How to Do Nothing with Nobody All Alone by Yourself (2014) | Hacker News Reader

How to Do Nothing with Nobody All Alone by Yourself (2014)

themarginalian.org

272 pointsfbn79102 comments

I spend quite a lot of time alone by myself. I usually go for a walk or ride my bike. Going to the library is another way to fill your brain with other peoples’ ideas, just like scrolling social media.

But I have to be honest: there are zero profound thoughts when I’m alone. I sometimes get ideas for what I could work on. Write this article or that, make a standup comedy show. Write some junk porn novel. It’s entertaining while it lasts and after a while, the thoughts are gone and having thought about them, the drive to implement them is gone, too.

It’s literally like writing things on a TODO list and feeling good about having it written down, but the desire to do them is gone.

So, since I don’t get profound motivation or breakthroughs or whatever, I treat time alone as some kind of mental garbage collector. At least I get to move my body.

So, what’s the lesson here? I don’t know. Maybe that being alone to improve something is bullshit. Go out alone if it suits you, don’t expect profound thoughts. At least that’s how I am :)

Edit: last paragraph

That sounds very normal, at least it’s the same for me.

Sometimes I spent a considerable amount of time brainstorming an idea or concept over and over during alone times, and then at some point it won’t return to my thoughts again, but something new replaces it. Sort of like I am “done” with that thought and my brain wants to move on.

I don’t know why that happens, but I guess I get stimulation simply from that iterative thought process. Thus your garbage collector comparison seems accurate to me.

Secretly though, I do hope to get that business idea at some point via that process. Not sure if that’s ever going to happen, but that’s okay too.

I feel the exact opposite. I only get profound ideas when I'm alone. Spending time with others is leisure but does nothing for my creativity. So definitely not bullshit for me.

It all depends on whether you’re getting sufficient external stimulation.

If I go through an entire week of interesting experiences/conversations/etc. then spending a day alone will yield all kinds of interesting ideas/concepts/revelations. Usually because I didn’t have time to reflect during my busy week.

Out of curiosity, when you’re spending time “alone” are you day dreaming, actively thinking, or actively day dreaming, or something else entirely?

I think the scope of what you think matters.

For me it’s the same as you, but only with “big” ideas that will require a lot of effort to get off the ground.

But I have been able to have a lot of great (to me) breakthroughs by focusing on smaller ideas: melodies or lyrics for a song, ideas for an algorithm or architecture for something I’m working on, perhaps planning a whole talk or presentation.

I believe most of us who are developers do that at work already, so it’s not too hard to extend it to alone time or exercise time.

On the other hand, I had the idea for a business I’m currently starting on one of those walks. So there’s exceptions.

It's the same for me, and that's when things go well. Sometimes, when thinking alone, anxious thoughts take place and I begin a spiral of bad thoughts about the past, things I should or shouldn't have done... In these cases I think it'd had been better to have listened to a podcast.

i do not believe being alone is meant to be the source of profundity, but of serenity · it is much cheaper (energy/time) to obtain profundity from others, but serenity can only be obtained after acknowledging that whatever i call I is always already locked in some kind of inside and only by being alone i can regulate this inside in such a manner as to be(wel)come (the) serene => alone not to improve, but to survive

I think balance is important. I think I remember that studies indicated that it often works well to immerse yourself in a subject and then rest. Your subconscious then processes the thing further and might come up with shower thoughts. This works for me. If I spend too much time alone, I end up mentally running in circles. If I spend too much time with people my mind becomes saturated and stops absorbing new information.

Are you a developer or somehow creating complex things?

Because for me, I get a lot of solutions when I'm alone (eg. shower). Sometimes I get stuck on a problem, or don't find a solution that feels right. A lot of times during these quiet times, some solution pops out of my (probably unconscious) brain.

yeah this sounds normal and a lot like what I feel too, No real profound ideas or aha moment still, but I do end up spending a lot of time alone, either walking or biking or swimming , the best I can get out of that time is the ability to fill my nice to have todo list with some random diy projects, or web tools I know I wont prioritize building ever. But I do still like to spend that time alone lost in aimless thoughts as I feel it enables me to feel happiness and pleasure when I do have company or I am interacting online with friends and colleagues.

That’s consonant with my experience and I think that’s kind of the point. Being alone is more about getting the necessary space we need for our brains to reset for once and not have to focus on anything or waste cycles on distractions. I often feel more refreshed after sitting around doing nothing outside for a second than I do after sleeping.

