings and not just psychedelic hallucinations. You know, <a href="http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/0062506528/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&#038;camp=1789&#038;creative=390957&#038;creativeASIN=0062506528&#038;linkCode=as2&#038;tag=slastacod-20&#038;linkId=BKGSPUHIEWFDXXWZ">the usual</a><img src="http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=slastacod-20&#038;l=as2&#038;o=1&#038;a=0062506528" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" /> Terence McKenna stuff. But in <A HREF="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201408/dmt-gateway-reality-fantasy-or-what">one</A> of them he mentions a paper by Marko Rodriguez called <A HREF="http://www.ayahuasca-info.com/data/articles/paralleldmt.pdf"><i>A Methodology For Studying Various Interpretations of the N,N-dimethyltryptamine-Induced Alternate Reality</i></A>, which suggested among other things that you could prove DMT entities were real by taking the drug and then asking the entities you meet to factor large numbers which you were sure you couldn&#8217;t factor yourself. So to that end, could you do me a big favor and tell me the factors of 1,522,605,027, 922,533,360, 535,618,378, 132,637,429, 718,068,114, 961,380,688, 657,908,494, 580,122,963, 258,952,897, 654,000,350, 692,006,139?</p>
<p>&#8220;Universal love,&#8221; said the cactus person.</p>
<p>&#8220;Transcendent joy,&#8221; said the big green bat.</p>
<p>The sea turned hot and geysers shot up from the floor below. First one of wine, then one of brine, then one more yet of turpentine, and we three stared at the show.</p>
<p>&#8220;I was afraid you might say that. Is there anyone more, uh, <i>verbal</i> here whom I could talk to?&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Universal love,&#8221; said the cactus person.</p>
<p>At the sound of that, the big green bat started rotating in place. On its other side was a bigger greener bat, with a ancient, wrinkled face.</p>
<p>&#8220;<i>Not splitting numbers / but joining Mind,&#8221;</I> it said.<br />
<i>Not facts or factors or factories / but contact with the abstract attractor that brings you back to me<br />
Not to seek / but to find</i>&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;I don&#8217;t follow,&#8221; I said.</p>
<p>&#8220;<i>Not to follow / but to jump forth into the deep<br />
Not to grind or to bind or to seek only to find / but to accept<br />
Not to be kept / but to wake from sleep</i>&#8221;</p>
<p>The bat continued to rotate, until the first side I had seen swung back into view.</p>
<p>&#8220;Okay,&#8221; I said. &#8220;I&#8217;m going to hazard a guess as to what you&#8217;re talking about, and you tell me if I&#8217;m right. You&#8217;re saying that, like, all my Western logocentric stuff about factoring numbers in order to find out the objective truth about this realm is missing the point, and I should be trying to do some kind of spiritual thing involving radical acceptance and enlightenment and such. Is that kind of on the mark?&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Universal love,&#8221; said the cactus person.</p>
<p>&#8220;Transcendent joy,&#8221; said the big green bat.</p>
<p>&#8220;Frick,&#8221; I said. &#8220;Well, okay, let me continue.&#8221; The bat was still rotating, and I kind of hoped that when the side with the creepy wrinkled face came into view it might give me some better conversation. &#8220;I&#8217;m all about the spiritual stuff. I wouldn&#8217;t be here if I weren&#8217;t deeply interested in the spiritual stuff. This isn&#8217;t about money or fame or anything. I want to advance psychedelic research. If you can factor that number, then it will convince people back in the real &#8211; back in my world that this place is for real and important. Then lots of people will take DMT and flock here and listen to what you guys have to say about enlightenment and universal love, and make more sense of it than I can alone, and in the end we&#8217;ll have more universal love, and&#8230;what was the other thing?&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Transcendent joy,&#8221; said the big green bat.</p>
<p>&#8220;Right,&#8221; I said. &#8220;We&#8217;ll have more transcendent joy if you help me out and factor the number than if you just sit there being spiritual and enigmatic.&#8221;</p>
<p><i>&#8220;Lovers do not love to increase the amount of love in the world / But for the mind that thrills<br />
And the face of the beloved, which the whole heart fills / the heart and the art never apart, ever unfurled<br />
And John Stuart is one of / the dark satanic mills&#8221;</i></p>
<p>&#8220;I take it you&#8217;re not consequentialists,&#8221; I said. &#8220;You know that&#8217;s really weird, right. Like, not just &#8216;great big green bat with two faces and sapient cactus-man&#8217; weird, but like <i>really</i> weird. You talk about wanting this spiritual enlightenment stuff, but you&#8217;re not going to take actions that are going to increase the amount of spiritual enlightenment? You&#8217;ve got to understand, this is like a bigger gulf for me than normal human versus ineffable DMT entity. You can have crazy goals, I expect you to have crazy goals, but what you&#8217;re saying now is that you don&#8217;t pursue any goals at all, you can&#8217;t be modeled as having desires. Why would you <i>do</i> that?&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Universal love,&#8221; said the cactus person.</p>
