An analogy I've heard is to compare mental training to physical training. It is generally useful, but if you have injuries or limitations of some sort (say, a busted knee), you should find ways to work around those.
What are the thoughts on safety?
I'm hoping someone who is experienced in both rationality and meditation can weigh in here, and also resolve any possible contradictions (especially around Insights gained).
Could you tell me why?
Has this post been deleted? I'm getting an error message.
Could you (or anyone interested) elaborate on why practices like Self Inquiry might be maladaptive?
Is it a Chesterton Fence around the fragility of values in general, or some specific value, as indicated here?
If so, it could be useful in moderation, or to some agents in specific situations. Examples: 1) Someone serving a life sentence in prison or solitary confinement in a way that their ability to create value both for themselves and others is limited could benefit from weakening the DMN.
2)A Google Design Ethicist might want to hold off on this kind of mental training at least until s/he has a strong moral framework already in place.
| "I have no indication that directly trying to dissolve ego is a safe or fruitful goal"
Does Dzogchen practice (described in Sam Harris' book "Waking Up") contradict this? The sense of self is presented as a primary cause of suffering, and directly dissolving it (or noticing that it is already an illusion) as the antidote.
Oh, that's right, thanks!
I think I misremembered/misunderstood Lotus and the concepts got jumbled together.
This triggered Valentine's Lotus for me. Are the concepts similar on a deeper level?
I found this whole Sequence compelling and insightful so far. Any specific tips on how to break persistent habits that are context/cue independent? (eg: I twist my beard periodically, throughout the day, especially when engaged in some other activity, like say reading.)
Okay, firstly, thanks for the post and the response!
Are you saying that we can prefer judgement over non-judgement, it's just that NVC predicts that this will lead to ineffective communication and/or damage the relationship? ( I had conversations like this in mind when I asked about moral truth). I'm still confused about how it distinguishes between evaluations and judgements, but I get that they are both part of the map and not the territory (although the map exists within the territory).
Does NVC undermine the concept of Moral Truth?
I know it distinguishes between evaluations and judgements, but does it implicitly judge non-judgement to be better than judgement, and thereby contradict itself?