I think this is another reason being outdoors during solitude is great, it’s like a relaxation and brain refresh force multiplier.

I sorta get that, in that I can get a lot of game and story ideas that realistically will never make it into a full game (and recently it's been way worse, I need to fix my environment to facilitate creative work), and I have way more ideas then I'll ever have time to make into games or stories, but I've gotten plenty of ideas from those walks that I have successfully executed on afterwards.

All serious skills or accomplishments I have gotten in life have required both serious solo work and input, criticism, or encouragement from others. Purely solo activities I can go deep but burn out quickly if there is no real world reinforcement. Purely social activities I max out at a shallow level and never care to get any better. I think both types of learning are necessary.

But isn't the idea to be alone and have no important thoughts in itself is good?

For example, you have this huge complex problem that you cannot solve, then don't think about it and relax for one day and then all of a sudden you get an easy solution without even thinking hard about it. Happened to me quite some times.

You need to let go of the idea that every moment of your life needs to have purpose or some productive output. Luckily you already come to that conclusion: a way to reset the brain and moving your body is always a good idea.

"Go out alone if it suits you, don’t expect profound thoughts"

Often, I consciously decide to use time along to think. I don't think anything would happen without that conscious decision. But I've gotten some good results from that conscious decision. Once in the '90's I was driving back to my home in Maine from an internet conference in Boston. I had come up with a mathematical technique to recommend things to people based on their interests, and at the conference, there was a session on how it was hard for web sites to get advertising because they had to have "space salesman" to find advertisers.

On the drive I asked myself, what do I know that might be able to help solve problems I saw at the conference? Before I'd gotten north of Massachussetts, I had the idea that advertisers could send their ads to a central hub that would distribute the ads to web sites based on people's interests; so the web site wouldn't have to do anything and ads would be chosen automatically. Interests would be discovered by keeping track of which ads people tended to click on and other factors.

But I didn't know how to keep track of those clicks. Over the next couple weeks I looked into using Netscape's cookie mechanism along with other possibilities. But cookies had built-in privacy constraints. From my write-up at [1]:

""" At first blush, cookies didn't appear like they could help, because they could only be written or read from the internet domain from which they were written. So, if a cookie was written by, for example, a CGI at golfing.com, it couldn't be accessed by a CGI at boating.com. It followed that the idea of having the servers for golfing.com and boating.com both accessing a central server at some other location to track user activity wouldn't work; there was no way to know that the same user had visited both sites because any cookies written at one site would be inaccessible to the other.

But as I looked further into the general topic of Web programming, I noticed that a Web site running on one domain could invoke a CGI running on another domain. And there seemed to be no reason why that CGI, running on that other domain, couldn't write its own cookie to the local computer. """

Now, Google owns the patent that came out of it (which did NOT claim the "tracking cookie" on its own, but only using it with MY particular mathematical algorithm for picking ads.) As far as I know the patent has never been used offensively, but even last year Google and Twitter were using it defensively against a patent troll. ( In their petition[2] in that case, Twitter and Google repeatedly refer to the tracking cookie as "Robinson's Cookie.")

So anyway, my advice is that you consciously CHOOSE to think when alone, while doing something like walking or driving. Somehow that low-level, automatic activity makes a huge difference to me in my ability to think, and most of the best ideas I've had in my career have come while driving. Other people have their best ones while walking. I don't HAVE to be alone, but I pretty much have had to say to my wife in the passenger seat, "Please don't talk to me now, I'm thinking." She doesn't mind because the results have sometimes been good in the past!

[1] https://www.garyrobinson.net/2021/07/did-i-invent-browser-co... [2]https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings/IPR2021-0048...

Thanks for sharing, maybe the intention does make a difference. Or maybe I'm a bit too self-critical. I probably get some kind of breakthroughs or profound thoughts after all, but only on a fraction of all walks and rides – which is okay.

Yes, expect to have major insights on only a small proportion of walks or rides! :) But that's fine! Just make the conscious effort to solve problems, usually using pieces you already know about!

For me, it's fun. There have been a number of times I've done the 5-hour drive from Boston to my Maine home, and then didn't want to stop, because I was chasing interesting ideas in my thinking!

I to spend a lot of time alone. Mostly all of it. But I'm the complete opposite when it comes to profound thoughts. My brain goes blank around people.

Holy smokes I feel bad for you. What happened to your curiosity (wo)man? I really can't empathize at all with comparing a library with scrolling social media. That's apathy to the max.