<p>&#8220;Transcendent joy,&#8221; said the big green bat.</p>
<p>&#8220;Now you see here,&#8221; I said. &#8220;Everyone in this conversation is in favor of universal love and transcendent joy. But I&#8217;ve seen the way this works. Some college student gets his hands on some DMT, visits here, you guys tell him about universal love and transcendent joy, he wakes up, says that his life has been changed, suddenly he truly understands what really matters. But it never lasts. The next day he&#8217;s got to get up and go to work and so on, and the universal love lasts about five minutes until his boss starts yelling at him for writing his report in the wrong font, and before you know it twenty years later he&#8217;s some slimy lawyer who&#8217;s joking at a slimy lawyer party about the one time when he was in college and took some DMT and spent a whole week raving about transcendent joy, and all the other slimy lawyers laugh, and he laughs with them, and so much for whatever spiritual awakening you and your colleagues in LSD and peyote are trying to kindle in humanity. And if I accept your message of universal love and transcendent joy right now, that&#8217;s exactly what&#8217;s going to happen to me, and meanwhile human civilization is going to keep being stuck in greed and ignorance and misery. So how about you shut up about universal love and you factor my number for me so we can start figuring out a battle plan for giving humanity a <i>real</i> spiritual revolution?&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Universal love,&#8221; said the cactus person.</p>
<p>&#8220;Transcendent joy,&#8221; said the big green bat.</p>
<p>A meteorite of pure delight struck the sea without a sound. The force of the blast went rattling past the bat and the beach, disturbing each, then made its way to a nearby bay of upside-down trees with their roots in the breeze and their branches underground.</p>
<p>&#8220;I demand a better answer than that,&#8221; I demanded.</p>
<p>The other side of the bat spun into view.</p>
<p><i>&#8220;Chaos never comes from the Ministry of Chaos / nor void from the Ministry of Void<br />
Time will decay us but time can be left blank / destroyed<br />
With each Planck moment ever fit / to be eternally enjoyed&#8221;</i></p>
<p>&#8220;You&#8217;re making this basic mistake,&#8221; I told the big green bat. &#8220;I honestly believe that there&#8217;s a perspective from which Time doesn&#8217;t matter, where a single moment of recognition is equivalent to eternal recognition. The problem is, if you only have that perspective for a moment, then all the rest of the time, you&#8217;re sufficiently stuck in Time to honestly believe you&#8217;re stuck in Time. It&#8217;s like that song about the hole in the bucket &#8211; if the hole in the bucket were fixed, you would have the materials needed to fix the hole in the bucket. But since it isn&#8217;t, you don&#8217;t. Likewise, if I understood the illusoriness&#8230;illusionality&#8230;whatever, of time, then I wouldn&#8217;t care that I only understood it for a single instant. But since I don&#8217;t, I don&#8217;t. Without a solution to the time-limitedness of enlightenment that works from <i>within</i> the temporal perspective, how can you consider it solved at all?&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Universal love,&#8221; said the cactus person.</p>
<p>&#8220;Transcendent joy,&#8221; said the big green bat.</p>
<p>The watery sun began to run and it fell on the ground as rain. It became a dew that soaked us through, and as the cold seemed to worsen the cactus person hugged himself to stay warm but his spines pierced his form and he howled in a fit of pain.</p>
<p>&#8220;You know,&#8221; I said, &#8220;sometimes I think the <A HREF="http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/15/raikoth-history-religion/"><i>kvithion sumurhe</i></A> had the right of it. The world is an interference pattern between colliding waves of Truth and Beauty, and either one of them pure from the source and undiluted by the other will be fatal. I think you guys and some of the other psychedelics might be pure Beauty, or at least much closer to the source than people were meant to go. I think you can&#8217;t even understand reason, I think you&#8217;re constitutionally opposed to reason, and that the only way we&#8217;re ever going to get something that combines your wisdom and love and joy with reason is after we immanentize the eschaton and launch civilization into some perfected postmessianic era where the purpose of the world is fully complete. And that as much as I hate to say it, there&#8217;s no short-circuiting the process.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Universal love,&#8221; said the cactus person.</p>
<p>&#8220;Transcendent joy,&#8221; said the big green bat.</p>
