A. What it is.
B. How it works
C. Why adopt it.
D. How to verify you’re making progress.
E. Something Deeperism as a group ideology.
A. What is Something Deeperism?
Something Deeperism is a common-enough worldview.
Something Deeperism maintains the following:
(1) There is a “True Good” (aka: “God”, “Buddha Nature”, “What is Prior to All Particulars and Creates, Sustains, and Shines-Through All Particulars”; the “Reality that is also Knowledge”, etc.)–which, unlike everything else, actually knows what is going on and how we should live–.
Note on language use:
“True Good” is a poetic formulation. It points via language through ideas and feelings towards an inner experience prior to language, ideas, and feelings. We can point to it like we can point at a vista and know others will experience the sight in basically the same way that we do–because others are fundamentally the same as we are and relate to what is going on in fundamentally the same way. In both the case of sharing vistas and sharing spiritual senses-of-things, error and miscommunication is possible, but–if both parties are basically healthy and well-meaning–errors and miscommunications can be generally be reduced to a degree where meaningful discussion of the essential experience is possible. (Why suppose everyone is essentially the same? More on that later.)
Poetic formulations point towards experiences with some vagueness, but not therefore necessarily inadequately. A literal statement can point with much more perfect precision, but only because literal statements take place within a model that comes with the clause, “of course, this is just what follows given xyz assumptions–we’re not saying what, if any, relationship with any ‘actually existing reality’ this statement has.” Literal statements are great for modeling logical and physical phenomena, but they can’t say anything about what–if anything–is actually going on, or what actually is worth doing.
Maybe logic and math allow for perfectly literal statements (insofar as they are models divorced from human experience–once a logical or mathematical model is instantiated in a human mind, the concepts are to some degree just stared at in unfathoming wonder, and so morph into something vaguer and more metaphysical than the precise-because-defined-as-such written version). But all other human statements are definitely to some degree literal and to some degree poetic. They are literal to the degree they are reducible to literal definitions and logic; poetic to the degree their meaning relies upon unprovable assumptions about what is going on and what should be done. For example, even the most basic physics equation relies upon the unprovable assumptions that the observable reality is basically the same for all of us, and the observable reality maps meaningfully to human logical conceptions–not to mention the fact that no one really understands or can adequately define basic concepts like “energy”. So even physics, while definitely having a large literal component (succinctly defined terms related together by mathematical logic). And, of course–doesn’t even mathematical logic rely for its meaning upon the assumption that sense is possible and worthwhile? That’s why I’m not sure if I should categorize math and logic as perfectly literal as long as they are on paper and not in human heads: on paper and in computers (which I’m here envisioning as mathematical equations programmed to unfurl themselves), they have no meaning–they have meaning only when understood in human minds, and human minds cannot help but consider them within the context of unprovable assumptions and imprecisely defined concepts.
Suffice it to say, a perfectly literal worldview/life-philosophy is not possible. All worldviews rely to a large degree on ideas that cannot be precisely defined or intellectually proven. But that’s not necessarily a problem. Humans aren’t computers. We are not just precise concepts inside precise logical rules. Our thought also relies on feelings, emotions, and vague inner sense towards concepts/goals (like longings toward “True/what is actually going on” and “Good/what is actually worthwhile”; one cannot overstate the importance of such vague longings that contain both a sense towards “Do this!” and a sense of towards an idea: without, for example, the sense “it matters what I do”, no one would bother to do anything at all). So unlike a formal logical system, our thought’s coherency doesn’t rely solely on fidelity to coherent logical rules, but most fundamentally on self-awareness, internal-honesty, and the push towards those vague guiding longings like “I should seek out and prefer truer and better thought-paths over less true and worse ones; and better actions over worse ones”.
To return, and starting from the top:
Something Deeperism maintains the following:
(1) There is a “True Good” (aka: “God”, “Buddha Nature”, “What is Prior to All Particulars and Creates, Sustains, and Shines-Through All Particulars”; the “Reality that is also Knowledge”, etc.)–which, unlike everything else, actually knows what is going on and how we should live–.
(2) The “True Good” shines through human conscious experience, humans can relate meaningfully to the “True Good”, and–through self-awareness, internal honesty (ie: not lying to yourself about your experience), and a constant and constantly reevaluating push towards one’s in-born sense of “Truth” / “Goodness” / “Beauty” / “Justice” / “Kindness” / “Love” / “God” / “Buddha Nature” (that point prior to all specifics where all is “One” and all is “Holy”)–humans can know/understand/follow the “Truth” more and more adequately.
