One of the reasons I’m so excited to become a father this summer is that I know it will transform me in ways I cannot comprehend in the present moment. I’m looking forward to crossing that threshold.
The vampire example is provocative and super-engaging perhaps even because aspects of it are not discussed: ethical elements in transformative decisions. Even a decision to parent or not may have dimensions of harm, such as being focused on one's family at the expense of others (see JD Vance and the Pope), or using more carbon than a parent in other societies. To choose to become a vampire may be an unusual (privileged) case--in the literature, most who undergo that repugnant and unwanted initiatory experience find it terrifying. If we are assuming that choice (analogous with parents' changing diapers) at our own cost, great. But to live as a vampire also means eternally subjecting others to unwanted and unchosen terror, even though they will become vampires with eternal life and greater sexual gratification than a human. Well, some laws are now compelling parenthood against individual will, assuming parenthood as the fulfilled and desirable state is disturbing. So when it is not a free choice to undergo transformation and/or one compels others to go through it, an ethical dilemma arises. Isn't holding internal ethics a deep pleasure, too? most spiritual paths include renunciation as a price for transformation, not unpleasantness for its own sake but not a simple gratification basis either. Of course, vampires' lives aren't perfect, their extreme thirst for blood that isn't always slaked and they must watch out for villagers coming along with stakes at the moment of vampires' greatest vulnerability. I was touched by the tale of the Zappos founder's death, a bit cautionary on the topic of thirst for transformation. I appreciate being provoked to such reflections, and loved the ending, being reminded that Luke says Yes all day. As do we all in different registers. .
“That testimony is not a spreadsheet of utility projections; it is a living invitation to inhabit a story that has been true for others and can therefore be trusted.”
nice post. I have been thinking of Paul's thesis, after listening to her on a recent podcast. I think you have it right for many, though not quite for myself, when you say,
"Paul allows only two epistemic currencies—pre-experience data and post-experience reflection—and finds both wanting. She misses the third: the durable wisdom carried by symbols, rituals, and the second-person testimony of those who have already crossed the threshold....it is a living invitation to inhabit a story that has been true for others and can therefore be trusted."
why not myself? because I am not a high trust person. I am more intrigued by stories, especially stories that call out for me to enact in first person, rather than second person testimony. I am finding Peterson's book "We Who Wrestle with God" illuminating by teasing out the many implications of the biblical stories, but not just as biblical testimony. importantly for me, Peterson puts primacy in "adventure" as the end game of the story, engaging your life in stories as various adventures (as opposed to something merely of interest).
In my life, a call to adventure really has helped me take the leap that can't be rationally calculated in advance. I have engaged in more adventures earlier in life than later in life, which I suppose is to be expected. good adventures lead to contentment rather than a zeal for more adventure, as you grow old. I think it is instructive as a parent to remember to let your kids have their adventures, and remind your kids as parents to let the grandkids have their adventures too.
So ultimately, my answer to Paul's rational conundrum is to recognize when that call to adventure hits, and then lean into it because, rather than in spite, of the epistemological uncertainty you face. for me and unlike you perhaps, testimony of others is more noise than signal.
One of the reasons I’m so excited to become a father this summer is that I know it will transform me in ways I cannot comprehend in the present moment. I’m looking forward to crossing that threshold.
The vampire example is provocative and super-engaging perhaps even because aspects of it are not discussed: ethical elements in transformative decisions. Even a decision to parent or not may have dimensions of harm, such as being focused on one's family at the expense of others (see JD Vance and the Pope), or using more carbon than a parent in other societies. To choose to become a vampire may be an unusual (privileged) case--in the literature, most who undergo that repugnant and unwanted initiatory experience find it terrifying. If we are assuming that choice (analogous with parents' changing diapers) at our own cost, great. But to live as a vampire also means eternally subjecting others to unwanted and unchosen terror, even though they will become vampires with eternal life and greater sexual gratification than a human. Well, some laws are now compelling parenthood against individual will, assuming parenthood as the fulfilled and desirable state is disturbing. So when it is not a free choice to undergo transformation and/or one compels others to go through it, an ethical dilemma arises. Isn't holding internal ethics a deep pleasure, too? most spiritual paths include renunciation as a price for transformation, not unpleasantness for its own sake but not a simple gratification basis either. Of course, vampires' lives aren't perfect, their extreme thirst for blood that isn't always slaked and they must watch out for villagers coming along with stakes at the moment of vampires' greatest vulnerability. I was touched by the tale of the Zappos founder's death, a bit cautionary on the topic of thirst for transformation. I appreciate being provoked to such reflections, and loved the ending, being reminded that Luke says Yes all day. As do we all in different registers. .
“That testimony is not a spreadsheet of utility projections; it is a living invitation to inhabit a story that has been true for others and can therefore be trusted.”
Good one.
nice post. I have been thinking of Paul's thesis, after listening to her on a recent podcast. I think you have it right for many, though not quite for myself, when you say,
"Paul allows only two epistemic currencies—pre-experience data and post-experience reflection—and finds both wanting. She misses the third: the durable wisdom carried by symbols, rituals, and the second-person testimony of those who have already crossed the threshold....it is a living invitation to inhabit a story that has been true for others and can therefore be trusted."
why not myself? because I am not a high trust person. I am more intrigued by stories, especially stories that call out for me to enact in first person, rather than second person testimony. I am finding Peterson's book "We Who Wrestle with God" illuminating by teasing out the many implications of the biblical stories, but not just as biblical testimony. importantly for me, Peterson puts primacy in "adventure" as the end game of the story, engaging your life in stories as various adventures (as opposed to something merely of interest).
In my life, a call to adventure really has helped me take the leap that can't be rationally calculated in advance. I have engaged in more adventures earlier in life than later in life, which I suppose is to be expected. good adventures lead to contentment rather than a zeal for more adventure, as you grow old. I think it is instructive as a parent to remember to let your kids have their adventures, and remind your kids as parents to let the grandkids have their adventures too.
So ultimately, my answer to Paul's rational conundrum is to recognize when that call to adventure hits, and then lean into it because, rather than in spite, of the epistemological uncertainty you face. for me and unlike you perhaps, testimony of others is more noise than signal.