= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kaj_Sotala comments on Ritual Report 2012: Life, Death, Light, Darkness, and Love. - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (206)
Because humans experience an emotion of "sacredness" (in scare quotes because although the feeling is commonly associated with religion, it doesn't need to be), which many people think is fantastic. This blogger puts it pretty well:
Your reaction seems to be "this ritual stuff smacks of religion, and I don't want to get involved with any of that!". My response would be, roughly, "Humans have this awesome in-built feeling that makes things feel beautiful and great and fantastic and helps us give moments of respite in the middle of all or other worries, and religion has made this land-grab and laid unfair claim on the whole experience. Well, why the hell should we put up with that? Why should the whole thing be labelled 'religious', when it's a basic emotion of human beings that doesn't require being religious in the first place? Religion has done a lot of harm already, and if we begin cutting off valuable and important parts of ourselves simply because we feel those parts are associated with an enemy tribe, we're voluntarily letting religion do more damage. I say we stop that shit right here."
That's not my response at all. I'm afraid you seem to be reading things into my response that are simply not there. There seems to be some sort of misunderstanding here that's causing you to set up (what is from my perspective) a straw man about objections to religion and then extensively knocking it down with arguments that have little bearing on what I've said.
I don't know why that is; perhaps I've been unclear; perhaps you are rounding to the nearest common objection? In any case, my objection has nothing directly to do with these rituals "smacking of religion". I do think, as I've mentioned in a previous post, that the desire for such rituals is stronger in people who come from a religious background and are used to such things from their youth. (I also have to wonder — and this is a bit of an aside — why we should use rituals that draw so directly from religion in form: someone (juliawise?) mentioned saying grace at the meal, and that strikes me as incredibly unlikely to be something an entirely non-religious person would come up with if given the task of "think of some cool and effective rituals".)
I do experience the emotion of sacredness. What I find extremely offputting and downright scary is the collectivization of that emotion. I don't like spectator sports, protests, and other mass actions for the same reason (substitute pride, righteous anger, or whatever other appropriate emotion for sacredness in those examples). I have absolutely no desire to subordinate my feelings of exaltation and transcendence to a group. While I can't say that triggering sacredness in a collective "secular" context is as bad as triggering it in a collective religious context, the fundamental problem is the same.
My apologies, then. I read this part:
as being motivated by a dislike of religious ritual, as it explicitly mentioned "mass" and "sermon" as examples of things to avoid. But upon a re-reading, I can see that you were rather worried about Eliezer's writings being promoted to a status where they wouldn't be questioned.
Also, I might have somewhat used your comment as an excuse to make a general point I'd been wanting to make for a while. Sorry about that. But also thank you, for giving me an excuse to make it. ;)
All of that said, I can understand having a dislike of the collectivization of sacredness, I just don't share it myself.
Heh, no worries. Rereading that quoted bit of mine, I can see the source of the confusion. Your revised interpretation of my intent is correct.
Incidentally, the term "sermon" as applied in this context is from Yvain's linked review.
Hah. Glad to provide, I suppose. ;)
I think grace is underrated. As I said, I'm used to silent grace about three breaths long. It gives you fifteen seconds to relax your body, look around at who is gathered, and think "We are about to sit down and eat together. It's nice to be here."
As has been extensively pointed out in Eliezer's writings and elsewhere on this site, you can come up with a reasonable-sounding justification for just about anything; if you start with your bottom line filled in, the rest of the page is easy to write.
Here's a question. You're saying that the value of grace at a meal is that it gives you, personally, some time to whatever (relax, look around, think, etc.). You would therefore be perfectly ok with being the only one at the table participating in this silent grace ritual, or being one of only some participants, while the others merrily dug in and proceeded with conversation — yes?
I sometimes do it alone if no one else is doing it, yes. Or two of us may do it if the others in the family don't want to. But I enjoy it more if we all do it at once. This seems to set off some kind of alarm bell with you, and I'm not sure there's a good reason it should or shouldn't set off alarms other than some kind of aesthetic preference.
Would you be able to explain why that is?
Indeed it does. Because it's a short step from there to social pressure on people who wouldn't otherwise have any interest or motivation whatsoever in participating.
And here's the thing: it's a different sort of social pressure than the sort experienced by e.g. someone who doesn't feel like playing a board game that everyone else at the party is playing, or someone who isn't hungry when everyone else is deciding whether to go to a restaurant for dinner. It's not "everyone else is doing it; join in, it'll be fun!"; it's not "your abstention is making the situation less convenient for everyone else"; it's "you're offending the group by not participating".
I'm not saying that you apply such social pressure on people, only explaining the reason for the alarm bells.
I like the feeling of doing things together. We can probably both think of evolutionary and neurological reasons why humans enjoy group activities. Ultimately, like I said, I think it boils down to an aesthetic preference that isn't right or wrong.
I see your point about not letting this become a social pressure on people who don't want to participate, and I'll try to be mindful of this.
Yes, at this point I'd have to agree that it's an aesthetic preference, neither right nor wrong, though I think it's a preference with potential dangerous consequences, on which point it seems we've also come to some sort of agreement. That said, I appreciate that you've given my view consideration; some of my comments may have come off as less tactful than I intended, and you and other commenters have been quite patient.
By the way, thank you for the link; as it happens, reading the post and some of the comments has cemented my views on rituals and group bonding. I think this comment by JenniferRM (and her longer comment just downthread) is very insightful and quite appropriate to the current discussion.
ETA: Another data point for the "some people don't like this sort of thing" claim.
My family has a similar tradition of silence before meals. It provides a moment to relax and change mindset to meal time. It says that this is a time to spend together, and not just another thing to be rushed through. It's nice if everyone participates, because that provides a pause in conversation and makes it easier to stop and relax.
I think before meals is not that unlikely a time working from a blank slate. There is something powerful about sharing food. It's a bonding ritual. Using that same time to reflect and relax makes the moment of silence, grace, etc. more effective.
Agreed. As I mentioned at the last meetup, saying grace is a form of negative visualization, which allows you to gain more satisfaction from your meal than you otherwise would. It works by using framing-effects to change your "default" mindset from having the meal to not having it.
That was more of a joke. This is what was said: "To all whom it may concern, thanks."
In Japan, it is customary to say "itadakimasu" before eating, which is a sort of grace, and which is not seen as religious at all.
My dad has a gracelike ritual which he has carried on despite having been an atheist for decades (people lean over to kiss those sitting next to them) which my mom and many others have been very happy with.
Many languages have equivalents of bon appétit. That's like "cheers!" but for food instead of drinks. (In English there's "enjoy your meal" but IME IIRC it's very uncommon among native speakers in non-formal situations.)
Can you explain what you did to experience it? (Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I'm curious what it feels like.)
Hmm. Well, first of all, I don't guarantee that what I'm thinking of is the same (or analogous) emotion as what everyone else here is talking about; after all, if I don't experience it in the same way, or in the same condition, who's to say it's even the same thing at all? But to pursue that line of reasoning is to get into the problem of other minds, and that's probably an unnecessary tangent. (Although this may be empirically investigated; perhaps check to see whether the same parts of my brain and e.g. Raemon's brain trigger in situations we would both describe as being consistent with emotional responses to sacredness, etc.)
Anyway, to your question: the most recent thing I can think of was watching Cosmos (as in the Carl Sagan series, and yes, I really hadn't ever seen it before this year). Some parts of Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality trigger a similar feeling.
As an aside, I think sacredness is not the most apt term for this emotion; I think a better word might be exaltation.
I think of sacredness and exaltation as overlapping circles in a ven diagram. The parts of HP:MoR that I assume you're talking to are both exalting and sacred to me. They're specifically about humanity rising up and conquering a powerful challenge.
Wandering out into the night and looking at the stars gives me a sense of sacredness that is not inherently about exaltation - My connotation of exaltation is a sort of power, and the stars make me feel simultaneously big and small, but in such a way that power is almost irrelevant. I'm just experiencing being this small but meaningful part of the universe. I'm not sure if my use of the words here is common though.
Mmm... I sort of see what you mean. What I meant was that "sacredness" does not feel grammatically appropriate to be naming an emotion. Also, "sacredness" in the moral-philosophy sense in which I've seen it used refers to an infinite value, something which may not be traded off. I wouldn't apply the term to stars (don't get me wrong, contemplating the cosmos does trigger in me that-emotion-to-which-I-think-we're-both-referring, I just don't think they have infinite value; to the extent that I think anything could sensibly be construed to have infinite value, stars just don't qualify).
You're saying that enabling an extremely common feature of human brains through words, music, aesthetically pleasing stimuli and social interaction is making people less sane? To formalize the argument beyond your horrified shriek and my incredulous stare, what's the problem with religion?
It's a superstimulus, and all superstimuli are dangerous? It might be fair to say it's one - religion existed in the ancestral environment, but modern forms are likely optimized beyond that. But superstimuli are everywhere - chocolate and Photoshopped models and FarmVille. Are you generally this panicked about them, and if so why aren't you a Ludddite?
It strongly reinforces ingroup cohesion. Humans need social bonding, but maybe you're complaining that religion does that too quickly and with too little trust testing? Are you this freaked out about sports, politics, or fandoms? Also note that these are yearly rituals, not regular congregations.
It puts people in a more suggestible state. Like... just about everything, according to priming research. At least not more than belonging to a group which will downvote you and call you stupid on the Internet for unpopular beliefs.
