Brain dump...

...on the topic of fasting. Specifically, my ambivalence about fasting.

(This post brought to you by low-blood-sugar navel-gazing on Tisha b’Av. Because why observe holidays when you could instead observe metaholidays?! Ahem. Regular holiday observation will re-commence... at some point. Maybe.)

I guess first, the idea of fasting as a spiritual/psychological technology (doing something to the body in order to create a specific sort of psychological state as a result) -- does this imply one should only fast when in a particular environment (e.g. at shul during services), bc otherwise you’re not in a place that will provide the other necessary tools contributing to the desired result? Is it assumed that even if there’s a “main” effect, there’s still other potential effects that can be uncovered while fasting in nontraditional circumstances (e.g. at home sitting around on your computer)?

Fasting (or any sorts of restrictions) in order to put yourself in a mournful/repentant/humble/etc. mood as befits the holiday -- again I guess sort of a question about the point/efficacy using one piece of tech without the others. Because yeah, I really don’t find this particular idea borne out for myself - having intellectual material to chew on is a much better way to get me engaging with these ideas than my physical condition. (Which just gets… distracting, almost, from anything else? I get caught up in trying to monitor my physical state to make sure I’m not overdoing anything, and also in *having a fucking headache all day*. Is that itself potentially a cognitive state that’s beneficial to sit in for purposes of these holidays, thus justifying fasting? I don’t know. What is the ultimate purpose of the mindsets you want to instill on fast days? If it’s empathy… hmm, idk, I question how relevant fucking up your own meat suit is to engendering empathy for others in bad situations. Especially for myself; YMMV. But adversity narrowing focus to the more selfish is definitely a thing.)

I will personally fight people over the “gotta get a doctor’s opinion to not fast” thing. I appreciate that, perhaps it’s a good idea to talk over your rationale for not fasting with another person you trust to have an honest, thoughtful conversation with, if you’re in a context where the Done Thing *is* to fast, or if you would generally want to or feel like you should. Because after all, I don’t think people are always the best at being able to tell if their judgement on something like this is skewed one way or another, when there’s so many cultural pressures around telling you what is the “better” thing to do? >> But in general I’m not into “must concentrate permissions for doing things with your body in the hands of a few specific people who Know Better”, in any circumstance. Logistical problems, for one, and “please reveal specific details about mental health to someone who may or may not have specialist knowledge about your concerns, and may not understand what you’re conveying”, for another; and “yes hello I think I’m ultimately the best judge on what is best for me to do with the meat suit I live in, thx”.

  I honestly think I find the rather tautological “do this because it’s what The Jews do for this day” argument much more compelling than rationales that tie to broader holiday themes and try to make “inflict a miniature suffering on yourself bc it mirrors historical suffering, or bc it expresses penitence, etc.” feel justifiable? Like, I don’t find “you ought to experience hardship bc others who went before you also experienced hardship” persuasive - is not the goal to make all things less unpleasant for people, unless there’s a proportional, clearly defined purpose and benefit to the temporary hardship? (Here, return to earlier paragraphs about purpose.) - Whereas continuity of peoplehood and tradition is, for me, about maintaining something unique that we have now and into the future. It’s about, we’ve been given this toolbox through our history, and that’s what we’re using to make our future - and ignoring or swapping out bits of the toolbox is something that ought to be done cautiously & with rationale? Bc otherwise, what exactly is the continuity? At what point is it not Theseus’s ship? (Ofc, I also think that trying to wall out any sort of syncretism is destructive, ahistorical, and futile - the point isn’t to keep out any changes, but rather to adapt things thoughtfully and with a purpose.)