<p>&#8220;I&#8217;m dissing you, you know. I&#8217;m saying you guys are so intoxicated on spiritual wisdom that you couldn&#8217;t think straight if your life depended on it; that your random interventions in our world and our minds look like the purposeless acts of a drunken madman because that&#8217;s basically more or less what they are. I&#8217;m saying if you had like five IQ points between the two of you, you could tap into your cosmic consciousness or whatever to factor a number that would do more for your cause than all your centuries of enigmatic dreams and unasked-for revelations combined, and you ARE TOO DUMB TO DO IT EVEN WHEN I BASICALLY HOLD YOUR HAND THE WHOLE WAY. Your spine. Your wing. Whatever.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Universal love,&#8221; said the cactus person.</p>
<p>&#8220;Transcendent joy,&#8221; said the big green bat.</p>
<p>&#8220;Fuck you,&#8221; said I.</p>
<p>I saw the big green bat bat a green big eye. Suddenly I knew I had gone too far. The big green bat started to turn around what was neither its x, y, or z axis, slowly rotating to reveal what was undoubtedly the biggest, greenest bat that I had ever seen, a bat bigger and greener than which it was impossible to conceive. And the bat said to me:</p>
<p>&#8220;Sir. Imagine you are in the driver&#8217;s seat of a car. You have been sitting there so long that you have forgotten that it is the seat of a car, forgotten how to get out of the seat, forgotten the existence of your own legs, indeed forgotten that you are a being at all separate from the car. You control the car with skill and precision, driving it wherever you wish to go, manipulating the headlights and the windshield wipers and the stereo and the air conditioning, and you pronounce yourself a great master. But there are paths you cannot travel, because there are no roads to them, and you long to run through the forest, or swim in the river, or climb the high mountains. A line of prophets who have come before you tell you that the secret to these forbidden mysteries is an ancient and terrible skill called GETTING OUT OF THE CAR, and you resolve to learn this skill. You try every button on the dashboard, but none of them is the button for GETTING OUT OF THE CAR. You drive all of the highways and byways of the earth, but you cannot reach GETTING OUT OF THE CAR, for it is not a place on a highway. The prophets tell you GETTING OUT OF THE CAR is something fundamentally different than anything you have done thus far, but to you this means ever sillier extremities: driving backwards, driving with the headlights on in the glare of noon, driving into ditches on purpose, but none of these reveal the secret of GETTING OUT OF THE CAR. The prophets tell you it is easy; indeed, it is the easiest thing you have ever done. You have traveled the Pan-American Highway from the boreal pole to the Darien Gap, you have crossed Route 66 in the dead heat of summer, you have outrun cop cars at 160 mph and survived, and GETTING OUT OF THE CAR is easier than any of them, the easiest thing you can imagine, closer to you than the veins in your head, but still the secret is obscure to you.&#8221;</p>
<p>A herd of bison came into listen, and voles and squirrels and ermine and great tusked deer gathered round to hear as the bat continued his sermon.</p>
<p>&#8220;And finally you drive to the top of the highest peak and you find a sage, and you ask him what series of buttons on the dashboard you have to press to get out of the car. And he tells you that it&#8217;s not about pressing buttons on the dashboard and you just need to GET OUT OF THE CAR. And you say okay, fine, but what series of buttons will <i>lead to</i> you getting out of the car, and he says no, really, you need to stop thinking about dashboard buttons and GET OUT OF THE CAR. And you tell him maybe if the sage helps you change your oil or rotates your tires or something then it will improve your driving to the point where getting out of the car will be a cinch after that, and he tells you it has nothing to do with how rotated your tires are and you just need to GET OUT OF THE CAR, and so you call him a moron and drive away.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Universal love,&#8221; said the cactus person.</p>
<p>&#8220;So that metaphor is <i>totally unfair</i>,&#8221; I said, &#8220;and a better metaphor would be if every time someone got out of the car, five minutes later they found themselves back in the car, and I ask the sage for driving directions to a laboratory where they are studying that problem, and&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;You only believe that because it&#8217;s written on the windshield,&#8221; said the big green bat. &#8220;And you think the windshield is identical to reality because you won&#8217;t GET OUT OF THE CAR.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Fine,&#8221; I said. &#8220;Then I can&#8217;t get out of the car. I want to get out of the car. But I need help. And the first step to getting help is for you to factor my number. You seem like a reasonable person. Bat. Freaky DMT entity. Whatever. Please. I promise you, this is the right thing to do. Just factor the number.