No, it seriously puts people in a more suggestible state - it's better modeled as a drug that as a behavior. Yes, and there's another bonding behavior that delivers a lot of oxytocin and endorphins, namely sex. This is a good reason to avoid sex if you're a secret agent man who might let the wrong word slip, but usually dwarfed by the benefits. As mind-altering behaviors go, meditation is freakier - and it turns out to be healthy.
It has a tradition of being used as a vehicle for stupid ideas and violence. We could just, y'know, not do that, but there are also solutions, like Discordianism, which is designed to be impossible to coherently take seriously enough to be a fanatic.
Name three? Note that aesthetic appreciation is only a subcomponent of religious wonder, and that "holy mackerel this is awesome" is a different type.
Claim to not be a cult
Scumbag Lesswrong
start stealing ideas from cults.
I've lurked on LW for a long time and can shrug off the second-hand embarrassment without fail, but I'll be damned if I ever link anyone I know to this web site. This undercurrent of LW does more damage than anything Roko ever posted.
I'm no stranger to ritual/awe/group bonding (Merzbow & MDMA: the reason for the season), but there is some hazy aesthetic line past which I cannot follow. Nor will I risk being associated with. Sorry.
If you enjoy this stuff, than more power to ya. Have a blast. Just keep in mind how many people are seriously turned off from LW because of it.
[in agreement with, rather than directed at, drethelin]
I - sadly but determinately - second that motion. A "Ritual Report" in Main ... because our community does not have enough novel ideas that are hard to swallow as is.
Thanks for sharing this, Quiet; I'm sad to say I agree with you. I think rationality as a movement can't afford to be associated with ritual. It's just too hard to believe that it's not a failure mode. I personally find Raemon's perspective inspiring and convincing. Raemon, it seems to me that you have a very sane perspective on the role of ritual in people's lives. And I'm all about trying to acknowledge and work with our own emotional needs, e.g. in this post. But I personally think openly associating with Ritual with a Capital R is just too sketchy looking for the community. It saddens me to have to worry about such alarm bells going off, but I think it's the reality.
Of course there are other easier-to-worry-about negative effects of ritual than simply appearances; what I'm saying is that, Raemon, even if you are able to avoid those failure modes --- and I have to say, to me, you seem very trustworthy in this regard --- I think strong ritual associations are worth avoiding for signaling alone.
I just want to say — lest Raemon, other ritual-type-event-organizers, or people who share their values and views on this subject, get the wrong idea — that we should distinguish between these two positions:
I, personally, am not concerned about LW's image, or my image if I associate with LW, and I make no comment about the strategic implications (for e.g. CFAR) of LW communities engaging in rituals; I just want to head off any conclusion or assertion that the only reason anyone would object to rituals is a concern about appearances, reputation, or the like.
(This, I think, is a special case of "well, people don't like X because they don't understand X" — "no, I understand X just fine and I still don't like it". Relatedly: "We shouldn't do X because people might draw the wrong conclusions about us" — "Well, let's do X and just not tell anyone" — "Actually, I think we shouldn't do X for reasons that have nothing to do with other people's opinions of us for doing X!")
I second this. I think it's kind of bad for LW's image to be associated with cult-like stuff, but I don't think it matters that much. But it would be really bad for ME if LW became really about ritual.
It really does; already there were some unfortunate occurrences when I tried to initiate new acolytes, ahem, I mean when prodding some friends across the inferential chasm.
(edit: Answered Raemon per PM)
BTW, there's inferential distances, and there's fuzzy-inferential distances, the latter being rationalization distances past some length.
I'm saying I don't think it matters much if it scares away random people.
I would like to hear more about that.
LWers are primates, too, so some of us need this pack bonding thing in a form of a ritual. I'm not one of those, but I can see how others can feel differently. And given that rituals, whether religious or civic, are pretty much standard and often spontaneous in most communities, I don't see how having a ritual for some subgroup would harm the High Ideals of Rationality. It even might make the participants appear more human, by counteracting the perception of "straw Volcan"ness.
I'm not saying rationalists should avoid engaging in ritual like the plague; but I do a lot of promoting of CFAR and rationality to non-LW-readers, and I happen to know from experience that a post like this in Main sends bad vibes to a lot of people. Again, I think it's sad to have to worry so much about image, but I think it's a reality.
Oh, I agree that the optics would be better if the post in question was in Discussion, not Main.
Rationality Itself remains unphased by a backyard party blog meetup, that's for sure.
I think Academian's post on the role of narrative in self-image touches on the seemingly disjointed purpose of a Rationalist Ritual. We all have our unique approaches to rational thought - my own experience consists largely of the dissolving of narratives in search of actual cause & effect. Not all narratives are destructive (or even wrong), but my employment of rational thought has never included them. Constructing and reinforcing narratives is what ritual is all about. Subjectively, the two just don't click for me.
