A couple of very smart commenters raised concerns related to mysticism and spirituality in response to the recent OP on Daoism. In a related vein, these pages have witnessed a long-running argument over whether “ineffable” (i.e., you can’t really capture it in words) insight is a real thing or whether it is horse shit. Coming from very different places, CMs criticize “spirituality” and “ineffable insight” as being subjective, non-rigorous, non-verifiable. They raise excellent questions & concerns, such as:
- How could you ever know whether you were on the right track to understanding the ineffable truth that cannot be described?
- How could you ever know whether somebody else was on the right track to understanding the ineffable truth?
- Those who claim to be spiritual in the non religious sense, reserve the right to set the rules of what spirituality looks like (for them) and can break and bend them however they see fit. It’s just an expressive individualism. It’s likely that the spirit they are talking about is just feelings and emotions or what they are smoking.
Point to ponder: Perhaps one reason it’s difficult to validate “ineffable” insight and Daoist mysticism is that there’s no substance there. And a reason there’s no substance is that the insight is actually an unlearning rather than a learning. It’s abandoning an idea rather than acquiring one.
In the pursuit of learning, every day something is acquired.
In the pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped.
–Tao Te Ching
Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person has to deal with information that contradicts their beliefs. The most adaptive course, if the information is reliable, is to adjust one’s beliefs. But we humans can get pretty attached to our beliefs. So it’s common to discount, deny, or compartmentalize information that challenges us. We pay a price, though, when we do that. The price can vary, but one common scenario is that we become reactive and defensive in the face of threatening information.
I’ll give an example: Let’s say I value honesty and it’s important for me to view myself as an honest person. So I become attached to the belief, “I am not a liar.” Bummer for me, because AFAIK, everybody lies sometimes. So when I do lie, maybe I tell myself it wasn’t really a lie; or “that’s not really who I am.” Or I quickly forget about the incident. But now I have to live with this tension between the cherished belief that I’m not a liar, and the reality that I am a liar. If someone calls me out on a lie, maybe I fly off the handle because they’ve activated my cognitive dissonance and I need to protect my belief that I’m not a liar.
OK, but I thought this was about insight:
Insight can be mundane on its face but profound in its effects. I gave some examples in this comment–e.g., “I don’t need to do that anymore” or “I can let go of this.” These are negations. Maybe some of the most profound insights are not about what is, but about what isn’t. And they aren’t new knowledge, they are simply dropping something we’ve insisted on hanging onto. An insight that frees me from a cherished belief frees me from cognitive dissonance. Laozi says, “In pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped.” When we drop our rigid cognitive models, our assumptions and needs, we become free to experience a world far more fantastic than we had imagined. Maybe that’s ineffable insight. Maybe that’s mysticism & spirituality. Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi frequently go about poking holes in things we assume to be true. I suspect that contributes to why they are so liberating for some of us.
“Men of ardor are regarded by the world as good, but their goodness doesn’t succeed in keeping them alive. So I don’t know whether their goodness is really good or not. Perhaps I think it’s good – but not good enough to save their lives. Perhaps I think it’s no good – but still good enough to save the lives of others. . . .Is there really such a thing as goodness or isn’t there?
“What ordinary people do and what they find happiness in – I don’t know whether such happiness is in the end really happiness or not. I look at what ordinary people find happiness in, what they all make a mad dash for, racing around as though they couldn’t stop – they all say they’re happy with it. I’m not happy with it and I’m not unhappy with it. In the end is there really happiness or isn’t there?”
–Zhuangzi
Questions:
- Want to jump into the fray about whether ineffable insight is a real thing or horse shit?
- Can spirituality be valid even if other people can’t verify it’s genuine? If so, what’s to keep it from being “anything goes?”
- “In pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped.” Does this hint at something profound, or is it woo horse shit?
- Care to share any profound insights you’ve had? Are they effable or ineffable? Acquired truths or abandoned untruths?
- Is it reasonable to expect the ineffable to conform to effable standards of proof? On the other hand, is it reasonable to make effable claims about the ineffable?
- Or is it all just too effing weird for words?