Brilliant essay. Sarris describes a state of being that I remember from my early childhood. Long gone now of course. I can only describe it as a sort of constant, full-bodied communion with the world. An alignment of mind, body, spirit and world. Thanks for sharing!
I really enjoyed this essay. I like the way Sarris writes, he brings wonderful images to my mind. As someone who is not religious but claims to be spiritual I can relate to what he says about religious proofs and I can admit that I think I am missing the point a lot of the time as I am often seeking 'proof'. Something I hope to reflect on a little more.
I found your point about 'socia'l media and loneliness valid, but I also think that social media could be seen as contributing significantly to the death of intuition. People are not relying on their own knowledge or innate wisdom any longer. They now have round the clock access to a plethora of "experts" on any topic online. There is an online group for everything, and while this can be great for connecting it can also inhibit our ability for intuitive decision making. I notice this is especially true for parenting...mother's in particular, seem to be flocking to online groups to ask for guidance or advice about everything mothering and relationship related. And I mean everything...its almost like we've lost our ability to recognise what feels right or wrong and have to ask a bunch of strangers online who don't know us, our partner or our children what we should do. In our downtime, rather than reading stories or myths that can build knowledge and intuition, we are glued to our phones reading posts and comments from other lost souls. It's scary really and I think Sarris is on to something.
I think a lot of people are in a similar position re religion right now. The way Westerners currently view the world doesn't allow for any form of enchanment, and I think this has been pretty detrimental to our societies.
Very interesting observation! We can probably put some of the blame on Google, too - it's now very easy to Google any small question you have about any topic, even ones that we would have just guessed at or intuited.
Interesting coincidence that I discovered this right after reading Joe Carlsmith's Deep Atheism essay (https://joecarlsmith.com/2024/01/04/deep-atheism-and-ai-risk), which explores, but does not necessarily defend, the explicit negation of the gratitude and wonder towards reality Sarris emphasizes.
If I were to offer my own thoughts on the essay, I suppose I'd say that it unnecessarily entangles mythology with the sort of reverent spirituality and openness that Carlsmith discusses. Anybody who reads fiction of a certain sort is well-acquainted with the ability for stories to communicate complex intuitions and wisdom to readers, regardless of whether the reader has that spiritual spark that Sarris so romanticizes. In fact, much writing among Yudkowsky-style rationalists sends the very opposite message: that deep atheist one, which eschews deference to the world as it is, and encourages people to find wonder in the accomplishments of humanity, particularly those that 'fix' the world in some sense.
Interesting essay, thanks for sharing. I don't think I fully got the whole thing - I've only read bits and pieces of Yudkowsky's work, so some of this went over my head - but if I've understood correctly, 'shallow atheism' is basic 'there's no such thing as God' atheism, and 'deep atheism' is a much broader scepticism of other god-like concepts (Tradition, Human Rights, universal values, and similar). Is that right?
I think you're right that Sarris ties the knowledge (or more accurately, the living-out) of mythology to an open, reverent spirituality. He would say that the messages we receive from old stories are the right ones - they express wisdom that's been passed down and refined over centuries - and that we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss them simply because they're old or seemingly outdated. There are rational critiques that can be made of Sarris' position, of course, but I think he would argue that the 'truth' of these stories ultimately can't be understood through rational means. It's only through experience that their truth or falsity can be known. Unfortunately for many, this does require a level of reverence and openness that many Yudkowsky-style rationalists would dismiss out of hand.
I think your interpretation of deep atheism is more or less right-- It is kind of a meandering essay, and he doesn't seem to give a boiled-down definition as I might have liked.
Re: Sarris, I think that the difference between experiential versus empirical means of accessing knowledge is worth plumbing: Attempting to describe both, they seem almost the same, but I can't help but get the impression that writers mean very different things when they speak of each.
If 'experience' is meant to point towards gut intuitions, I have to admit that my gut is pretty brazenly self-defeating when it comes to this topic. When I consult it, it practically screams at me, "Stop consulting your gut for matters of truth and falsity!" And so, I feel as though even if I accept Sallis' framing on truth, my hand is somewhat forced in playing the whole song and dance of rationality, at least to some extent.
Another, less well-formed thought is: isn't descartes-style rational thought deeply rooted in intuiton, anyway? Maybe there's a sort of triangle going on, where empiricism is rigor + external observation, rationalism is rigor + gut intuitions, and experience is gut intuitions + external observation. At least, that's the best way i can make sense of it. I was never the best at parsing spiritual langauge (like 'experiential knowledge') on it own terms.
I think 'empirical' can be used in roughly the same way as 'experiential' (knowledge gained through sensory experience), but online it's usually used in a more narrow sense, essentially referring to something like the scientific method. Sarris is arguing for something like 'lived experience', i.e., experiencing something yourself, first-hand.
If your gut/intuition is leading you to self-defeating conclusions, it might be worth reflecting on what information has fed your 'gut instinct'! Sometimes the intuition to seek additional information is correct - we can't know everything, and it's important to be able to recognise when we've hit our limits - but we should generally be able to rely on our intuition to point us in the right direction. I think the core of what Sarris is saying here is that our myths and traditions are like 'healthy goods' for our gut instinct, and that the more we nourish ourselves with them, the better our intuition will get.
That's a really interesting way to think about it - and it suggests that knowledge (wisdom?) requires the right balance of rigor, external observation, and gut intuition.
