Pleasure Principles
“What will fill the vacuum formerly occupied by religion?”
The most thoughtful, as well as the most memorable wedding gift my spouse and I received in 1993, the year of my first (and only) marriage, was neither the most expensive, nor an object. Rather it was a “Brunch” – that uniquely American invention deplored by Anthony Bourdain in Kitchen Confidential as a reliable though odious route for restaurants to recycle anything and everything left over in their refrigerator and pantry. I learned other useful pointers from Boudrain, (who since parlayed that success into a TV Celebrity status that sufficiently provides for his habits), such as never eat restaurant fish on a Monday, and if you’re a foodie and looking for best execution, avoid Fri and Sat evenings like the plague., etc. But I digress. This ‘Brunch‘ was a simple but special affair in that it included the company of [the late] acclaimed author, Chaim Potok, and his lovely wife Adena.
Who is Chaim Potok, you might ask? I’d read several of his novels, independently, following on the heels of those by Nobelists Saul Bellow and Isaac Bashevis Singer, though before I’d been introduced to works of Philip Roth. All their voices rang true. All chewed upon the clash of the traditional with the modern. All seemingly lamented the loss(es) of what was, even when (reluctantly) accepting the victory of modernity’s “progress”. And they all struck some chord within me, each ruminating in their own perspectives and style upon issues still-raw-and-contentious (in my own family), growing up as I did on the generational cusp, and witnessing my parents wrestling with theirs over the same.
I think Potok stands out as his breadth of thought was more encompassing. He was first a Rabbi, then a writer, also a theological academic and philosopher (PhD Penn, Philosophy) as well as a graphic artist, and playwrite, though the arts were his first love and a source of conflict with his own (traditional) parents. His timeline reflected this same struggle: from indoctrination and orthodox study sliding towards the increasingly secular graphical artist and thinker. He may not have been the superior novelist of the genre shared by the four eminent writers, but he probably was the most eclectic and adept thinker. His experiences were varied: an army Chaplain, a rabbi, a teacher, an editor, writer, an artist). Bellow’s and Roth’s characters and dialogue might have been more realistic, Potok stretched the boundaries of thought further than the others. Like the great Jewish minds (unlike those of current-day Likud), Potok ruminated thoroughly and saw things not categorically, but nuanced – context within context within context.
Beyond these spartan observations, there is little I can add. We drank coffee, and chatted about our experiences, and about faith. I made no effort to hide my lack thereof, though I couched it in the agnosticism of the empiricist versus certitude of the militant aetheist, which was more useful for friendly discussion than Dawkin’s axe-wielding approach. More coffee and cakes, and the conversation drifted from the first to third person, and modernity’s impacts upon religion. I noted that religion was useful historically as a means control. Fear of God, his wrath (for the Jews) or Hell (for Christians) were powerful tools. And whether a tool for purposes of control, or more recently as panaceas for the spirit, there is in modernity, I suggested, a gaping hole in the psyche and in one’s preoccupation that was previously occupied by religion. “What”, I continued, did he “think might or will replace it???!!?”
He pulled on his whiskers for a long time, looked upwards towards the heavens, and then stared deep into the depths of his half-filled cup before meeting my eyes and saying more categorically than he had about anything to that moment ……”Hedonism”. “Hedonism will fill the void…”, and for the first time, I saw resignation on the face of this otherwise thoughtful optimist. It is the same resignation floor traders must have felt as transactions went “upstairs”, or that which strikes value-oriented reversion traders horse-whipped by seemingly less-than-explicable momentum, or an allocator feels when assessing the new normal of what used to be the risk-free rate. It is a distinct feeling that the sense one previously made of the world has been palpably altered, leaving it a less-hospitable place as a result.
Conversation rebounded from the after-effects of this pronouncement, for it was clear he knew that however depressing the prognostication, there was nothing he could do. He could analyse this wave, indeed, he could explain it. But he knew it will be as it inevitably will be. Efforts to change the direction of such a tide would be futile. I understood he was not whining. Nor was he living in the past. As was the case with his literature, he sought first and foremost to understand what was going on around him, and make sense of it, rather than tell us how it should be.
