To see the world clearly is to see nuance and contingency and ambiguity, descriptions that often clash with the normal sense of clarity. Humans crave clarity and we will invent clarity even when it does not exist.
I'm all for calling attention to the benefits of practising cognitive empathy, avoiding attribution error, and learning to separate feelings and emotions from one's thoughts and intentions. Where I part company is the idea that the Buddha's (or Buddhism's) goal is to better the world. It's not about making the world ("out there") a better place, it's about learning how to make peace with the fact that the world is not a perfect place and will never be. That's not to say that the Buddha (and Buddhists) has not endeavoured to create conditions more conducive to practice--safer, calmer, and supportive--but this was just a means, not the end.
I share your enthusiasm for Buddhist meditation practice. I share your perspective that we'd all do better if we had a less-clouded, more empathetic perspective on others, friends and enemies. But how will "cognitive empathy" (understanding the motivating thoughts & feelings of others) aid us beyond our current means? And how would "cognitive empathy" have helped leaders, such as Chamberlain, FDR--and even Stalin!--in dealing with Hitler? (To use a character whom, I believe, most of us would have a hard time "empathizing" with, although knowing his mind and drives and will would have been of the utmost value.) We can now say that same about Putin, or even Zelensky. Yet leaders surprise us. In a strategic interaction (IR, for instance), circumstances promote deception & unpredictability. Such incentives would thus interfere with any cognitive empathy exercised by anyone seeking to interact with another or influence the other's courses of action. Are we really in danger because we don't understand Putin? Or perhaps Putin doesn't give a hoot about our perspective or values and doesn't want or care for "empathy? In short, are we not wiser to say "this man (or woman) is no damn good" and isn't amendable to reasoned persuasion or appeals to the common good, if such is the case. (And not to get readers too fired-up, but I can think of some "leaders" in the U.S. who trigger the same response in me.) Sometimes there are deep & abiding conflicts that we can't bridge by negotiation or persuasion. Sometimes the balance of goodness & right clearly tip the scales of justice and our perception in these matters is a result of reasonably clear insight. In short, the absolute goodness of a Christ or a Buddha or any person of good will cannot overcome those who are committed to force, violence, and evil.
I’m interested in what you’ve said here… I’ve always understood that Buddhist meditation to be about an emptying of the mind, not a meditating ‘on’ something. I’ve recently been involved in publishing a book on Christian Mindfulness (https://amzn.to/3z0ehnC) and these practices are found throughout church history. They certainly involve the meditating ‘on’, rather than an ‘emptying of’. I would suggest that our encounter with the ‘ultimate other’ (God) in Christian mindfulness (the meditation of the psalms?) is what enables us to more deeply connect with those who appear ‘other’ to us, or who we are urged to ‘other’. Is there something specific to Buddhist meditation that you think is able to achieve something over and above what Christian mindfulness / meditation enables us to reach? You seem to imply that Buddhism has a monopoly on meditative practices, and therefore any attempt to separate cognition and emotion is Buddhist, which would mean Christian contemplation etc. is ultimately Buddhist. Is that what you’re suggesting? I’d be interested in your thoughts…
These ideas seem so sensible and welcome that I start worrying that I'm inadvertently relaxing into a tribal affiliation (-: . But if so, I suppose the tribal label is "human," and its boundaries readily permeable to all -- with the possible exception of unwise extraterrestrials and poorly-programmed AI.
I am a longtime devotee of your teachings, so I will continue to follow your newsletter; however, one of my favorite aspects of your podcast was the analysis of current events from a perspective of both Buddhist thought and evolutionary biology. As we try to lead a compassionate life, it is so helpful to read your insights on how human behavior evolved - war, narcissism, and higher-order altruism recur throughout history despite such knowledge.
"One way to put one of Buddhism’s central claims is like this: The reason we suffer, and the reason we make other people suffer, is that we don’t see the world clearly."
This ties in nicely with what psychiatrist M. Scott Peck said in his seminal work "The Road Less Traveled": that mental health is a defined as "a dedication to reality at all costs."