Brilliant essay. Sarris describes a state of being that I remember from my early childhood. Long gone now of course. I can only describe it as a sort of constant, full-bodied communion with the world. An alignment of mind, body, spirit and world. Thanks for sharing!
He really is great at that. Thanks for reading!
I really enjoyed this essay. I like the way Sarris writes, he brings wonderful images to my mind. As someone who is not religious but claims to be spiritual I can relate to what he says about religious proofs and I can admit that I think I am missing the point a lot of the time as I am often seeking 'proof'. Something I hope to reflect on a little more.
I found your point about 'socia'l media and loneliness valid, but I also think that social media could be seen as contributing significantly to the death of intuition. People are not relying on their own knowledge or innate wisdom any longer. They now have round the clock access to a plethora of "experts" on any topic online. There is an online group for everything, and while this can be great for connecting it can also inhibit our ability for intuitive decision making. I notice this is especially true for parenting...mother's in particular, seem to be flocking to online groups to ask for guidance or advice about everything mothering and relationship related. And I mean everything...its almost like we've lost our ability to recognise what feels right or wrong and have to ask a bunch of strangers online who don't know us, our partner or our children what we should do. In our downtime, rather than reading stories or myths that can build knowledge and intuition, we are glued to our phones reading posts and comments from other lost souls. It's scary really and I think Sarris is on to something.
I think a lot of people are in a similar position re religion right now. The way Westerners currently view the world doesn't allow for any form of enchanment, and I think this has been pretty detrimental to our societies.
Very interesting observation! We can probably put some of the blame on Google, too - it's now very easy to Google any small question you have about any topic, even ones that we would have just guessed at or intuited.
Glad you enjoyed this essay!
Interesting coincidence that I discovered this right after reading Joe Carlsmith's Deep Atheism essay (https://joecarlsmith.com/2024/01/04/deep-atheism-and-ai-risk), which explores, but does not necessarily defend, the explicit negation of the gratitude and wonder towards reality Sarris emphasizes.
If I were to offer my own thoughts on the essay, I suppose I'd say that it unnecessarily entangles mythology with the sort of reverent spirituality and openness that Carlsmith discusses. Anybody who reads fiction of a certain sort is well-acquainted with the ability for stories to communicate complex intuitions and wisdom to readers, regardless of whether the reader has that spiritual spark that Sarris so romanticizes. In fact, much writing among Yudkowsky-style rationalists sends the very opposite message: that deep atheist one, which eschews deference to the world as it is, and encourages people to find wonder in the accomplishments of humanity, particularly those that 'fix' the world in some sense.
Interesting essay, thanks for sharing. I don't think I fully got the whole thing - I've only read bits and pieces of Yudkowsky's work, so some of this went over my head - but if I've understood correctly, 'shallow atheism' is basic 'there's no such thing as God' atheism, and 'deep atheism' is a much broader scepticism of other god-like concepts (Tradition, Human Rights, universal values, and similar). Is that right?
I think you're right that Sarris ties the knowledge (or more accurately, the living-out) of mythology to an open, reverent spirituality. He would say that the messages we receive from old stories are the right ones - they express wisdom that's been passed down and refined over centuries - and that we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss them simply because they're old or seemingly outdated. There are rational critiques that can be made of Sarris' position, of course, but I think he would argue that the 'truth' of these stories ultimately can't be understood through rational means. It's only through experience that their truth or falsity can be known. Unfortunately for many, this does require a level of reverence and openness that many Yudkowsky-style rationalists would dismiss out of hand.
I think your interpretation of deep atheism is more or less right-- It is kind of a meandering essay, and he doesn't seem to give a boiled-down definition as I might have liked.
Re: Sarris, I think that the difference between experiential versus empirical means of accessing knowledge is worth plumbing: Attempting to describe both, they seem almost the same, but I can't help but get the impression that writers mean very different things when they speak of each.
If 'experience' is meant to point towards gut intuitions, I have to admit that my gut is pretty brazenly self-defeating when it comes to this topic. When I consult it, it practically screams at me, "Stop consulting your gut for matters of truth and falsity!" And so, I feel as though even if I accept Sallis' framing on truth, my hand is somewhat forced in playing the whole song and dance of rationality, at least to some extent.
Another, less well-formed thought is: isn't descartes-style rational thought deeply rooted in intuiton, anyway? Maybe there's a sort of triangle going on, where empiricism is rigor + external observation, rationalism is rigor + gut intuitions, and experience is gut intuitions + external observation. At least, that's the best way i can make sense of it. I was never the best at parsing spiritual langauge (like 'experiential knowledge') on it own terms.
I think 'empirical' can be used in roughly the same way as 'experiential' (knowledge gained through sensory experience), but online it's usually used in a more narrow sense, essentially referring to something like the scientific method. Sarris is arguing for something like 'lived experience', i.e., experiencing something yourself, first-hand.
If your gut/intuition is leading you to self-defeating conclusions, it might be worth reflecting on what information has fed your 'gut instinct'! Sometimes the intuition to seek additional information is correct - we can't know everything, and it's important to be able to recognise when we've hit our limits - but we should generally be able to rely on our intuition to point us in the right direction. I think the core of what Sarris is saying here is that our myths and traditions are like 'healthy goods' for our gut instinct, and that the more we nourish ourselves with them, the better our intuition will get.
That's a really interesting way to think about it - and it suggests that knowledge (wisdom?) requires the right balance of rigor, external observation, and gut intuition.