I don’t know if I agree with the notion of a god-hole.
There are different philosohcal approaches to making sense of it all and finding extistential meaning.
One my favourite quotes from Alan Watts (from the 50s no less):
"It’s like you took a bottle of ink and you threw it at a wall. Smash! And all that ink spread. And in the middle, it’s dense, isn’t it? And as it gets out on the edge, the little droplets get finer and finer and make more complicated patterns, see?
So in the same way, there was a big bang at the beginning of things and it spread. And you and I, sitting here in this room, as complicated human beings, are way, way out on the fringe of that bang. We are the complicated little patterns on the end of it. Very interesting. But so we define ourselves as being only that. If you think that you are only inside your skin, you define yourself as one very complicated little curlique, way out on the edge of that explosion. Way out in space, and way out in time.
Billions of years ago, you were a big bang, but now you’re a complicated human being. And then we cut ourselves off, and don’t feel that we’re still the big bang. But you are. You are the big bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are."
The gist of it is there is no god and yet paradoxically god is literally everything. How can there even be a “god-hole” with such an approach?
I am not saying this (or any other approach) is the right way for a given individual. Just pointing out an existential view that works for me.
My argument is that we have all these information technologies and we don’t really know what to do with them. As things stands they merely enable a group of oligarchs, authoritarians, professional demagogues, fraudulent hustlers.
And deep down no one wants to be in such a position and no amount of money or technological distractions can account for that.
the vast majority of people need something to believe in. very few people can live with the detachment of skeptical approaches to life. if they don’t have a god or a religion they will substitute something else for that role. politics or sports are two big ones.
even the tech gods themselves, are mostly driven by egotistical belief sets where they tend to ignore any information that doesn’t cohere and reinforce their beliefs.
I was just pointing out that the “god-hole”, which to my understanding refers to divergence from “traditional” religious participation, isn’t necessarily a lack of god in your life (a “god hole” if you will).
I believe some of the apocryphal biblical texts from the 1st/2nd century CE also refer to concepts such as “god is all around us, god is everything”. These texts were rejected for formal inclusion in the Bible for whatever reason.
I also disagree that concepts outlined by Watts (in that specific quote and in general) are necessarily skeptical in their outlook. I would say they are very empowering and align with our broader understanding of the universe.
But my bigger point is the rise of “FaithTech” is more of socio-political issue. Oligarchs have started dominate and there is no way out so people endulge in LLMs as opposed to going to church (or engaging in approach proposed by people such as Alan Watts).
I don’t know if I agree with the notion of a god-hole.
There are different philosohcal approaches to making sense of it all and finding extistential meaning.
One my favourite quotes from Alan Watts (from the 50s no less):
The gist of it is there is no god and yet paradoxically god is literally everything. How can there even be a “god-hole” with such an approach?
I am not saying this (or any other approach) is the right way for a given individual. Just pointing out an existential view that works for me.
My argument is that we have all these information technologies and we don’t really know what to do with them. As things stands they merely enable a group of oligarchs, authoritarians, professional demagogues, fraudulent hustlers.
And deep down no one wants to be in such a position and no amount of money or technological distractions can account for that.
the vast majority of people need something to believe in. very few people can live with the detachment of skeptical approaches to life. if they don’t have a god or a religion they will substitute something else for that role. politics or sports are two big ones.
even the tech gods themselves, are mostly driven by egotistical belief sets where they tend to ignore any information that doesn’t cohere and reinforce their beliefs.
Sure. I agree.
I was just pointing out that the “god-hole”, which to my understanding refers to divergence from “traditional” religious participation, isn’t necessarily a lack of god in your life (a “god hole” if you will).
I believe some of the apocryphal biblical texts from the 1st/2nd century CE also refer to concepts such as “god is all around us, god is everything”. These texts were rejected for formal inclusion in the Bible for whatever reason.
I also disagree that concepts outlined by Watts (in that specific quote and in general) are necessarily skeptical in their outlook. I would say they are very empowering and align with our broader understanding of the universe.
But my bigger point is the rise of “FaithTech” is more of socio-political issue. Oligarchs have started dominate and there is no way out so people endulge in LLMs as opposed to going to church (or engaging in approach proposed by people such as Alan Watts).