(3) However, the “Truth” is ultimately prior to human knowledge/understanding/participation, so humans will never know It literally or understand It fully or follow It perfectly.
The Something Deeperist conception of Reality thus believes in the possibility and desirability of wisdom, but wisdom is more of a whole-being, never-ending process of development, and not something that can be forced into specific ideas or attitudes. Some ideas and attitudes point one better towards the path of wisdom than other ideas and attitudes; but we humans often confuse ideas and attitudes about what actually matters with what actually matters, so we have to be careful not to clutch to any idea too tightly, or fool ourselves into thinking that the “True Good” is something we can intellectually know and/or emotionally understand.
B. How does Something Deeperism work?
Something Deeperism works because it is possible for a human to have a subjective relationship with the objective reality that is meaningful enough for the objective reality to point that human adequately towards how we should think and act. Because human ideas and feelings cannot fully grasp the truest nature of reality, wisdom is not an endpoint but a never-ending process of refinement.
The path to progress in Something Deeperism is identical with the beginning of Something Deeperism. There is a seed of wisdom within each human being, a sense that some things are more true than others and some ways of being and actions are better than others, and that we can and should honestly seek for what is truer and better. That sense also contains within it a sense of how we can be successful in that quest: self-aware, honest, keep pushing towards that Light within that knows about “True”, “Good”, “Beautiful”, “Just”, “Loving”. If you don’t believe you can meaningfully select one idea or action over another, why pretend you do? And yet without supposing we can meaningfully select one idea or action over another, our thoughts just turn to chaotic mush. But how can we meaningfully select one idea or action over another? Isn’t it by thinking clearly and maintaining fidelity to our inner sense of “truer” and “better”? And isn’t the sense that “truer” should be preferred only meaningful if “True” is meaningful and preferred (without an absolute anchor, relative values have neither clarification nor impetus)? [Note that these phrases in quotations point past concepts into vague senses-of-things–they point imperfectly but still adequately.]
We could have no firm foundation for thought and action without insight an “Absolute Truth” that is also an “Absolute Reality”. Since Kant Western philosophy’s taken it for granted that the intellect cannot assess it’s own relationship to what–if anything–is actually going on (the noumenon, as opposed to the phenomenon), and therefore can’t say anything meaningful about what–if anything–is really going on. However, Kant’s solution (believe in the noumenon because if you don’t, human morality–which we can’t live without–lacks an adequate footing) has not been considered an obviously adequate answer to our inability to know what is really going on: if we don’t know what is going on, why bother supposing we need to hang on to morality? Basically, forcing yourself to believe in an Absolute based on a relative reasoning doesn’t tend to sit well with people. It feels, well–forced.
But that’s the great thing about Something Deeperism! It doesn’t require you to pretend that human beings can or should live in completely literal accounts. It understands that our thought is always to some degree poetic, and that philosophy must always to some degree rely upon imprecise conceptual ideas and unprovable assumptions; so we don’t have to pretend that we can or should give a relative (ie: completely literal) account of reality.
overcomes intellectual problem of kant
a subjective knowledge of objective truth
not an endpoint but a path–the proof of somethingdeeperism is within the impetus for choosing to discover the proof
C. Why be a Something Deeperist?
You know that inner sense you have that there’s something that is actually going on (aka: something “True”); and that some ways of reacting to what is going on that are actually better than other ways of reacting (aka: ways of living that are closer to “Good”); and that through honestly seeking to better and better understand/know/follow that inner sense, you can succeed in that endeavor and become wiser than before? Something Deeperism accepts that that inner sense is basically correct, but the inner sense is prior to what humans can intellectually and emotionally understand. So you should keep pushing for more and more active insight into the “True Good” seed inside of you, growing the seed into more and more wisdom (ie: more and more understanding/knowing/following the “True Good”); but that wisdom will always be prior to ideas and feelings, and humans have a lot of trouble mixing up ideas and feelings about what matters with what actually matters–so spiritual/emotional/success cannot be measured by what or how vehemently you accept xyz dogma, but only by how bright you grow the Light within, allowing your ideas, feelings, thoughts, and actions to flow more and more cleanly off the Light (the more twists, turns, and confusions between the Light within and your thought and action, the more you fail to live in and through the only aspect of your conscious experience that knows what is actually going on and how you should actually think and act).