In 2012, it seems ironic, that mired in debt with unemployment rife, that our Grasshopper-like spirits’ gaze is, as Potok forecast nearly two decades ago, firmly fixed (and growing) upon hedonism. Not spiritualism or New Age-ism, but full, unbridled “Whatever!” I see it manifested in demagogues pandering “7-Minute Abs” solutions, to problems of marathon proportions. I see it in my eldest’s seeming addiction to fatuous social networking, or under the spell of inane traditional media at the cost of reading or doing. I see it in the increasingly stylized beach or ski holidays. I see it in the untempered expectations still being conjured and polished by companies and their Madison Ave agents. I see it in the politicians’ promises to restore what Americans’ believe is owed to them.
But is this not natural? Should hedonism be a pejorative? To the extent it plays a part in fueling expectations and pursuit of a lifestyle for the individual that is unsustainable for the group, then yes. To the extent that it prevents sober or pragmatic evaluation of what needs or might be done to pursue even weak-form sustainability, then yes. To the extent it discounts the longer run policy pursuits, for the short-run, then indeed, yes. To the extent it encourages anti-social behaviour to finance parochial hedonism, then yes. To the extent it fuels near-unprecendented greed at the expense charity yielding a coarser way of life for the benefit of parochial pleasure and the privilege of the yet unborn, then yes, it is a pejorative, and we should lament its expansion in filling the vacuum.
Unlike the Apocalyptors and Tin-Foil Hat Brigade, I do not believe 2012 will be the year of the Return of Barter or Oblivion For Mankind, and while it may even surprise to the upside given the hugely bearish expectations of the market and anti-European shills, I do think it will be an interesting year for observing what happens when hedonistic rubber meets the austere reality of the road ahead of us [all].
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
February 23rd, 2012 at 9:09 pm
THAT was a good read! Thanks Barry. I always enjoy your site.
gh
February 23rd, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Agree. This is a really good read. Thanks BR for posting and thank you Cassandra for the writing it.
February 23rd, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Barry – been a long time reader and this post finally tugged enough on me create another web identity, because what’s just one more? Hands down one of the most relevant posts I’ve come across on your site and you (or should I say Chaim) have, in my opinion, touched on one of the most relevant and consequential topics of our time. I believe we hold similar religious views, though to an extent I am indebted to the Good Lord seeing my parents met at a Christian university and I am the result of their obedience to the command to “go forth and multiply”, but I would retort that my 18 years of forced weekly church attendance has paid my debts with an above-market interest rate.
As our world turns, the great opiate of the masses is fading next to the value propositions offered by more culturally-palatable alternative offered by hedonism. However, the pressing question remains – are hedonistic pursuits intrinsically immoral, and what are the consequences of a large subset of the population shifting from traditional religion to the worship of the self? Interestingly, Wikipedia defines a hedonist as one who seeks to maximize net pleasure (ie pleasure minus pain). To facilitate an exploration of the issue, let’s hypothesize that hedonism does take root as the mainstream form of spiritual expression for the Western world and take a look at two different forms in which this could manifest.
First, we have what I’ll call individualistic hedonism, that is, an individual seeking to maximize his/her net pleasure. At a basic level, it seems rational that one with no belief in any form of post-death existence would seek to maximize their pleasure during their time alive. The ultimate factor that will cause this form of hedonism to be viewed as either moral or immoral depends on whether this hedonism is pursued with or without regard for the external consequences it generates. If this is done with a complete disregard for external consequences that will ultimately not directly affect said individual, I’d say it’s crystal clear that hedonism is a pejorative and that no further explanation is needed. If done with high regard for the external consequences, I believe this to be a perfectly rational form of modern spiritual expression.
Second, we have collective hedonism, or a society seeking to maximize its net pleasure. However, let’s say that one individual in the society instead chooses to maximize his own net pleasure, rather than that of the society, and proceeds in this regardless of the effects on others. Two effects – first, the negative externalities will create a level of resentment in others toward this person, and second, the observation of this individual achieving higher net pleasure levels will create jealousy. Both lead toward continual fallout from the collective hedonism model as individuals to a greater extent begin pursuing the maximization of individual net pleasure until we return to a state of individualistic hedonism. Thus, I would posit that ultimately, the flavor of individualistic hedonism will prevail and it is inevitable that certain individuals will come to bear a greater burden of the negative externalities generated by those best positioned to seek maximum pleasure.
