Perhaps you're confusing happiness with the bliss of equanimity, though your statement that we need to 'trick' ourselves into it suggests you're not. It also contradicts your earlier post about a 'truth-based relationship with reality'.
I'll stick with my search for truth and leave fooling yourself to the self-improvers and happy clappers.
No contradiction at all; happiness is the natural byproduct of a truth-based relationship with reality. I didn't say we need to trick ourselves INTO happiness, I said we trick ourselves OUT of it.
But I'd still suggest happiness is the drive to satisfaction that Saint Mick assures us we can't get (even if we smoke the same cigarettes as him).
I'd agree there's a blissful natural ground state of consciousness concordant with unconditional love and acceptance, but that's not what I think 'happiness' means.
Regarding truth, while it's very important to me I don't think it's a path to happiness and my experience thus far suggests it may be just as much a mirage as happiness is.
'Truth' doesn't seem some kind of destination that can be arrived at but rather the process of seeking it. The more you uncover the more questions about truth are raised - including 'truths' you previously believed to be settled.
What's more, in my experience 'truth' is likely to alienate you from your society and culture and all the 'necessary lies' that maintain it. That also means alienating you from people who are important to you. It's not very conducive to happiness, especially if you compare it with the apparent happiness so many seem to find in shared lies (or do you go around educating kids as to the truth about Santa?)
Of course epistemological humility helps a lot. Understanding your 'truths' tentative, subjective and, very possibly, untrue facilitates wearing them more lightly and not as an armour to shield and define yourself against the 'truths' held by others. But if it's possible to care about the truth without being discomforted by the propagation of what seem to be untruths that's a skill I'm yet to develop.
There's a big difference between "your truth" which is based on your personal experiences colored by whatever meanings you choose to assign to them, and "the truth" which is far out of the reach of our finite individual minds. Truth is reality plain and simple and 99.9% of it is beyond human comprehension. That reality is a mystery that keeps life interesting and worth living. It's okay not to know everything. The lie is telling ourselves that we should.
Very thoughtful! I also take issue with Caitlin re: happiness. It’s not a default state. It is sad that people get old and die. It is sad that there are certain things we cannot change. One of Caitlin’s techniques is to speak very confidently about her knowledge of what other people are thinking, or should think. This allows her to personify the targets of her attacks, conveniently and cartoonishly. That approach does garner clicks and views, and helps to spread her message, but it loses much nuance and much of the texture of actual reality. She’s selling a utopian revolution that happens when we overthrow the current tyrannical regime. However, once you start exploring the implications of that, you realize that we will never have a regime that doesn’t have borders, and counter regime who would like to overthrow us. We will still need a military, we will still need security services. We will still have to figure out how to allocate scarce economic resources in a way that maintains human motivation, and also builds a cohesive society. For this, we will also need some kind of binding narrative that everyone or the majority of the society can buy into. She ignores all this and just points out that the current regime is bad bad bad. The leaders are are bad. The voters don’t know what they’re doing. If we could only have the revolution, everything would be fine. Inconveniently, the last two countries that have tried that, the USSR and China, killed tens of millions on their way there. But never mind that, it’s outside the scope of this Substack.
I don't pretend to speak for Caitlin - or even that I'm very familiar with her opinions or objectives - but of the two rationales you project onto her - that she's flogging utopianism and urgently seeking change from the 'bad bad bad' regime(s) - the second is closer to my understanding of what she's saying.
When jumping from a burning building you don't need to be confident you'll land in a comfy bed. You can start building a future once you've secured one.
Would you let a surgeon remove a malignant tumour from your guts without demanding to know what he'll replace it with?
Thinking and expressing opinions, even half baked ones is one way we learn, as long as we don't leap to premature conclusions and lock the door with certainty.
Perhaps you're confusing happiness with the bliss of equanimity, though your statement that we need to 'trick' ourselves into it suggests you're not. It also contradicts your earlier post about a 'truth-based relationship with reality'.