Something Deeperism advocates this “bare minimum” dogma in order to avoid the errors of both radical skepticism and fundamentalist dogmatism. Skepticism and faith are tools. Skepticism helps you avoid the error of believing any idea you come across, even ones that you do not know/understand, and which–even if they happened to be true–you therefore can’t meaningfully enter/use/travel-with. Faith helps you avoid the error of never believing in any intellectually and/or emotionally unprovable assumption, which–since all assumptions about how you should think and act are ultimately unprovable–amounts to a belief in an unprovable assumption, a belief that implants a self-defeating eddy at the base of your thought.
Skepticism and faith are complements. Skepticism counteracts faith’s problem: faith combines a sense of assent with xyz ideas, but if you don’t understand how and/or in what way these ideas should be true, then faith forces a blank spot into your thought–a spot where you cannot consciously follow your own thoughts to their conclusions, and so cannot consciously steer them (ie: a spot where you cannot consciously unpack and live your own faith; this is dangerous spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally, because it effectively says that in this vital spot, you cannot find your way consciously, but must close your eyes and let the dogmas–which, it must be stressed, are not what truly matters, but only ideas about what truly matters–unfold however they unfold within a mind that doesn’t understand them and must just push them randomly forward). And faith counteracts skepticism’s problem: doubting everything you cannot intellectually verify causes you to doubt that principle itself, which makes your thought incoherent at its foundation and thus confused and unable to make conscious progress (you spin your wheels forever, shrugging your shoulders; this is dangerous spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally, because you are missing out on finding and discovering a path forward).
Something Deeperism attempts to use skepticism and faith as tools in service of better and better knowing/understanding/following the “True Good”. No principle of thought and action is of any value unless it actually matters what we think and do; so a principle of thought and action is only valuable insofar as it helps us know/understand/follow the “True Good”. Something Deeperism tries to find the middle ground between radical skepticism and blind faith with a dogma that keeps the intellect focused on the need for all other aspects of one’s conscious experience to follow that aspect that actually knows what is going on and how we should move while also asking the intellect to be wary of assuming too many metaphysical details, as the “True Good” is prior to ideas and feelings, but humans feel comfy/powerful/safe within ideas and feelings, so it is easy for us to get so preoccupied with ideas and feelings about what matters, that we put them above the quest to open our hearts and minds more and more to the Light shining within.
Additionally, we Something Deeperists also have this maxim:
“Let us all be Something Deeperists at least to the extent that we keep our ideas and feelings about What Matters (including of course so the God help us Amen our ideas and feelings about Something Deeperism) from betraying that ineffable light that they are to some degree imperfectly but still to some degree adequately pointing towards! Help us, Oh inconceivably vastly vast That Which Helps! Please!!!!”
Something Deeperism is a good worldview, because a humans needs to coordinate all her aspects of thought around the one aspect of her thought that actually knows what is going on and what is worthwhile, so her intellect should stay focused on the Absolute; but the Absolute is prior to what a human can literally understand or perfectly follow, so her intellect should also stay focused on the fact that she can and should keep working to find better and better ideas and better feelings, but she can never find, and so never should suppose she has or will find, a literal and/or final knowledge of “True Good”. The Path is an inner one. You must work to balance your ideas and feelings so that they flow better and better off the Light within which alone knows that there’s any possible way forward, any real reason to pick one idea or action over another. It is kind of mystical and experiencial; but it is also realistic about the need for some intellectual boundaries to the spiritual quest. It fits well with other philosophies and religions: it isn’t intended to take the place of one’s philosophical and religious journeys, but to augment them with the general principle that we have to all work to grow the Light within and our ideas and feelings must help with that goal or be emended.
1ai. Too much metaphysical vagueness and/or too much metaphysical skepticism is self-defeating because human thought knows it cannot meaningfully choose one thought-path or action over another without a fidelity to one’s own inner sense of “truer/more-accurate” and “better/more-worth-choosing” (not those words, nor the conceptual ideas they conjure up, but the inner-senses-of-things they point imperfectly [but not therefore inadequately] towards); and human thought knows that, for example, one’s inner sense of “truer” can only be meaningful and preferable if one also has a meaningful inner sense of “True” that one prefers (“True” = “this is actually the case”; “this would be the case if xyz assumptions were actually the case” is only meaningful and desirable to creatures for whom “this is actually the case” is meaningful and desirable). We’re not in this paragraph claiming that human thought’s inner sense of “this is actually the case” actually relates meaningfully and correctly to whatever it is that is actually the case–just that an individual human cannot use his or her thought coherently (meaningfully-to-itself) without assuming that his or her inner senses of “True” and “Good” point meaningfully towards the direction s/he should prefer when choosing between various thought- and action-directions.