Finally, the above discussion is irrelevant if one does not consider the lens through which these matters are viewed. Even if all citizens of the United States were to join together in the pursuit of maximizing collective net pleasure, an alien race peering through space at our blue planet would likely see the society as an individual, seeking maximum pleasure to the detriment of those being exploited. However, it could also be argued that a collective world society seeking to maximize the collective pleasure of all is simply a utopian fantasy, and that recognizing its ultimate impossibility, a single society seeking to maximize its collective net pleasure is pursuing the best feasible course of action. This is especially the case when we include the fact that much of the Middle East and Asia are still deeply rooted in religious tradition, and rather than seeking to maximize net pleasure, the individuals in these societies seek to maximize their chances at net pleasure on a pre- and post-death basis. This one fact changes everything. Which leads me to what I believe is another pressing question of our time, the resolution of which is far beyond the time or mental effort I care to expend in exploring – how do these two groups of actors with vastly different pursuits (ie maximizing pre-death net pleasure vs maximizing the sum of pre- and believed post-death net pleasure) coexist peacefully on a finite planet where feedback loops are more interconnected than ever before?
(This was intended to be a reply wrapped up with the above question but I’ll leave some loose ends for others to run with…) I believe the advancement of knowledge is one of the most powerful forces shaping the outcome of this question today, and that the open platform provided by the internet makes knowledge- and information-sharing possible on an unprecedented level. The open sharing of information (ie the internet) must be protected and preserved at all costs from both the religious and political establishments that seek to reduce its ability for the citizens of the world to coalesce around the common pursuit of happiness for themselves, their friends, and their families, and the realization that the barriers we perceive to divide us are only as real as we believe them to be. With this, we can reach the greatest common understanding of each other and find the best way forward collectively and as individuals, all things (able to be) considered.
-felix
February 23rd, 2012 at 9:44 pm
Nicely written. Very thought provoking. My own thoughts about the void are that it is and continues to be filled with knowledge and education as well as an authentic sense of compassion, understanding and love for one another. To see the real trend one needs to look at the long term chart…I think Potok may have been looking at the 60 minute.
February 23rd, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Interesting read, but I was hoping for a bigger payoff.
February 23rd, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Just drive over the bodies and keep going. Get better suspension so you don’t feel the bump and crunch. Don’t worry, there’s a five star gated golf course hotel and spa at the end of the ugly road, surrounded by three entrenchments of electrified barbed wire fencing and the facility has its own private well-paid militia.
In case the scum of the earth find some way to dig in from underneath, as those bottom dwelling black brown gray and coffee colored maggots tend to do, the facility has a team of helicopters ready to whisk you away.
February 23rd, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Very good stuff, very much the reason I return each day. We may not care for the prediction but we all recognize its validity. I particularly appreciate your careful introspection of what this means for Jews, a rare honest perspective. As for Catholics, my guess is that we are too easily cowed by current events, too easily inflamed by matters of our faith, but in time our influence will be curbed as our assets dwindle accordingly.
Thank you!
N
February 24th, 2012 at 12:12 am
I think his reply reflected a serious lack of imagination. Fish have other ways of getting around, even when their bicycles have flat tires.
February 24th, 2012 at 12:37 am
“To the extent it fuels near-unprecendented greed”
I don’t get the sense that hedonism lies behind greed at the scale we have witnessed over recent decades. In fact, most of the very greedy don’t seem to be enjoying themselves all that much. They seem angry.
February 24th, 2012 at 2:01 am
“What will fill the vacuum formerly occupied by religion?”
Hopefully, if we human can grow enough, the realization that life is its own end.
It needs no justification, no purpose, no design. It simply is.
So, enjoy life and, as a sentient being, capable of altering your environment, do your part so your fellow beings, sentient or not, can do the same in the present and the foreseeable future, just like the ones that preceded you did, sentiently or not, for about four and a half billion years.
And no, hedonism doesn’t have to be a bad word. The Greeks and the Romans already knew that. If you want to convince yourself, read Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura, written around 60 BC.
February 24th, 2012 at 7:09 am
“What will fill the vacuum formerly occupied by religion?”
Um, there’s a huge problem with this question. It makes the a priori assumption that something SHOULD fill the vacuum…. Lack of religion simply frees up time, energy, and money to interact more with the universe as it is, rather than as one would like it to be.
February 24th, 2012 at 7:24 am
+1 Frwip…
I would replace “hedonism” with Humanism as to what will fill the void. We are in a different age. Think about the Arab Spring – revolution without war thanks to technology…or the simple fact that (right or wrong) you are reading my thoughts…that could not happen back in 1993.