I'll stick with my search for truth and leave fooling yourself to the self-improvers and happy clappers.
No contradiction at all; happiness is the natural byproduct of a truth-based relationship with reality. I didn't say we need to trick ourselves INTO happiness, I said we trick ourselves OUT of it.
Quite correct. I misread your comment. Apologies.
But I'd still suggest happiness is the drive to satisfaction that Saint Mick assures us we can't get (even if we smoke the same cigarettes as him).
I'd agree there's a blissful natural ground state of consciousness concordant with unconditional love and acceptance, but that's not what I think 'happiness' means.
Regarding truth, while it's very important to me I don't think it's a path to happiness and my experience thus far suggests it may be just as much a mirage as happiness is.
'Truth' doesn't seem some kind of destination that can be arrived at but rather the process of seeking it. The more you uncover the more questions about truth are raised - including 'truths' you previously believed to be settled.
What's more, in my experience 'truth' is likely to alienate you from your society and culture and all the 'necessary lies' that maintain it. That also means alienating you from people who are important to you. It's not very conducive to happiness, especially if you compare it with the apparent happiness so many seem to find in shared lies (or do you go around educating kids as to the truth about Santa?)
Of course epistemological humility helps a lot. Understanding your 'truths' tentative, subjective and, very possibly, untrue facilitates wearing them more lightly and not as an armour to shield and define yourself against the 'truths' held by others. But if it's possible to care about the truth without being discomforted by the propagation of what seem to be untruths that's a skill I'm yet to develop.
There's a big difference between "your truth" which is based on your personal experiences colored by whatever meanings you choose to assign to them, and "the truth" which is far out of the reach of our finite individual minds. Truth is reality plain and simple and 99.9% of it is beyond human comprehension. That reality is a mystery that keeps life interesting and worth living. It's okay not to know everything. The lie is telling ourselves that we should.
"The lie is telling ourselves that we should."
Or thinking we should have (and express) an opinion about things that are beyond our ken. That's something about our culture I've never understood.
Very thoughtful! I also take issue with Caitlin re: happiness. It’s not a default state. It is sad that people get old and die. It is sad that there are certain things we cannot change. One of Caitlin’s techniques is to speak very confidently about her knowledge of what other people are thinking, or should think. This allows her to personify the targets of her attacks, conveniently and cartoonishly. That approach does garner clicks and views, and helps to spread her message, but it loses much nuance and much of the texture of actual reality. She’s selling a utopian revolution that happens when we overthrow the current tyrannical regime. However, once you start exploring the implications of that, you realize that we will never have a regime that doesn’t have borders, and counter regime who would like to overthrow us. We will still need a military, we will still need security services. We will still have to figure out how to allocate scarce economic resources in a way that maintains human motivation, and also builds a cohesive society. For this, we will also need some kind of binding narrative that everyone or the majority of the society can buy into. She ignores all this and just points out that the current regime is bad bad bad. The leaders are are bad. The voters don’t know what they’re doing. If we could only have the revolution, everything would be fine. Inconveniently, the last two countries that have tried that, the USSR and China, killed tens of millions on their way there. But never mind that, it’s outside the scope of this Substack.
Hmm.
I don't pretend to speak for Caitlin - or even that I'm very familiar with her opinions or objectives - but of the two rationales you project onto her - that she's flogging utopianism and urgently seeking change from the 'bad bad bad' regime(s) - the second is closer to my understanding of what she's saying.
When jumping from a burning building you don't need to be confident you'll land in a comfy bed. You can start building a future once you've secured one.
Would you let a surgeon remove a malignant tumour from your guts without demanding to know what he'll replace it with?
status quo serving 'centrist seriousness' and defeatism with a pinch of western christian anti-communism. that is 'a technique'.
Thinking and expressing opinions, even half baked ones is one way we learn, as long as we don't leap to premature conclusions and lock the door with certainty.