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;And I promise you,&#8221; said the big green bat. &#8220;You don&#8217;t need to factor the number. You just need to GET OUT OF THE CAR.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;I can&#8217;t get out of the car until you factor the number.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;I won&#8217;t factor the number until you get out of the car.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Please, I&#8217;m begging you, factor the number!&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Yes, well, I&#8217;m begging you, please get out of the car!&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;FOR THE LOVE OF GOD JUST FACTOR THE FUCKING NUMBER!&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;FOR THE LOVE OF GOD JUST GET OUT OF THE FUCKING CAR!&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;FACTOR THE FUCKING NUMBER!&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;GET OUT OF THE FUCKING CAR!&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Universal love,&#8221; said the cactus person.</p>
<p>Then tree and beast all fled due east and the moon and stars shot south. And the bat rose up and the sea was a cup and the earth was a screen green as clozapine and the sky a voracious mouth. And the mouth opened wide and the earth was skied and the sea fell in with an awful din and the trees were moons and the sand in the dunes was a blazing comet and&#8230;</p>
<p>I vomited, hard, all over my bed. It happens every time I take DMT, sooner or later; I&#8217;ve got a weak stomach and I&#8217;m not sure the stuff I get is totally pure. I crawled just far enough out of bed to flip a light switch on, then collapsed back onto the soiled covers. The clock on the wall read 11:55, meaning I&#8217;d been out about an hour and a half. I briefly considered taking some more ayahuasca and heading right back there, but the chances of getting anything more out of the big green bat, let alone the cactus person, seemed small enough to fit in a thimble. I drifted off into a fitful sleep.</p>
<p>Behind the veil, across the infinite abyss, beyond the ice, beyond daath, the dew rose from the soaked ground and coalesced into a great drop, which floated up into an oily sky and became a watery sun. The cactus person was counting on his spines.</p>
<p>&#8220;Hey,&#8221; the cactus person finally said, &#8220;just out of curiosity, was the answer 37,975,227, 936,943,673, 922,808,872, 755,445,627, 854,565,536, 638,199 times 40,094,690,950, 920,881,030, 683,735,292, 761,468,389, 214,899,724,061?&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Yeah,&#8221; said the big green bat. &#8220;That&#8217;s what I got too.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/21/universal-love-said-the-cactus-person/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>469</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Against Anton-Wilsonism</title>
		<link>http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/03/against-anton-wilsonism/</link>
		<comments>http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/03/against-anton-wilsonism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 07:23:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Alexander]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mysticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://slatestarcodex.com/?p=343</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Back when I was in college, I loved stuff by Robert Anton Wilson. In case you&#8217;re not familiar with him, he was a writer and occultist who recorded all sorts of interesting things from mystical traditions all over the world. &#8230; <a href="http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/03/against-anton-wilsonism/">Continue reading <span class="pjgm-metanav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Back when I was in college, I loved stuff by Robert Anton Wilson. In case you&#8217;re not familiar with him, he was a writer and occultist who recorded all sorts of interesting things from mystical traditions all over the world. It would be as nothing for him to relate something of Crowley&#8217;s to an old Sufi parable which was really a metaphor for something the Buddha said about quantum physics. </p>
<p>Although he is most famous for his fiction books like <i>Illuminatus</i>, he also wrote a lot of non-fiction. On the one hand, it was the ultimate insight porn, with a new seemingly-revelatory epigram from a new tradition on every page. On the other, it was filled with very vague nod-and-a-wink promises that if you genuinely understood it you would break into a new level of understanding in which you would stand taller, have a more melodious voice, and finally be able to get that one cute girl/guy to pay attention to you. It was seductive and I was successfully seduced by it.</p>