1aiExample: The above point is easier to envision if I take you back to how it first occurred to me. Back in the day I was doubting everything, including that my inborn methods for gathering and evaluating information (the way human thought–including my own–couldn’t help but operate) had any hope of relating meaningfully to what is really going on–or even knowing whether or not anything was really going on. But how meaningful is it to say “I don’t know whether or not my thoughts have any meaningful relationship to what is really going on–or even if anything is really going on”? If I assume it possible that I don’t have a meaningful relationship to what is really going on (or can even know if anything is actually the case), then how am I supposed to understand my own thoughts–including the thought that I don’t necessarily have a meaningful relationship to what is really going on? And so more and more I agreed with Epicurus: That logos [radical skepticism] is indeed self-defeating! Anyway, if nothing is “True” and nothing is “Good”, why was I bothering trying to avoid error?, why was I trying to come up with a coherent life philosophy? And no matter what stories I tell myself, how can I choose one thought over another without accepting and using my own inner-senses towards “truer” and “better”, and what do those relative concepts mean or matter without being anchored in an inner sense of “True” and “Good” (again, not those concepts, but the inner-senses they point towards)? Without a coherent way to choose one thought over another, one can equally choose or reject any thought and so one’s thought turns to mush; and awareness, internal-honesty, and fidelity to those inner-senses “truer”, “better”, “True”, “Good”–that’s what holds human thought together: a human isn’t and informal logical systems but complex systems that use emotions, feelings, concepts, and inner-senses-of-things all together when thinking and acting–so a human’s thought cannot be held together solely by logical principles, but also needs attitudinal/felt principles like awareness, internal honesty, pushing for a clearer and clearer understanding of “what is going on” and “what should be done”.
1aii. So much for radical skepticism and all the fancy footwork that tries to build ideas worth accepting and actions worth pursuing atop a foundation of “well, for all we know, everything’s meaningless”. And ergo the need for a dogma that at least accepts the need for awareness, internal honesty, and a push towards “truer” and “better” based upon an inner-senses of “True” and “Good”. (Some might say, “if you’re ultimate guide is prior to ideas and feelings, why insist upon a specific
1aa. Something Deeperism does not suggest that one should necessarily drop other dogmas. It just maintains that the purpose of human life is to grow in wisdom, and that involves coordinating your various aspects–intellectual, emotional, physical–so that they harmoniously work together under the ultimate guidance and direction of the only aspect of your possible experience that actually knows what is going on and what matters: the “True Good”. Something Deeperism maintains that much, and from that much it concludes that you need an intellectual conception of what’s going on and what’s to be done (what I’m here calling a “dogma”) that points your intellect towards the correct path; Something Deeperism further holds that the dogma sketched above does that acceptably well and–by avoiding further specifics–also minimizes the risk of exchanging allegiance to the Path for allegiance to a dogma. The only justification for a dogma, an attitude, an emotional response to life, or anything at all is that it helps you grow in wisdom, and wisdom implies an understanding that “Truth” is wider and deeper than ideas; so if you find yourself clutching a dogma or attitude or etc. so tightly that it turns your focus away from your quest to connect with and understand/follow/live the “Truth” better and better, then that dogma is counterproductive and needs to be emended.
1aaa. In an effort to
2. The “Truth” is what is actually going on. It is an Absolute Reality that is also an Absolute Knowledge and an Absolute Wisdom and an Absolute Goodness, an Infinite Self-Aware Love.
2a. Note that ideas (aka: stories-about) and feelings (aka: reactions-to) cannot stand outside of themselves and assess their own viability. They rightfully worry that they could always be wrong in any given detail or in their core approach to learning, evaluating, and deciding. How different the “Truth” is! With no gap s between the “Truth’s” Reality, Knowledge, and Wisdom, there’s no chink where error or misunderstanding could slip in. This certainty of epistemological, logical, metaphysical, and ethical correctness is doubly assured by the Absolute nature of the “Truth”.
