In a recent interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Elon Musk offered a rather jarring sociological diagnosis which has, understandably, caused quite a stir in the public square.
Wonderful! I would love to see an equally critical analysis of the role of "compassion" in Buddhist authoritarian morality, politics, economics and philosophy that similarly draws on Žižek's insights on Tibetan Buddhism in particular. Compassion is perhaps the übervalue here, but still there are steep hierarchies, and so on. Curious what you would come up with! :)
i think what you're perceiving is an inevitable outcome of "religion" stuck in a transcendentalist mode, similar to what happened with Protestant Christianity.
this is a strong claim, but i think it's true: in a properly-functioning religion, what the Greeks referred to as theurgy and thaumaturgy should be two poles in a constant flow of energy. operants can reach toward the transcendent awareness of Absolute Divinity and the dissolution of Self—but once they get to that point, rather than treating transcendence as an ultimate, personal, individual goal, they should turn around and bring that awareness back to their work as Selves in the material plane. enlightenment is the *beginning* of the work, not the end—and also not a badge we get once, but a state that we (ideally) travel through many times throughout our incarnations. i think there are some schools of Buddhism that make this explicit.
sometimes the transmission gets jammed. theurgy without thaumaturgy becomes religious authoritarianism, in which a spiritual elite are (supposedly) accruing benefits for their communities entirely in the ethereal plane. thaumaturgy without theurgy turns into sorcery, in which individuals are entirely focused on how they can use applied metaphysics to serve the Self in the material world. both can be extremely powerful and extremely dangerous; there are plenty of historical examples of each mode becoming unbalanced and turning into a specific "religion" (more properly a cult).
both modes are vitally necessary for maintaining right relation within and between human and non-human communities.
So, so good, Erik on many levels: the capacity to discern between "performative religion or performative love" is required now. Ironically when I heard about Musk's comment about empathy being a "bug" (as in not a feature) I felt nothing but empathy and compassion toward him. For there was an instant recognition of how much pain a person has to be in to make such a statement. Take that, Elon. I can both hold you in my heart and not condone your cruelty!
it's unfortunate that we've allowed Christianity to become the default model for "religion."
there are three specific features of contemporary Christianity that inform the kind of "vertical morality" described here: monotheism, metaphysical dualism, and aspatiality. only in the Abrahamic religions do we find a single god with no direct connection to a physical place, understood to be fundamentally separated from life in the material plane (except when he chooses to bridge the gap).
from my understanding of polytheistic, non-dual, place-based religions—these traditions make the kind of "horizontal morality" described here much more compelling. the binding-together of these religions is not around laws passed down from a single entity; people are bound together by a shared understanding of right relation between People, Country (in the Aboriginal sense), and Divinity. these are three distinct *communities* of beings that flourish together. taboos are not built around the rules laid down by the One God. transgressions against the Sacred disrupt the balance between that foundational triad, in which all three communities are understood to be a more or less horizontal multiplicity. in this model, killing someone is no different than intentionally setting a forest fire: both are individual acts that introduce a wave of disruption into an otherwise-harmonious cosmos.
by making a very particular Abrahamic cosmology the default mode of religion, instead of trying to return to the pre-existing values of other (mostly indigenous) religions, secular progressives have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. they've decided that religion in toto is the problem—and now there is no shared understanding of "us," and what "we" owe to one another, that can't be post-modernized into oblivion.
although we might not need the stern rule of a God to keep us from committing crimes, we also don't get very far as an arbitrary assortment of atomized individuals, each of whom has become a lonely god unto themselves.
Some very good points here. I think it is unavoidable that spirituality (as distinct from institutionalised religion) is profoundly important for human beings - both on an individual and social level, and furthermore for helping us make sense of our place in a more-than-human world. It provides us with many things that we simply *need*: like community, collective meaning-making, myths, symbols, rituals, the space to experience awe and wonder, and strategies for navigating our subconscious. Unfortunately, the mere construction of the ontological category of 'religion' has made it so that, in order to eradicate hierarchical corruption and dogmatic truth claims, we need to throw *everything* away. But secularism has left us in need of many things that it simply cannot (in its current form) provide. So capitalism, consumerism, materialism, the pursuit of power, etc. fill in the gaps. I do think this is a very serious problem that we desperately need to address.
There are, of course, some options available to those with a natural predisposition towards spirituality but an aversion to hierarchical religion - Druidry being a particularly compelling example. But it doesn't call to everyone, and we need to create more spaces (with more diverse offerings) where humans can get their 'spiritual' needs met, ideally in community, without the scaffolding of belief.
Empathy also allows me to imagine what it might be like to be Tronald Dump or Elon Husk. I can't think of a worse fate than having to be either one of them for an entire lifetime.