So is one way to attain these goals that we properly invest in treating mental illness while supporting mental wellness?
Sometimes, as a pragmatist, I think sometimes the situation can boil down to Teddy Roosevelt's saying of "Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far." I think the situation with Putin calls for the TR approach.
I do have an issue with this for example in Bob's piece (I have been a Bob follower for about 6 or 7 years now):
"For example: I’ve argued that doing a better job of exercising “cognitive empathy” toward Russian leaders over the past three decades—better understanding how they see the world, and pursuing America’s foreign policy goals in light of that understanding—could probably have prevented the Ukraine war. And I’ve argued that exercising cognitive empathy toward Putin right now could be in the world’s interest (helping us, for example, avoid nuclear war). "
I would say this part in particular "...could probably have prevented the Ukraine war." is at least arguable and at most I would have written "...could POSSIBLY have prevented the Ukraine war." I may be overcome with confirmation bias and attribution error in thinking still that this war is overwhelmingly caused by Putin's thoughts/beliefs and the dynamics generated by Russian culture, history and authoritarian government downsides. Given these factors in my thinking our (USA/NATO) while we have say contributing negligence in the matter, the majority of the causes lie in other arenas that all the cognitive empathy and non-attribution errors in place we still would be up against Putin as the problem generated out of his individual psychodynamics, the Russian history, Russian culture and the nature of authoritarian systems. Thus, even at the risk of Putin's first use of nuclear weapons we need to respond massively should he use nuclear weapons only with conventional means (like destroy the Baltic and/or Black Sea Russian fleets and maybe all Russian troops on the ground in Ukraine) and risk the ultimate of nuclear war. We do this out of believing that if we do not we won't stop Putin/Russia and will embolden any authoritarian government with nuclear weapons to prey upon their neighbors and/or eventually NATO/USA. Then I could be completely wrong he says with a smile.
To see the world clearly is to see nuance and contingency and ambiguity, descriptions that often clash with the normal sense of clarity. Humans crave clarity and we will invent clarity even when it does not exist.
I'm all for calling attention to the benefits of practising cognitive empathy, avoiding attribution error, and learning to separate feelings and emotions from one's thoughts and intentions. Where I part company is the idea that the Buddha's (or Buddhism's) goal is to better the world. It's not about making the world ("out there") a better place, it's about learning how to make peace with the fact that the world is not a perfect place and will never be. That's not to say that the Buddha (and Buddhists) has not endeavoured to create conditions more conducive to practice--safer, calmer, and supportive--but this was just a means, not the end.
I share your enthusiasm for Buddhist meditation practice. I share your perspective that we'd all do better if we had a less-clouded, more empathetic perspective on others, friends and enemies. But how will "cognitive empathy" (understanding the motivating thoughts & feelings of others) aid us beyond our current means? And how would "cognitive empathy" have helped leaders, such as Chamberlain, FDR--and even Stalin!--in dealing with Hitler? (To use a character whom, I believe, most of us would have a hard time "empathizing" with, although knowing his mind and drives and will would have been of the utmost value.) We can now say that same about Putin, or even Zelensky. Yet leaders surprise us. In a strategic interaction (IR, for instance), circumstances promote deception & unpredictability. Such incentives would thus interfere with any cognitive empathy exercised by anyone seeking to interact with another or influence the other's courses of action. Are we really in danger because we don't understand Putin? Or perhaps Putin doesn't give a hoot about our perspective or values and doesn't want or care for "empathy? In short, are we not wiser to say "this man (or woman) is no damn good" and isn't amendable to reasoned persuasion or appeals to the common good, if such is the case. (And not to get readers too fired-up, but I can think of some "leaders" in the U.S. who trigger the same response in me.) Sometimes there are deep & abiding conflicts that we can't bridge by negotiation or persuasion. Sometimes the balance of goodness & right clearly tip the scales of justice and our perception in these matters is a result of reasonably clear insight. In short, the absolute goodness of a Christ or a Buddha or any person of good will cannot overcome those who are committed to force, violence, and evil.