Food and eating is so, so central to all sorts of human cultural expressions and neuroses. And in (the west/the US/etc.), we have such a fucked up culture of moralism surrounding all sorts of food; diet culture restrictions & thought processes and the way they pop up all over the place even when you’re trying to not think about food in terms of “good” and “bad”? How responsible are either permanent or temporary dietary restrictions to even use, in the kind of food culture we have? Is having some set of food rules psychologically necessary for cultures overall, considering how much they crop up and reinvent themselves? In a culture that trains us so well to accept various reasons for not eating [something], and in the hands of people disposed to circumscribe good/acceptable lists of foods and expand suggestions about it being better to not eat a certain food or under certain circumstances - what costs and benefits do we need to culturally and individually analyse before picking up, or continuing to use, a tool of the form “don’t eat (this food/at this time)”? Is that just, ultimately, reinforcing that yes, sometimes there are acceptable non-immediate-material-harm rationales for restricting eating, and make people more susceptible to other rationales for restriction? (Or in general, the idea of “harm yourself for a bit right now because this other principle is more important than your discomfort”.) Also applicable to things like Pesach, kashrut. Overall I’m inclined to think it’s a pretty big YMMV thing, but still definitely worth taking a look at communally, in terms of how we talk about these things, how we make space for differing needs, etc.

*twitches incessantly at “person of faith”* .......

aw fuck my brain just got all pretentious and spat out the word "ciscendence" from the morphology void aside from the fact that imo it looks kinda ugly and I would in most possible universes prefer to keep anything with "cis" in it completely away from me, I am largely pleased? more emotion/experience words is always a good thing and it slots in there very nicely with my personal distaste for the concept of "spirituality"

moar Millennia of Ethics Explained By Ame’s Cat ~

liveblog part 2, away!

“It is important for us to be aware of our own “evil” inclinations because this enables us to channel even our ignoble inclinations for good. For example, if we know we have a strong need to be admired, we should strive to become well known for doing good deeds. Some people deride philanthropists who donate large sums of money to a university of hospital building campaign and insist that a building be named for them. But such behavior may show a proper amalgamation of both good and “evil” inclinations.” -- it’s interesting because I definitely agree with this intellectually, because really why am I (in purely the proximal sense) concerned about somebody’s motives like this if good things actually happen because of their actions? but my gut feeling is still of the NO YOUR REASONS SHOULD BE PURE UGH sense. which I don’t particularly endorse... I think perhaps there’s a sort of combination of both in which motives matter in the sense that they can tell you about yourself or others in the future, and for that reason having a more pure and less selfish motive could predict more ethical action across a wider variety of cases? but also if you really are just using small selfish things as carrots to make it easier on you when you’d still do the good thing anyway, that’s not actually a problem.

“We become good people not by thinking good thoughts but by doing good deeds again and again, until they become part of our nature.” -- continual head-nodding in agreement ~

“That is why Maimonides taught that it is better to give needy recipients one gold coin on a thousand different occasions than to give someone a thousand gold coins all at the same time...” -- see on one hand I feel like that’s absolutely true.... for a specific definition of better, which seems to be focused largely on the improvement of the individual in question rather than the improvement of the lives of the people receiving the money. and you could probably make an argument that someone who makes charity part of their character this way is then poised to do much more good in the long run than the person who donates a ton to one person but doesn’t form a habit at all, so from a utilitarian standpoint it might still work? but nonetheless it seems kind of perspective dependent, this claim, and probably something I’d like to look into more.

the importance of having and being permitted to maintain your good name and reputation as a good person in the community... this is kind of fascinating to me because it’s not something I’ve really considered much? that a good reputation is valuable and important and something that you have a right to. which I suspect has to do with... I mean I have never thought of myself as kind or compassionate until very recently in my life; I’m so used to (and drawn to) the notion of people who determine a community or other context’s standards of morals and who is good, being fucked up and awful and thinking that people who are blameless or even doing good are cold and bad and evil. I don’t know. it’s just very foreign and probably something I want to chew over for a while.

“See every act you do as being of great significance... For example, when someone comes to you for assistance, imagine that you are the only person who can assist this person; thus, if you help her, she will have what she needs, but if you refrain from helping, no one else will, either.” -- I kind of like this and kind of don’t... for most people and in many situations I think it’s a good way to think about things for the goal of getting you to be more helpful! I also think there are people and cases where thinking this way would seriously exacerbate a guilt or anxiety problem, and not actually be productive. So basically just context and different tools for different people, I suppose.