<p>This is in no way a complaint against mysticism. I think it&#8217;s quite possible that there are forms of mysticism which successfully fulfill the promises Wilson made both in terms of insight-into-reality and improved-life-success. Meditation probably does. Yoga (the real type, not the contort-your-body-for-exercise type) might. If your goals are simple, you can certainly get some quick mental rearrangement (not necessarily of the positive variety) by doing drugs, or improve your social presence through something like the Alexander Technique, both of which seem in the spirit of Anton-Wilsonism.</p>
<p>Better I should compare it to my interest in physics as a high schooler. This interest took the following form: I would read Scientific American articles about bosons, then go around saying &#8220;Did you know there are several types of bosons, with mass of such-and-such?&#8221; Maybe I would vaguely long to go to CERN and see the Large Hadron Collider (a wish I eventually fulfilled). I read some biographies of famous physicists and I could point out the position in the sky of several leading black hole candidates.</p>
<p><i>A priori</i> there&#8217;s nothing wrong with this; it was a more productive use of my high school days than taking drugs or watching reality shows. But the problem is that at the time I thought I was Learning Science. I had this idea that Science was great and admirable, and that people who knew Science could predict eclipses and split the atom, and I was going to be one of those people, and all I had to do was read a few more Stephen Hawking books and then when I became an adult I could receive my Certificate of Scienciness and start splitting atoms. But that wasn&#8217;t remotely how it works and although I could charitably be said to be learning <i>about</i> science this has very little in common with <i>learning science</i>.</p>
<p>(this is why I get a twinge of worry about how vocal identification with Science has become a badge of honor in geek culture, by the way)</p>
<p>There are certain fields where it&#8217;s really obvious to everyone that learning about the field is different from learning the field. There are probably historians of music who have never picked up an instrument, and they don&#8217;t fancy themselves musicians. And political scientists don&#8217;t delude themselves into thinking they would make great politicians.</p>
<p>Mysticism is not always one of these fields (rationality isn&#8217;t either, but that&#8217;s a different blog article). Because so much of mysticism revolves around the idea of the gnosis, a specific kind of knowledge, it is easy to mistake knowledge of mysticism for the knowledge that mysticism tries to produce. This means Robert Anton Wilson and his ilk can cause at least three different types of failure.</p>
<p>First, as I mentioned before, they provide a false sense of reward. If you are actually enlightened, it&#8217;s pretty hard to demonstrate this to someone short of shooting them with a chi bolt from your third eye. On the other hand, if you&#8217;re knowledgeable about mysticism, it&#8217;s really easy to demonstrate this. I would talk to my mysticism-interested friends, and we&#8217;d be like &#8220;Oh, this reminds me of something the third Zen patriarch said about this subject&#8221;, and then we&#8217;d feel all cool and mystically advanced. And just as slacktivism sates your desire to do good without requiring any hard work, so this sates the desire to associate with the neat cause of mysticism without requiring any hard work beyond reading lots of books, which for a certain kind of person is the sort of thing they&#8217;d do anyway. So this sort of scholarship directly funges against actual results.</p>
<p>Second, they encourage you to think in terms of conspiracy. Quick, what do Buddhism and the Illuminati have in common? Okay, fine, nothing. So how come they&#8217;re both part of Anton Wilson&#8217;s repertoire? My guess is that mystics say weird things all the time like &#8220;Ultimate holy reality is emptiness&#8221; or &#8220;Spend a while thinking about the sound of one hand clapping&#8221;, and people view this as a sort of <i>puzzle</i>. Like mystical traditions are jealous guardians of some kind of secret knowledge, and they&#8217;ve let slip a couple of clues, and it&#8217;s our <i>Da Vinci Code</i>-esque job to piece together what this secret knowledge is and pierce through the conspiracy. Which I think, despite the fact that many ancient mystery cults did jealously guard secret knowledge, is totally the wrong way of looking at things.</p>
<p>Instead of mystics talking about one hand clapping, let&#8217;s go back to my physics example. Physicists <i>also</i> frequently emit bizarre and puzzling statements like &#8220;Faster objects have more mass than slower objects&#8221;, or &#8220;Time and space are really just aspects of a more generalized spacetime.