I found this post an interesting prompt. I'm thinking about it, and I'd enjoy hearing what other LessWrongers think about it.
Going ahead pasting the text here, hope that's okay:
The following are 45 correlates that I’ve collected of things called “sacred”. I invite any of you to offer a theory of the sacred that explains as many of these as you can, as simply as you can. (And to suggests edits of this list.)
Sacred things are highly (or lowly) valued. We politely revere, respect, & prioritize them.
We revere sacred beliefs as well as acts. We feel dirty when thoughts go near illicit ones.
Sacred is big, powerful, extraordinary. We fear, submit, & see it as larger than ourselves.
Sacred things matter for our health, luck, and other outcomes we care about.
We want the sacred “for itself”, rather than as a means to get other things.
Sacred things are either more homogenous, or more unique, whichever is better.
These are all very interesting claims, but each of them seem plausibly wrong, many of them independently so. I worry what errors it might cause to lose track of which ones are true and false. You might damage something sacred.
humorously imprecise because I'm not sure if this is trivial or insightful: we just gotta write down approximately how to find the sacred in a garrabrant inductor real quick now,
Sacredness is arbitrary. It depends on who applies the label to what. Devotion, however, is observable and more interesting. We may humble ourselves only in front of what we consider sacred, but humility is a requirement that would even allow devotion to happen in the first place.
I found this post an interesting prompt. I'm thinking about it, and I'd enjoy hearing what other LessWrongers think about it.
Going ahead pasting the text here, hope that's okay: