And it may be possible to do something about this problem by retrofiting Levin's concept of Technological Approaches to Minds Everywhere to the upper realms. As below, so above.
“Within that context of thought, ghosts and spirits are quite as real as atoms, particles, photons and quarks are to a modern man. In that sense I believe in ghosts. Modern man has his ghosts and spirits too, you know.” “What?” “Oh, the laws of physics and of logic . . . the number system . . . the principle of algebraic substitution. These are ghosts. We just believe in them so thoroughly they seem real.””
— Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values by Robert M. Pirsig
I appreciate the provocation here. Naming the economy (or incentives) as abstractions is a needed reminder that our categories aren’t the same as the realities they point to. Where I stumble, though, is the move from one abstraction (“incentives”) to another (“demons”) without pausing to ask how these frames shape our responsibilities.
For me, the harder work is less about choosing the right abstraction than about cultivating the capacity to stay with their distortions—asking: What do they illuminate? What do they obscure? How do they move us closer to or further from accountability for harm?
So rather than deciding whether I “like” or “don’t like” the demon metaphor, I want to sit with the tension it surfaces. It helps me wonder: in our need for concepts, how do we avoid both cynicism (“it’s all made up”) and absolutism (“demons are real”), and instead practice something like sobriety, discernment, and responsibility in how we use the tools of language?
And it may be possible to do something about this problem by retrofiting Levin's concept of Technological Approaches to Minds Everywhere to the upper realms. As below, so above.
Andrew, have you read the book “After” by Dr. Bruce Greyson? You would love it.
“Within that context of thought, ghosts and spirits are quite as real as atoms, particles, photons and quarks are to a modern man. In that sense I believe in ghosts. Modern man has his ghosts and spirits too, you know.” “What?” “Oh, the laws of physics and of logic . . . the number system . . . the principle of algebraic substitution. These are ghosts. We just believe in them so thoroughly they seem real.””
— Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values by Robert M. Pirsig
https://a.co/3UFPK67
very interesting point. if someone claims to be possessed by the devil you should believe them, and counter with enthusiasm (possession by God)
Andrew Cote’s piece on abstractions reminded me how slippery our concepts are—‘economy,’ ‘incentives,’ even ‘demons.’ What I’m left asking is: how do we use these fictions responsibly, without collapsing into cynicism or absolutism? I’ve been exploring this in my own reflections here https://insearchofwisdom.online/wrestling-with-truth-mcgilchrist-complexity-science-and-the-metacrisis/
I appreciate the provocation here. Naming the economy (or incentives) as abstractions is a needed reminder that our categories aren’t the same as the realities they point to. Where I stumble, though, is the move from one abstraction (“incentives”) to another (“demons”) without pausing to ask how these frames shape our responsibilities.
For me, the harder work is less about choosing the right abstraction than about cultivating the capacity to stay with their distortions—asking: What do they illuminate? What do they obscure? How do they move us closer to or further from accountability for harm?
So rather than deciding whether I “like” or “don’t like” the demon metaphor, I want to sit with the tension it surfaces. It helps me wonder: in our need for concepts, how do we avoid both cynicism (“it’s all made up”) and absolutism (“demons are real”), and instead practice something like sobriety, discernment, and responsibility in how we use the tools of language?