(Please take a moment to contemplate the wonder of that spot where prior to all distinctions, where only what Is is.)
2aa. Note from the above that we can have poetic knowledge of the “Truth”. Poetic knowledge is not perfectly concise, precise, clear, and intellectually/emotionally understandable/knowable/disposable. But that’s not the same as inadequate. Ergo the path: take the seed of wisdom and keeping working to grow that inner Light, so It becomes more and more your path, guide, leader, way.
B. Why Adopt Something Deeperism as your worldview?
Actually, you already have. Everyone is to some degree a Something Deeperist. What those of us who identify ourselves as “Something Deeperists” are really saying is:
“Let us all be Something Deeperists at least to the extent that we keep our ideas and feelings about What Matters (including of course so the God help us Amen our ideas and feelings about Something Deeperism) from betraying that ineffable light that they are to some degree imperfectly but still to some degree adequately pointing towards! Help us, Oh inconceivably vastly vast That Which Helps! Please!!!!”
1a Addendum on the relationship of language to Reality and the necessity of searching for the “Truth” if your thought is to be coherent (to make sense to you).
Such poetic formulations point towards a Reality prior to ideas and feelings–not perfectly, but not therefore necessarily inadequately. They point via words through ideas and feelings toward something prior to words, ideas and feelings like you point towards a vista and know that others who follow your finger will have an experience essentially identical to yours: because you know all humans are essentially the same, you know that, barring a serious error or misunderstanding, you are experiencing essentially the same thing, and that, given basic health and a serious commitment to mutual understanding, any errors or misunderstandings can be worked through until you and another person can end up on essentially the same page.
You cannot doubt your ability to meaningfully communicate with others without doubting the assumption that you understand your own thoughts adequately well (if other people’s understanding of what they are talking and writing about is not essentially the same as your understanding of what you are hearing them say and write, what relationship do you have to everything you’ve learned by interacting with others [note on how we learn what words indicating feelings and emotions: using empathy we reverse engineer the expressions and gestures that feelings and emotions automatically create on their feelings and feel a sketch of what they feel]). So you cannot coherently doubt that you and others are essentially the same. The only coherent path is finding a way to adequately know/believe/understand/follow the essential sameness of you and others.
The same basic reasoning can be used to demonstrate that you have no choice but to find a way to know/believe/understand/follow the following:
(1) your various aspects of thought (including ideas, feelings/emotions/sense-experiences can relate meaningfully with each other, and your thought-as-a-whole can assess how meaningfully they are relating to each other adequately well.
(2)
2. We say that everyone is to some degree a Something Deeperist because Something Deeperism is really just the acknowledgement that we can and should prefer “truer” thoughts and “better” actions, and that the way to do that–to coherently choose one thought or action over another–is by being aware of one’s thoughts and feelings, honest with oneself, and thorough in one’s pursuit of “True” and “Good”.
2a. What’s that you say? Some people don’t subscribe to that view of things? Actually, they can’t help but subscribe to that view of things. Every time a person tries to choose one thought over another, they automatically assume that they can and should and that they can do so by following their own internal rules of thought, and the most fundamental rules of human thought include awareness, internal-honesty, and seeking “truer” and “better”–inner directions that only have value and make sense if moored by a coherent inner sense of and dedication to “True” and “Good”.
2aa. With “truer”, “better”, “True”, and “Good” we point with language through ideas and feelings into senses-of-things that are ultimately prior to concepts. They are senses of things we all have and that we all rely on all the time. Their foundational role in human thought can be seen in the absurdities that immediately arise when one tries to deny or even doubt their conceptual approximations (ie: the words and their dictionary definitions).
2aaa. “There is no Truth” is clearly self-contradictory. What is the sentence supposed to mean? It’s only possible hope to escape being nonsense would be asserting that there was no such thing as “Absolute Truth”, and that the statement itself was only a “relative truth”. But without an “Absolute Truth”, what paradigm could we really have for choosing one “relative truth” over another? You can fancy feet with logic all day long, but at the end of the day if you maintain that there’s only “relative truths”, then why should anyone–including you–particularly believe-in/care-about your “relative truths”? Also, who can understand a reality in which all we have are “relative truths”? “true” relative to what? To some theory that itself is essentially no more nor less true than anything else? You cannot help