The Proletariat didn’t have twitter, and the Bourgeouisie didn’t have smart phones to instantly be bombarded by their message…
February 24th, 2012 at 7:25 am
Vacuum? No such luck. It is being pushed out the door kicking and screaming, spraying as much blood and misery as it ever did. Better to ponder why humans find comfort in the supernatural and solve that problem.
February 24th, 2012 at 7:52 am
i remember working at Potok’s home in Bala Cynwyd (PA, right over the “line” from Philly) back when i owned a hardware store there. He was always gracious, offering tea and conversation whenever he needed something repaired.
Thanks for the well-written post.
Hedonism is one of the factors leading to the downfall of the human (and many other species). Insufficient concern for the environment we all share and care for each other is what lead to overpopulation, peak everything and our degraded biosphere (not to mention war, the misdistribution of wealth and rampant pollution, among many others). If we somehow had developed a “hive mind” type of consciousness, we’d have done much better. As it is our future as a species will be bleak, ie. no matter how wealthy you think you are there will be no escape from the consequences of having turned our backs on the world that supports all life.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:28 am
+1 Trevor and Grego
Why does there have to be a hole?
Secondly, some of the most hedonistic people I know are the most religious. This is just another person whose beliefs are clouding their judgement.
February 24th, 2012 at 8:39 am
I’ve read Cassandra’s posts before, the same person who wants “forced” voting by the public- i.e – you have to vote by law or you’ll be fined/jailed . . whatever,
as if you can force someone to give a shit- as if gathering up all the indigents and ne’er do wells and bringing them to the polls for a warm cup of soup with the hope they pull the lever for the correct party isn’t enough.
Cassandra- always wringing your hands about the welfare of others, as if they want your cloying “do gooder” nonsense anywhere in the vicinity of what they find important- but I guess that’s for you to decide- isn’t it? You’ll gladly tell them how they she behave and think to be “good” citizens (in your mind).
February 24th, 2012 at 9:30 am
Hedonism is a symptom of the Corporatism of the world.
All that matters is what YOU want NOW, this quarter, not what matters to society and might be better for you in the longer term.
All part of the transformation from politically and socially aware Citizens into self absorbed Consumers.
But don’t worry. When things start to fall apart you will be told whose fault it is.
February 24th, 2012 at 9:39 am
Our least religious countries, like those in Scandinavia, are also among our least hedonistic. And our most religious countries, like the US, Brazil, and Italy, among our most hedonistic. Religion and hedonism, if related, are not related causally. I’m not making it, but there’s a better case that weather and hedonism are related than religion. But it’s a nice fear.
February 24th, 2012 at 9:50 am
Are there really only two alternatives? Either you believe in God or you drown in self-indulgence? Either you see yourself as existing to fulfill God’s demands of being “good” or you slip into serving nothing but yourself? I guess if you believe in God then that sort of view is a nice way to prop yourself up to a place where you can look down on others – but it seems a bit simplistic and primitive for a philosophical world view.
February 24th, 2012 at 9:53 am
Wexler,
you break out with, in part..”…We are in a different age. Think about the Arab Spring – revolution without war thanks to technology…or the simple fact that (right or wrong) you are reading my thoughts…that could not happen back in 1993…”
re..”Arab Spring”, I’ll assume you’re referring to ‘Egypt’, though, What, exactly, has changed (for the Egyptians)?
right? b/c you couldn’t be referring to Libya or Bahrain, as, but, two, other, examples…
and, with..”…that could not happen back in 1993…”
you should see some of.. http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/?category=net
to begin with..
+
The prehistory of cyberspace: how BBSes paved the way for the Web.(BBS: The Documentary)(Video Recording Review)
“…Among the more interesting tales is that of FidoNet and its frenetic architect, Tom Jennings. In 1984, when only a handful of academic computer scientists were aware of (let alone using) the Internet, Jennings created software that allowed BBS users to send e-mail and discussion board messages across the country and, later, around the world…”
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-138704912.html?key=01-42160D517E191761140A0616076C4B36254D35463B78700E730E0B60641A617F1371193F
“All part of the transformation from politically and socially aware Citizens into self absorbed Consumers.”
x2
February 24th, 2012 at 10:33 am
Mark, the point is that it happened in a “modern” act rather than the repetition of violent uprising that has plagued humanity for millennia. Political murder has just about gone extinct.
