I’m intrigued by the threads you raise here, any development on them since you posted this? In particular, I’m curious about the end note on tax code; and also ways of integrating of contemplative practices into society.
I’m skeptical about the following claim on two points: “Empowering people to adopt their own values free from the influence of economic necessity doesn’t guarantee a Buddhist society, but it does mean that people will be increasingly free to adopt and express their own preferences, rather than being forced into the contemplative idea of a good life.”
One - are people being forced into the contemplative idea of a good life anywhere? what does this even look like?
Two - a core element of contemplative practice in my eyes is the development of a sharp, clear, mind that is not easily manipulated. Im doubtful that the mind-zap tech and other scaling solutions you mention can match the psychological resiliency gained by real practice. have you found anything to suggest / disprove this? if not, how might real practice become more widely embedded in our society? i’ve been thinking about libraries as places of practice; as they are already established, trusted commons dedicated to the cultivation of people’s minds. I wonder what other forms of social institution, existing and not yet existing, might step into this function of caring for the commons of our Mind?
Hey River, thanks for the question. Fun to revisit this.
You asked: “are people being forced into the contemplative idea of a good life anywhere? what does this even look like?”
What I have in mind is how many contemplatives will articulate a commitment to serving the well-being of all sentient beings, but then seem to believe that the most relevant leverage point for doing so is to get more beings on a dharma path. So it’s not that I think contemplative are forcing people into their view of the good life. Rather, that contemplatives think of their own commitment in terms of getting more people to take up contemplative practices, rather than, like, expanding health care coverage or reducing poverty, etc. In terms of leverage points to benefit the consciousness of as many sentient beings as possible, I think contemplatives tend to be too laser-focused on dharma-shaped benefits, and too uninterested in larger social policy interventions that reduce stress without being explicitly dharma-shaped.
You also asked about whether there’s actually any evidence that tech/scalable solutions can match the psychological resiliency gained by real practice.
I don’t think I can do justice to this at the moment, I have a lot to say about it. But a few quick threads. The “tech/scaling” bucket is very diverse. I don’t have the same answer for everything that falls inside it. But broadly, I don’t follow this dichotomy between “real practice” and the forms of practice that are modulated by tech. Different cultures have used different forms of tech since forever. I don’t see the dichotomy as real vs. tech-boosted. These are all just different practices, and each approach likely comes with its own tradeoffs that may or may not serve someone’s practice, depending on their goals, values, and view.
And the psychological effects of economic policies are obviously a different category as well.
No, I don’t think meditating with an ultrasound headset on will have the exact same results as meditation without a headset (yes, there’s data already showing efficacy here, though). And no, I don’t think reducing the economic insecurity of a single mother via an expanded child tax credit will have the same effects as if they take up a serious meditation practice. But given the choice, I believe that single mother would choose the cash over the meditation practice almost every time, and that if our aim is to reduce suffering at scale, it is more important to focus on raising the economic security floor for the poor than getting more of them to take up a meditation practice.
All of that said, I completely share your interest in social institutions that help care “for the commons of our Mind.” I think we’re seeing a huge growth of interest in this, less in the meditation world specifically, but as pushback against ‘the attention economy’ in general, where meditation is just one among many pieces floating around. Libraries would be a very cool site of experimentation here! Here in Brooklyn, there’s a “school of attention” that opened exactly on this theme, they’re up to some cool stuff (https://www.schoolofattention.org/).
I’m intrigued by the threads you raise here, any development on them since you posted this? In particular, I’m curious about the end note on tax code; and also ways of integrating of contemplative practices into society.
I’m skeptical about the following claim on two points: “Empowering people to adopt their own values free from the influence of economic necessity doesn’t guarantee a Buddhist society, but it does mean that people will be increasingly free to adopt and express their own preferences, rather than being forced into the contemplative idea of a good life.”
One - are people being forced into the contemplative idea of a good life anywhere? what does this even look like?
Two - a core element of contemplative practice in my eyes is the development of a sharp, clear, mind that is not easily manipulated. Im doubtful that the mind-zap tech and other scaling solutions you mention can match the psychological resiliency gained by real practice. have you found anything to suggest / disprove this? if not, how might real practice become more widely embedded in our society? i’ve been thinking about libraries as places of practice; as they are already established, trusted commons dedicated to the cultivation of people’s minds. I wonder what other forms of social institution, existing and not yet existing, might step into this function of caring for the commons of our Mind?
Hey River, thanks for the question. Fun to revisit this.
You asked: “are people being forced into the contemplative idea of a good life anywhere? what does this even look like?”
What I have in mind is how many contemplatives will articulate a commitment to serving the well-being of all sentient beings, but then seem to believe that the most relevant leverage point for doing so is to get more beings on a dharma path. So it’s not that I think contemplative are forcing people into their view of the good life. Rather, that contemplatives think of their own commitment in terms of getting more people to take up contemplative practices, rather than, like, expanding health care coverage or reducing poverty, etc. In terms of leverage points to benefit the consciousness of as many sentient beings as possible, I think contemplatives tend to be too laser-focused on dharma-shaped benefits, and too uninterested in larger social policy interventions that reduce stress without being explicitly dharma-shaped.
You also asked about whether there’s actually any evidence that tech/scalable solutions can match the psychological resiliency gained by real practice.
I don’t think I can do justice to this at the moment, I have a lot to say about it. But a few quick threads. The “tech/scaling” bucket is very diverse. I don’t have the same answer for everything that falls inside it. But broadly, I don’t follow this dichotomy between “real practice” and the forms of practice that are modulated by tech. Different cultures have used different forms of tech since forever. I don’t see the dichotomy as real vs. tech-boosted. These are all just different practices, and each approach likely comes with its own tradeoffs that may or may not serve someone’s practice, depending on their goals, values, and view.
And the psychological effects of economic policies are obviously a different category as well.
No, I don’t think meditating with an ultrasound headset on will have the exact same results as meditation without a headset (yes, there’s data already showing efficacy here, though). And no, I don’t think reducing the economic insecurity of a single mother via an expanded child tax credit will have the same effects as if they take up a serious meditation practice. But given the choice, I believe that single mother would choose the cash over the meditation practice almost every time, and that if our aim is to reduce suffering at scale, it is more important to focus on raising the economic security floor for the poor than getting more of them to take up a meditation practice.
All of that said, I completely share your interest in social institutions that help care “for the commons of our Mind.” I think we’re seeing a huge growth of interest in this, less in the meditation world specifically, but as pushback against ‘the attention economy’ in general, where meditation is just one among many pieces floating around. Libraries would be a very cool site of experimentation here! Here in Brooklyn, there’s a “school of attention” that opened exactly on this theme, they’re up to some cool stuff (https://www.schoolofattention.org/).