Using Less Wrong as a maypole to dance around seems.. goofy, at best. Lesser things have been rot13'd around here.
If this is what it takes to signal that we have emotional lives, then fuck me running.
Have they mentioned they are not a cult today?
Hey, at least cults made the trains run on time!
I'm not seeing it; none of the above appears to be saying "Some people think religion-inspired rituals are da bomb, other people think they are horrible, so the truth must be somewhere in between".
Your use of "you guys", now, that strikes me as... below the belt.
No, I'm not saying "Politics and religion both make you very loyal to untrustworthy groups, so they're exactly as bad as each other", I'm saying that politics is at least as bad as religion in this area, so that can't be the reason you dislike the latter. It would help a lot if you stated your reasons, since apparently all of my guesses are wrong.
Citation needed. All groups built around an ideology make people think less straight, and some parts of religion make that worse, especially the cultural norm against criticizing religious ideas. Is there anything about making groups feel sacredness that makes it worse? Does solitary religious practice make people think less straight at all?
Also, are you Algernon-lawing the effects on religion on people who think exceptionally straight in the first place, or are you claiming that they always outweigh the benefits of religion against anxiety, unhappiness, discouragement, etc.?
I'm worried about turning into a cult, but not about looking more like a cult at constant actual cultishness. People not interested in investigating how conformist and closed-off we are can use the characteristics that are easy to eyeball, sure. Making the community less fun in order to making it grow faster in against the selfish interests of most members.
Something like that may qualify (I've never comprehended numbers greater than about twelve, let alone ten to the power thereof, so I wouldn't know). Does it make you feel connected to something greater (I think stargazing in general does that) and serene and loving (of everything) and loved (by nothing in particular)?
Some works of art also qualify, some of which aren't meant to be religious. But they seem to need additional religiousish behaviors to make you the right kind of rapt.
I am curious, are you suggesting (or do you think) that feeling this way, and experiences that make you feel this way, are a good thing?
That was just describing the emotion, but yes, I advocate it.
Pros: It feels several kinds of good. It improves mood afterwards, both directly (serenity, happiness) and indirectly (feeling loved improves self-esteem, feeling loving improves patience). It improves courage, motivation, and focus. It's a short-term fix for anxiety (which works even on partial success). It increases aesthetic appreciation. It's interesting, though most of the fun bits (like hallucinations) aren't universal.
Cons: If you attribute it to an external source, it can give you wrong beliefs. If you practice it in a group, it'll bind the group more than you might want. You might acquire some weird compulsions (I can't write "G-d", I occasionally have to stare at things). Some of the props might be expensive, depending on what works for you.
No I'm not. I'm saying that the religious groups you've observed go wonky because they're ideological groups, and that adding religion (without a taboo against criticizing it) won't increase the wonkiness. I admit it's hard to find examples because nearly all surviving religions have such taboos, but you could propose a mechanism, or any sort of attempt to answer "What's wrong with religion?" seriously I've been asking this for three comments spit it out already.
Okay, so... you don't think religion actually moves people who already think straight away from the optimum, you think that it suggests bad ideas to overconfident people, who are insufficiently skeptical of them because of said overconfidence? Is that right? So, in this example, it'll make people who think they're good skeptics but aren't more confident that existential risks and AGI are likely and other popular LW beliefs, more than any series of speeches at a big LW meetup?
Wait, what? Sure there's a whole lot of people here who are rather funny in the head, but people who are sensitive to ideas explained passionlessly in blog posts aren't examples of people more affected by religion...
You make a convincing argument in favor of banning sex. :P
Yes, but people go funny in the head too if sexually frustrated (also religiously frustrated, but more people are susceptible to the former). You could have anonymous wordless one-night-stands to get some of the benefits of partnered sex without it influencing the rest of your life, but you still get frustration from sexual tension between specific people.
Alternately we could take a leaf from bonobos and replace "hello" and "thanks" with sex. If everyone is permanently hovering between afterglow and indiscriminate horniness, nobody has a relative advantage in manipulating or lovebombing (heh) others.
However, most people's solution to the tradeoff between caution ("don't want to ruin our friendship", "don't stick your dick in crazy", and so on) and getting laid doesn't put all the weight on the former.
I meant more in weirdtopian terms than immediate ones. Love as wireheading and so on. It was mostly sarcastic, anyway.
Even more convincing in favour of celibacy, which indeed has a long pedigree in many traditions of enlightenment.
I actually wrote "in favor of celibacy", but decided it wasn't strong enough. Why should I let everyone else get brainwashed and selfishly save only myself?