“When confronted with a situation where you are uncertain if what you are intending to do is right, ask yourself one question: ‘What is motivating me to act in this way, my good inclination or my evil inclination?’“ -- .....I feel like this needs to be expanded upon more than it is here for it to not seem very circular to me :|

the story about Reb Aryeh giving a poor kid new shoes that he needed as a prize for doing well in his Talmud learning test because his dad was proud and would be grumpy if he just bought the new shoes for him was fucking adorable ok

“...the Rabbis defined a hero not as someone who leads people into battle or who prevails in a fight, but as ‘ one who subdues his [evil] inclination’. Thus while popular culture defines heroism as prevailing over others, the Rabbis define it as prevailing over oneself.” -- this is cooooooooolllll honestly I don’t have a lot of thoughts or interest in the definition of a hero because heroes as a concept kind of don’t interest me as much, but. this contrast. this cultural contrast is my jam. also hello this is basically the distinction I and my self-insert-ass-OCs make when it comes to whether I approve of a Sith character’s view of what it means to break one’s chains woooooo

common weakness to avoid: wasting time -- *sad executive dysfunction child sobbing in the background bc I knoooooow and I hate it :(*

some things...

 I’m currently reading Joseph Telushkin’s A Code of Jewish Ethics. because I’m a goddamn nerd and cannot keep my mouth shut when reading about ideas (and the format of this book I think is additionally conducive to that can’t-shut-up quality - probably intentionally), I’m also going to be (to some extent, attention-span-permitting?) liveblogging it.

(tumblr user @ameliarating​ is an enabler, OK)

it’s all going to mostly be under a cut and tagged “religionblobbing” for aesthetic and organisationaletc. purposes.

aaaand now some stuff from the first couple sections!

Hillel’s “What is hateful unto you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah! All the rest is commentary. Now, go and study.” -- other people than me have pointed out how the negative version of this rather than the positive (do to others what you want them to do to you) is a better formulation because of issues with presuming you know what’s best for other people because it’s what you prefer, and given that discussion (which honestly I don’t remember a lot of the details of and feel like given the appropriately general-but-specific guidelines either one could be useful, so ??), I feel like it’s somewhat significant that Hillel’s formulation is the negative version. ?? positive assessment, anyway.

“now go and study” for serious though, because that guideline is so damn broad and it’s absolutely correct that even with that as your intention, there are lots of facts about the world and how people operate and all other manner of things that impact what the correct choice of action would be in a situation, and learning about those things is an important part of doing well by others

“all Jewish laws, including the ritual ones, should in some way reinforce, and certainly not negate, ethical behaviour” -- this comes up in a lot of places but can I just mention right up front that the idea of ritual laws being additional sites and reinforcement of ethical behaviour is my JAM (and peanut butter)

the idea of questioning whether someone is or should be considered a religious Jew if they don’t adhere to ethical teachings -- *pokes at brain intuitions with a stick* YES HELLO HERE IS RELEVANT THE “WHAT IS RELIGION AND IS IT EVEN A USEFUL CATEGORY PROBABLY NOT” QUESTION (because my brain is, of course, inclined to see ritual stuff and theism stuff as the central question of whether one is religious and at this point I’m quite certain that this is The Western Christian Programming at work, ugh go away *swats ideas*)

“In Jewish thought, creation ‘in God’s image’ is understood as meaning that human being are like God, and unlike all other living creatures, in that they know good from evil” -- mmmm...... comparative cognition student headtilt alert honestly, if I’m taking that in a literal sense. like, I just fundamentally don’t believe given current scientific evidence that anything inherently separates humans from all other species in a qualitative sense besides linguistic competence. however, considering that I’ve pretty much decided to go the Mordecai Kaplan route and consider G-d an idea-construct-process rather than a Thing so as not to hurt my sad atheist head, a less literal and internally consistent way for me to read this would be more like, each human as a microcosm of the collective process of becoming an ideal society, in the ability to select and work at and create values that make that society better (scribble scribble get rid of the stuff about animals).

Maimonedes rules that you shouldn’t ask a non-Jew to do something that would save a life at the expense of violating a shabbat prohibition, you actively should do the thing to save the life yourself -- that’s cool. I like that.