Wonderful! I would love to see an equally critical analysis of the role of "compassion" in Buddhist authoritarian morality, politics, economics and philosophy that similarly draws on Žižek's insights on Tibetan Buddhism in particular. Compassion is perhaps the übervalue here, but still there are steep hierarchies, and so on. Curious what you would come up with! :)
Hi Jan! I've just posted a 'part two' on this, since it really warranted its own post. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
i think what you're perceiving is an inevitable outcome of "religion" stuck in a transcendentalist mode, similar to what happened with Protestant Christianity.
this is a strong claim, but i think it's true: in a properly-functioning religion, what the Greeks referred to as theurgy and thaumaturgy should be two poles in a constant flow of energy. operants can reach toward the transcendent awareness of Absolute Divinity and the dissolution of Self—but once they get to that point, rather than treating transcendence as an ultimate, personal, individual goal, they should turn around and bring that awareness back to their work as Selves in the material plane. enlightenment is the *beginning* of the work, not the end—and also not a badge we get once, but a state that we (ideally) travel through many times throughout our incarnations. i think there are some schools of Buddhism that make this explicit.
sometimes the transmission gets jammed. theurgy without thaumaturgy becomes religious authoritarianism, in which a spiritual elite are (supposedly) accruing benefits for their communities entirely in the ethereal plane. thaumaturgy without theurgy turns into sorcery, in which individuals are entirely focused on how they can use applied metaphysics to serve the Self in the material world. both can be extremely powerful and extremely dangerous; there are plenty of historical examples of each mode becoming unbalanced and turning into a specific "religion" (more properly a cult).
both modes are vitally necessary for maintaining right relation within and between human and non-human communities.
I heard TsokNyi Rinpoche say “sometimes to be willing to suffer is a kindness” I hope that helps
So, so good, Erik on many levels: the capacity to discern between "performative religion or performative love" is required now. Ironically when I heard about Musk's comment about empathy being a "bug" (as in not a feature) I felt nothing but empathy and compassion toward him. For there was an instant recognition of how much pain a person has to be in to make such a statement. Take that, Elon. I can both hold you in my heart and not condone your cruelty!
I had the same inner movement when becoming aware of his remark about empathy. How much pain... thank you!
Thank you! Lucid food for thought here.
it's unfortunate that we've allowed Christianity to become the default model for "religion."
there are three specific features of contemporary Christianity that inform the kind of "vertical morality" described here: monotheism, metaphysical dualism, and aspatiality. only in the Abrahamic religions do we find a single god with no direct connection to a physical place, understood to be fundamentally separated from life in the material plane (except when he chooses to bridge the gap).
from my understanding of polytheistic, non-dual, place-based religions—these traditions make the kind of "horizontal morality" described here much more compelling. the binding-together of these religions is not around laws passed down from a single entity; people are bound together by a shared understanding of right relation between People, Country (in the Aboriginal sense), and Divinity. these are three distinct *communities* of beings that flourish together. taboos are not built around the rules laid down by the One God. transgressions against the Sacred disrupt the balance between that foundational triad, in which all three communities are understood to be a more or less horizontal multiplicity. in this model, killing someone is no different than intentionally setting a forest fire: both are individual acts that introduce a wave of disruption into an otherwise-harmonious cosmos.
by making a very particular Abrahamic cosmology the default mode of religion, instead of trying to return to the pre-existing values of other (mostly indigenous) religions, secular progressives have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. they've decided that religion in toto is the problem—and now there is no shared understanding of "us," and what "we" owe to one another, that can't be post-modernized into oblivion.
although we might not need the stern rule of a God to keep us from committing crimes, we also don't get very far as an arbitrary assortment of atomized individuals, each of whom has become a lonely god unto themselves.
Some very good points here. I think it is unavoidable that spirituality (as distinct from institutionalised religion) is profoundly important for human beings - both on an individual and social level, and furthermore for helping us make sense of our place in a more-than-human world. It provides us with many things that we simply *need*: like community, collective meaning-making, myths, symbols, rituals, the space to experience awe and wonder, and strategies for navigating our subconscious. Unfortunately, the mere construction of the ontological category of 'religion' has made it so that, in order to eradicate hierarchical corruption and dogmatic truth claims, we need to throw *everything* away. But secularism has left us in need of many things that it simply cannot (in its current form) provide. So capitalism, consumerism, materialism, the pursuit of power, etc. fill in the gaps. I do think this is a very serious problem that we desperately need to address.
There are, of course, some options available to those with a natural predisposition towards spirituality but an aversion to hierarchical religion - Druidry being a particularly compelling example. But it doesn't call to everyone, and we need to create more spaces (with more diverse offerings) where humans can get their 'spiritual' needs met, ideally in community, without the scaffolding of belief.
Empathy also allows me to imagine what it might be like to be Tronald Dump or Elon Husk. I can't think of a worse fate than having to be either one of them for an entire lifetime.