BTW, check out the vastly underappreciated political thinker & Buddhist meditation teacher on this topic. William (Patrick) Ophuls. My observations & thoughts on his work: https://sgreenleaf.substack.com/p/jesus-buddha-and-socrates-need-help-14-09-19.
I don't mean to discourage you, au contraire! But the hurdle is high. Good luck.
It’s not just that we don’t see the world clearly- it’s because we want things to be different from the way they are.
I’m interested in what you’ve said here… I’ve always understood that Buddhist meditation to be about an emptying of the mind, not a meditating ‘on’ something. I’ve recently been involved in publishing a book on Christian Mindfulness (https://amzn.to/3z0ehnC) and these practices are found throughout church history. They certainly involve the meditating ‘on’, rather than an ‘emptying of’. I would suggest that our encounter with the ‘ultimate other’ (God) in Christian mindfulness (the meditation of the psalms?) is what enables us to more deeply connect with those who appear ‘other’ to us, or who we are urged to ‘other’. Is there something specific to Buddhist meditation that you think is able to achieve something over and above what Christian mindfulness / meditation enables us to reach? You seem to imply that Buddhism has a monopoly on meditative practices, and therefore any attempt to separate cognition and emotion is Buddhist, which would mean Christian contemplation etc. is ultimately Buddhist. Is that what you’re suggesting? I’d be interested in your thoughts…
These ideas seem so sensible and welcome that I start worrying that I'm inadvertently relaxing into a tribal affiliation (-: . But if so, I suppose the tribal label is "human," and its boundaries readily permeable to all -- with the possible exception of unwise extraterrestrials and poorly-programmed AI.
I am a longtime devotee of your teachings, so I will continue to follow your newsletter; however, one of my favorite aspects of your podcast was the analysis of current events from a perspective of both Buddhist thought and evolutionary biology. As we try to lead a compassionate life, it is so helpful to read your insights on how human behavior evolved - war, narcissism, and higher-order altruism recur throughout history despite such knowledge.
Peg Regan
"One way to put one of Buddhism’s central claims is like this: The reason we suffer, and the reason we make other people suffer, is that we don’t see the world clearly."
This ties in nicely with what psychiatrist M. Scott Peck said in his seminal work "The Road Less Traveled": that mental health is a defined as "a dedication to reality at all costs."
So is one way to attain these goals that we properly invest in treating mental illness while supporting mental wellness?
Sometimes, as a pragmatist, I think sometimes the situation can boil down to Teddy Roosevelt's saying of "Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far." I think the situation with Putin calls for the TR approach.
I do have an issue with this for example in Bob's piece (I have been a Bob follower for about 6 or 7 years now):
"For example: I’ve argued that doing a better job of exercising “cognitive empathy” toward Russian leaders over the past three decades—better understanding how they see the world, and pursuing America’s foreign policy goals in light of that understanding—could probably have prevented the Ukraine war. And I’ve argued that exercising cognitive empathy toward Putin right now could be in the world’s interest (helping us, for example, avoid nuclear war). "
I would say this part in particular "...could probably have prevented the Ukraine war." is at least arguable and at most I would have written "...could POSSIBLY have prevented the Ukraine war." I may be overcome with confirmation bias and attribution error in thinking still that this war is overwhelmingly caused by Putin's thoughts/beliefs and the dynamics generated by Russian culture, history and authoritarian government downsides. Given these factors in my thinking our (USA/NATO) while we have say contributing negligence in the matter, the majority of the causes lie in other arenas that all the cognitive empathy and non-attribution errors in place we still would be up against Putin as the problem generated out of his individual psychodynamics, the Russian history, Russian culture and the nature of authoritarian systems. Thus, even at the risk of Putin's first use of nuclear weapons we need to respond massively should he use nuclear weapons only with conventional means (like destroy the Baltic and/or Black Sea Russian fleets and maybe all Russian troops on the ground in Ukraine) and risk the ultimate of nuclear war. We do this out of believing that if we do not we won't stop Putin/Russia and will embolden any authoritarian government with nuclear weapons to prey upon their neighbors and/or eventually NATO/USA. Then I could be completely wrong he says with a smile.