“the goal of Jewish law is to bring about universal peace” -- eeehhhhhhhh grumpity cat noises of disagreement with this goal because I am Actual Sith Trash ok moving on

“If there is no free will, it makes as little sense to have a Torah instructing people how to act as it would to have a law commanding people to run a four-minute mile. For almost all people, such a law would be unjust.” -- Iiiiiiiiii also disagree with this strongly considering that for years I’ve been an anti-punishment determinist who also seriously seriously believes in the importance of rules about ethics as the method of creating an environment that causes people to act in a way that reduces suffering/increases enjoyable/meaningful life..... !! and if as it seems to be saying later that it’s entirely expected that one attempts to live up to the ethical laws and is not expected to always 100% follow them flawlessly because they’re really fucking hard, then I... don’t see what’s unjust. but this might relate to my weird opinions about punishment and justice sooo yeah.

“There is no messenger in a case of sin” i.e. there is no defense “I was just following orders” -- mostly questions here actually; this is a principle I’m very familiar with but I’m not sure where I’m familiar with it and so I’m curious if it’s a thing in multiple different traditions, or if it was just like, one particular reading in philosophy class in high school that stayed with me. on a different note, interesting because the rationale listed has to do with G-d’s commandments being on a level higher than any other human’s; the question for me personally then being can/does this have a basis in an atheistic framework as well

(my answer being yes, because I don’t see following an order as a moral good because it’s unrelated to helping or hurting others, and in my system it’s incoherent to attempt to justify an immoral act with a morally-irrelevant principle)

(this also makes me think about worldbuilding stuff, on a completely different note, because it’s been coming up recently in some SWTOR and RP stuff the attitude in the Sith Empire toward following what we’d consider immoral orders, and for my Sith it’s actually the opposite, that following a superior’s orders is inherently a moral good, in fact a moral good beyond a lot of others relating to ethical treatment of other people, because that’s just.... not the foundation of Sith morality. ...I’ll stop talking about the Sith now >_>)

“This does not mean that we are born bad or, as certain Christian groups believe, damned... but it also means that we are not born good (and corrupted by society, as Enlightenment thinkers taught). Rather, human beings are born morally neutral, with strong inclinations toward evil.” -- hell yeah hell yeah look at what a reasonable point of view <333 (also hah, suck it Rousseau)

“Jewish law prescribes numerous other ethical acts, the practise of which refine our natures and lead us to goodness. The Jewish view of human nature would seem to be ‘Do good and you will become a good person in spite of yourself’.” -- niiiiiiice. I am so pleased with the focus on action and by doing the thing you become the thing rather than an obsession with inherency and ~if you believe you are the thing that will make you the thing!!! bullshit. (”If you start to follow the laws about visiting the sick and do so on a regular basis, it will begin to feel wrong to you not to do so” - ACCURATE. EXTREMELY ACCURATE.)

“It is important for us to be aware of our own ‘evil’ inclinations because this enables us to channel even our ignoble inclinations for good.” -- wooooo consequentialism also hi @theunitofcaring​ this reminds me of what you say about becoming friends with people who share values you want to have yourself so that you adopt them, pretty much exactly :D

“...if we have the opportunity to help a friend, or someone with whom we have a difficult relationship, we should try - at least on occasion - to help the latter first [because it’s better to pick an opportunity to overcome your yetzer hara and so build a habit of doing so than one that doesn’t challenge you like that]” “(We shouldn’t act like this all the time both because it would be unfair and because our friends may well conclude that we are disloyal.)” -- one, this is a cool and important idea; two, I am very amused.

I’m going to stop here even though I’ve read more because this is getting long

there’s such a difference between feeling like a noob and not wanting to mess up and being generally awkward, vs staring back at 20-some years of cultural osmosis going no, this isn’t what I want and how do I get rid of this crap so I can approach the thing on its own terms, fuck

(blank slates are so much nicer than vague knowledge plus eighty pounds of baggage you didn’t even know you were carrying)

(emotional resonance with: sitting around accompanying another person taking their linguistics final. very festive. thank you brain.)

also just like... dissatisfaction with all terms I can think of so far for processes. every single kind of personal growth/change/somethingsomething process... mostly I think my brain doesn’t sit well with the notion of end states, or for that matter the notion of “oh well I’m ~wooorking on this personal state but not finished” because of what it tends to imply, how it feels to me like tweeness and emotion for consumption and Meaning Things rather than just being. I don’t want something that’s focused on the future, necessarily, I want something focused on what I am right now? these sorts of things are hard to come by.