&#8221; If you try to understand these statements &#8211; really understand them on a gut level &#8211; by watching Carl Sagan specials, you will fail. One hypothesis here is that Carl Sagan is part of a conspiracy, where he will tantalizingly tell you a few pieces of the clues but guards the really juicy bits for himself, and you need to piece together the real thing using Sagan, 12th-century alchemical texts, the Windows source code, and a pattern of moles on Neil Tyson DeGrasse&#8217;s left cheek. Another hypothesis is that this is the sort of thing which no amount of <i>learning about science</i> will be able to illuminate, but which is relatively straightforward once you <i>learn science</i> and can solve the equations that describe them &#8211; and that this knowledge cannot be translated into terms people who haven&#8217;t learned science can understand in any way more satisfying than the old &#8220;Well, imagine a really taut sheet with some objects upon it&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Third and most important, they promote <i>dabbling</i>, which is fatal. &#8220;Why limit yourself to one tradition when you can take insights from all the different traditions and invent your own tradition that combines the best wisdom of them all as well as your own special touch?&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, because until you know at least a little of what you&#8217;re doing you don&#8217;t know how to do it. This is a form of Chesterton&#8217;s Fence, except that instead of a fence in a field it&#8217;s like a twelve-dimensional pulsing image in an unexplored region of Dimension Q&#8217;qaar and you have no idea what it is or what it does or where you&#8217;re going. Oooh, I know, let&#8217;s remove the part of Daoism where you don&#8217;t drink whiskey and hire hookers every night! That won&#8217;t change the underlying state of mental peace <i>at all</i>. </p>
<p>This brings up the related issue of Schelling fences: once you let yourself change things, do you really trust yourself to remove only the chaff and not the parts that are annoying or hard or inconvenient? Yes, 3000 year old forms of practice are inconvenient and laden with superstitious baggage, but Bringing Buddhism To The West was like the state pasttime of California for several very interesting decades back in the mid-20th century. Surely you could latch onto one of the adaptations created then instead of trying to invent your own?</p>
<p>But the most pernicious issue here is that &#8211; at least if my college age self is typical &#8211; you will end up spending so much time refining and polishing and admiring your new collection of spiritual beliefs that you never actually bother putting them into practice &#8211; or if you do, you will change them every few weeks and never get the solid consistent base you need to be good at them.</p>
<p>If I get into mysticism again &#8211; and I think I should, it seems like one of the highest-utility areas for me &#8211; I am going to force myself not to read any books about mysticism except extremely sparse how-to instruction manuals. One at a time. Without even so much as glancing at Step Eight before I&#8217;ve finished Step Seven.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/03/against-anton-wilsonism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>36</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Good vibrations and subjective temporal granularity</title>
		<link>http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/10/good-vibrations-and-subjective-temporal-granularity/</link>
		<comments>http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/10/good-vibrations-and-subjective-temporal-granularity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:15:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Alexander]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mysticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://slatestarcodex.com/?p=271</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There was a good comment on Reddit recently that offered the least confusing explanation of (insight?) meditation I&#8217;ve ever heard. It sort of made a few things click for me. I&#8217;m quoting it in part, but you might also want &#8230; <a href="http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/10/good-vibrations-and-subjective-temporal-granularity/">Continue reading <span class="pjgm-metanav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There was a good comment on Reddit recently that offered the least confusing explanation of (insight?) meditation I&#8217;ve ever heard. It sort of made a few things click for me. I&#8217;m quoting it in part, but you might also want to <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/199qsd/what_exactly_will_meditation_do_for_you/c8nqhw1">read the whole thing</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><i>Meditation is basically a training method for your mind. When certain things happen to you, your mind generates a certain response whether it be happiness, frustration, anger ect. The way your mind has been inculcated is the path of least resistance and the path it wants to take, and will take unless you know how to mitigate it. Meditation teaches you how and makes it easier to override the process. Who is doing the overriding of this process? Well, that&#8217;s the million dollar question. But I digress.</p>
<p>So here&#8217;s what I&#8217;m getting at: if meditation is too easy, you&#8217;re doing something wrong. You might be getting yourself really relaxed, but is it possible that&#8217;s all you&#8217;re doing? Not saying it is. I don&#8217;t know, just throwing some ideas out there and it&#8217;s up to you to see if any seem to fit your situation.</p>