1993 the foot traffic was so minimal to non-existent and none of us had “smart phones”. This exchange (my response to you) is the exact example. The fact that the world is litterally watching instantly, the goings on between Iran and the US might just prevent what we all fear.
The global community is growing, rational agents confer, logical consistency and feedback is becoming more common and thus, consensus is veering in a certain direction.
I found the original post smacked with the myopic view of the guilty-rich…but then again my Mark West (pinot for the people!) is half filed. :)
February 24th, 2012 at 11:26 am
Wexler,
“…Political murder has just about gone extinct…” (?)
http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus-ns-aaf&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=Gaddafi+murdered
and, with..”…The global community is growing, rational agents confer, logical consistency and feedback is becoming more common and thus, consensus is veering in a certain direction…”
see some of.. http://www.thefilterbubble.com/
+
http://farmvillefreak.com/farmville-animals/farmville-limited-edition-winter-holiday-animal-crystal-pegacorn
I’m not sure I am as sanguine (about that ‘digiTrend’) as you seem to be..
personally, http://search.yippy.com/search?query=The+Velvet+Revolution&tb=sitesearch-all&v%3Aproject=clusty might be a better example of what you’re alluding to, but, then, you’d lose the “BlotterBook ‘for the People’” ‘SocialNetworking’ PR-pablum..
February 24th, 2012 at 11:39 am
I believe it was William Blake who said “the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom”…
Life seems to operate in cycles – that one too (hedonism) like all others will reach its zenith, and humanity as a collective will then see it for what it is – a fallacy. A by product of egohood and materialism. The drive for this is normally to escape suffering – to forget. The bubble of pleasure extends to a level where it cannot be sustained, chaos, and then the pain is revealed and consequences known. This is true for the addict, or humanity.
From this point we can move forwards with greater humility and understanding – to ourselves, and for others labouring under the same delusion or pattern of behaviour.
Collectively we are reaching the zenith of dualistic behaviour – believing that the I is separate to the environment. When there is some recognition on a personal level that we are interdependent – the environment is part of us – we see how our actions affect others and the environment, as well as vice-versa – then there is room for change, but only if this is deeply realised, not just with the intellect. One doesn’t need to insert ‘god’ in to the equation here – you can insert ‘self-realisation’ or ‘collective-realisation’ though, the effect of which would be equally as powerful on our perception and surroundings.
As others have mentioned, it’s all a natural unfolding – we just bear witness. As Frwip said above – the difficulty is taking the meotion out of it, to realise that life is its own end. What we see in the financial system is just a mirror of the same phenomena….
The central banks/govts perform the same function as the conscious mind – anesthetising us from the pain, so that we don’t have to face our problems we all know we have to fix sometime. It’s a question of how much pain and when.
Beyond this it is difficult to see how humanity will evolve. The morality of individualism and that of egalitarianism will remain…the political systems we have are just manifestations of this. Idealogues will of course take one position or another, but both have merits. With all of the different stages of development of countries, it will be like the tortoise and the hare – we will move collectively as fast as our weakest link.
With reference to the US, the great irony is of course, the great bastion of libertarian values has gradually been eroded by corruption – the iron fist of consumerism (self-interest of the elite) wrapped in the velvet glove of individual freedom – individuals become so sick that collectively, the state has to govern with an iron fist to prevent chaos – it’s fascim basically. Fortunately you guys have the history of fighting that…so no doubt it will go back the other way.
February 24th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Those are a lot of words to cover what Nietzsche covered so well with “God is dead” I’m puzzled by Cassandra’s seeming ignorance of secular materialism. We had, after all, the “me” decade (the ’70′s), the “Greed” decade (the ’80′s) and Good ol ’60′s Sex, Drugs and Rock ‘N Roll.
She’s also neatly dismissing the other half of the country she probably doesn’t live within. One of our major parties has developed a signficiantly successful political strategy based in part upon ideas utterly antithetical to hedonism. I think she needs to re-think her hypothesis. I seriously doubt whether Montgomery County, Ala. is in the throes of hedonistic bliss.
February 24th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Both the Author and Mr. Potok seem to suffer from the same cognitive failure and the same lack of creativity.