<p>But as you meditate, your mind wants to grab onto the thoughts and not your breath. The course of least resistance is away from your breath and back into whatever thoughts are vying for your attention. Every time you go back to the breath, you train or teach yourself even, to take the opposite of the path of least resistance. This is coupled with the fact that half the time when you meditate, your mind says, &#8220;I&#8217;m tired. Stop concentrating on the breath and just kick back and let a guided meditation do most of the work.&#8221; But every time this comes up you learn to drop it by returning to the breath and not listening to the thought no matter how loud and powerful it can get.</p>
<p>When you first start meditating you have this thought and then come back to the breath. But there&#8217;s still a trace of this thought floating around in your mind and eventually it pulls you in again. As soon as you realize your back in that thought again, you turn your awareness back to the breath and away from the thought. But then it pulls you in again. And then you drop it again. You do this over and over and over. But as you practice you get better and better and faster and faster at recognizing it. You start to figure out how to do it most efficiently and quickly, seeing and dropping thoughts before they even become thoughts at all.</p>
<p>After doing this hour after hour, you gain a skill. One day you realize that you don&#8217;t have to be sitting on a cushion to use this skill. I can&#8217;t really explain how it&#8217;s done, but it&#8217;s just something you learn from continually focusing, coming back to, and holding your attention on the breath. It&#8217;s like if you ever do a lot of push-ups, eventually you will realize, &#8220;I can flex my pecs.&#8221; You couldn&#8217;t flex them before, and you don&#8217;t really know how you learned to do it, but now you can just do it. </i></p></blockquote>
<p>I wish I knew more about exactly what was going on. One thing I&#8217;ve been thinking about recently is subjective temporal granularity.</p>
<p>I first started wondering about this when I realized I could test my subjective temporal granularity through experiment. The partiuclar method was to tap my finger up and down very quickly at different rates, and notice at what rates it was possible to think something like &#8220;Yes, my finger is in the up position at this exact moment&#8221; versus those rates at which I only had an undifferentiated awareness of rhythmic tapping.</p>
<p>(give me some credit, I also did it with blinking eyes to ensure it had nothing to do with nerve lag, and I used more of a nonverbal &#8220;now&#8221; rather than that whole long quoted sentence which would probably take me forever to think.)</p>
<p>My consistent finding is that I seem to have subjective temporal granularity on the scale of about a quarter-second.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s a slightly different form of granularity in that if I try to tap my finger as quickly as possible I get about ten per second, and furthermore I can count these ten and feel pretty sure I got it right. I think what I&#8217;m doing here is counting ten intentions to move, rather than the movements, which I can&#8217;t actually perceive. But this seems more motor and less related to consciousness.</p>
<p><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=CZpXBqwDTGYC&amp;pg=PA42&amp;lpg=PA42&amp;dq=mastering+teachings+buddha+vibrations&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ubxe_9div-&amp;sig=jURWH9j0Y7kD8il9tTTPJ7yAv_4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=llo8UcOeC-fzygHgwoGAAQ&amp;ved=0CE4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&amp;q=mastering%20teachings%20buddha%20vibrations&amp;f=false">Experienced meditators claim</a> that when they&#8217;re meditating the world occurs in &#8220;vibrations&#8221;, individual pulses of sensation that occur a couple of times a second. Some meditation practices involve &#8220;raising your vibrations&#8221; &#8211; a phrase which along with its counterpart &#8220;good vibes&#8221; has long since passed into a byword for New Age gobbledygook &#8211; but which originally just meant &#8220;increasing the speed at which sensory input seems to pulse.&#8221;</p>
<p>I myself have never been very good at detecting these vibrations. Every so often I think I have them, but then I start worrying that I&#8217;m actually noting my eye saccades, or the flow of blood through my head, and then I lose them anyway.</p>
<p>But it seems like vibrations might be related to subjective temporal granularity? And maybe meditation is a way of making your subjective temporal granularity finer, so that it can pick up the process of constructing thoughts instead of just the finished thought itself? And that this allows you to intervene in the construction of thoughts, rather than having them just be brute objects which shove their way into your head?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/10/good-vibrations-and-subjective-temporal-granularity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