Mr. Potok and the author seem to suggest that our morals are some how derived by religious faith. While religion has been an effective vehicle to articulate, transfer and in some cases enforce (via fear) those morals (or ethics if you will). However I have seen very little evidence to suggest that our great religions or spirituality in general for that sake, have anything to do do with what we might consider civil or productive behavior.
Our history books are filled with pious monsters. Today it seems that those who hold their faith in God the closest to their hearts are the most close-minded and dangerous of the lot (Taliban, Likud, Evangelicals). On the flip side many atheist communities have proven to be especially empathetic and kind (ever been to a Greenpeace meeting).
Of course there are good apples and bad apples on BOTH sides. That’s the point! That is what you would expect if an individual’s spirituality or faith in God had no tangible correlation on the degree to which they are kind, empathetic, polite, good-hearted people.
Both the author and Mr. Potok can’t seem to imagine a natural ethic among the human species. This drives their determination that without religion our civilization we will begin to crumble (rather than thrive). The absurd thought that without religion (which is “civilized”) we will descend into carnal savagery vis-a-vis Lord of the Flies. Did we need religion to feel bad for people, to have a sense of justice, a sense of empathy, a sense of right and wrong? No of course not. Animals (other species of animals I should say) have shown empathy. The drive to procreate and nurture out-dates the bible.
I am not sure what will fill in the void left by religion but I don’t think it will be more religion. Our consumer materialism is no different that the ignorant righteousness of the past. They are both destructive by-products of vanity and insecurity. A way for us to somehow find a purpose without doing the hard mental work and soul searching that we really need. Blind faith in God can be just as numbing as pure hedonism.
We are not becoming less religious because we are somehow becoming hedonists. We are becoming less religious because we are becoming smarter. Religion fills the void of ignorance. It comforts us and fills in the blanks of the unknown. The more we know, the less room there is for religion.
BTW, you think the world is going to Hell in a hand basket? Guess what, so did EVERY OTHER generation before you. Now it is hedonism and social media, before that it was Communism and Marijuana music, before that is was leather jackets and Rock & Roll music. Before that it was Jazz and “black culture”. Before that is was those damn colonies. Before that it was abolition. Every generation seems to think theirs is the high-point of human evolution. Get over yourselves.
There were good points and low point for each span of history. We seem to think that the past was some wonderful time. Well, maybe it was, but it also sucked a lot too. To me this fear of change seems to stem from a fear of being left behind. Well guess what, it happens. You’re gonna die, and the world will keep moving. Things will be different. How arrogant of any of us to think we know what is best.
February 24th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
The Indian Guru Osho (Rajneesh) was leading the charge back in the 70′s & 80′s with his blend of spiritualism and materialism. His popularity has been growing ever since his death in 1990.
February 24th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
What actually IS the emptiness, the void, the vacuum humankind is trying to fill in the first place with “religion”??? It is the uncertainty of existence. Humans hand over their existence to someone else to define FOR them (a priest, a minister, a mullah, a rabbi, etc.) so that they themselves do not have to make the effort. In the 60s we all noted the hedonism/materialism of our parents (culturally think Jack Kennedy, Mad Men, Playboy, etc.) and thought we were subscribing to a newer, better way…a Faux American quasi-spiritualism. Later many adopted the quasi-certainty of Faux Fundamentalism of Christianity…or Islam…or the Likud…etc.
I see eastern “religions” more as a path rather than as a dogma which seeks to define all…because there is no real emphasis on some external Supreme Being that Dictates “All”…but more of a process of understanding how a complex universe is actually expressed in simpler things such as the physical world, family, relationships, traditions, etc. that fills the void and while it certainly doesn’t answer the uncertainty (Alan Watts’ “The Wisdom of Uncertainty”) at least if one begins to “get this” then one can understand that this is the way it is to be. This is LESS a “spiritualism” than it is more of a Way (Tao) or understanding.
February 25th, 2012 at 1:06 am
[...] A thoughtful piece by Cassandra. TBP caught a huge one by bringing her on board. [The Big Picture] [...]
February 26th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
can someone clarify how this “hedonist” type ["Interestingly, Wikipedia defines a hedonist as one who seeks to maximize net pleasure (ie pleasure minus pain). "] differs from “homo economicus,” the assumed agent at the center of our economic theories? just askin’….
February 27th, 2012 at 10:45 am
[...] will physically replace these abandoned storefronts? Ritholz had an article that suggests that hedonistic businesses could flourish and buy up the real estate. So, maybe [...]