Quoting from a past comment[1]. This is from the late Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (of "flow" fame):

"The ultimate test for the ability to control the quality of experience is what a person does in solitude, with no external demands to give structure to attention. It is relatively easy to become involved with a job, to enjoy the company of friends, to be entertained in a theater or at a concert. But what happens when we are left to our own devices? Alone, when the dark night of the soul descends, are we forced into frantic attempts to distract the mind from its coming? Or are we able to take on activities that are not only enjoyable, but make the self grow?"

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28942369

Would you recommend reading Flow if I've already engaged with the concept of flow itself outside of the book?

No. It's been decades since I read the book but the concept is simple and quickly in understood and doesn't need a book-length treatment. He doesn't give any guidance on how to achieve the flow state which is what I was looking for.

The topic certainly deserves a book-length treatment (it's only some 300 pages). He explores the idea with great rigour. I've read it 7 years ago, and just went through some of my Kindle notes. There's ample guidance. But the reader must put in some work to extract the value. If you're in a hurry, you won't get much out of it (or any book).

I definitely recommend it. He studied the topic of "optimal experience" for 40 years, and explores it in various settings. The book has plenty of guidance on understanding how do people get into flow states. There might not be highly precise "instructions", but the book absolutely provides valuable insights. The patient reader will be rewarded.

(Also, the bibliography at the end of the book is quite valuable. Good writers share their sources generously.)

Very profound, thanks for sharing!

A couple of years ago, I was going through a short stint of burn-out. I needed some time away, so I put a mattress in the back of my car and went to Germany for a few days. I loved the idea of not having to go anywhere and not having to discuss the next location with anyone. If I saw a place with a nice view around dinner time, I'd just stop there, warm up some food and eat, enjoying the view. Those couple of days were zen. I need to do this again some time, but for some reason when not burnt out, people are less accepting of this kind of thing.

There is something to be said for the recovery that comes with just experiencing a place in the world without any agenda or accountability beyond simply being a living being. I'm glad you got to experience that. i've achieved this maybe a handful of times in my life, and it seems significantly harder to do in the US than elsewhere.

I did a spiritual retreat a few months ago at a Jesuit centre, and I think it was a bit like this— just leaving my phone in my room and spending the entire day taking everything an hour at a time with no obligations or timelines or goals at all.

Obviously the religious side of it isn't going to be for everyone, but absolutely the "hard break from the real world" side can be.

Sounds like a great vacation! And never mind other peoples opinions, some even call what you did "Vanlife", I know it as camping. If you enjoy, just do it!

This highlights what bothers me most about today's [mobile] culture. There are reams of other things to say about the damage being done (I'd recommend Johann Hari's book Stolen Focus [0] for a great, if severely worrying, overview) - but to me the ability to spend time doing nothing, being with oneself, being alone, living with one's thoughts - this is a hugely important thing.

Other people on the thread point out that "not much happens" when they spend time alone - to which I'd say: that's the point. Your brain needs time to process, to chew through, to formulate, to make sense of... all the things it has been spending time doing. So yeh, sometimes ideas happen in these spaces (ideas certainly don't happen where there's no space!), but sometimes nothing at all "happens". And...that's important.

As well as that, the constant-always-filled-always-on culture created by mobile devices takes you away from the present moment. It's like the least mindful thing you can be doing, and given the quantities of evidence around happiness, flow, focus, etc - just being in the world is a critically important thing.

The other angle is about the ego in all of this. One of the strange things that comes out of a meditation practice is that (and bear with me here, it sounds weird) - when you spend more time with yourself, focusing on what your inner voice is saying, without constant distraction, you actually become very much better at being empathetic in the world. Because you understand more about who you are (and, ultimately, who your "self" isn't...), you get to understand more about other people and who they are. I wouldn't be at all surprised if being good at being alone also boosted this sense of empathy for others. It sounds counter-intuitive, but I suspect it's true.

[0] https://stolenfocusbook.com/

I find that my computer is stealing all my time. My default is to sit in front of my computer.

I'll write an email, jot a few notes.

Inevitably I will open up a video or a game and distract myself.

If I'm spending time with myself and I'm at home, I'm on my computer.

I think it's a problem. I'm considering thinking about it some more and writing a blog post on it.

Will you sit in front of your computer when you write your blog post?

Yeah. I mean that's the thing, sitting in front of the computer is a necessity because you need to type ideas. So your screen has to become a catalyst for your thoughts instead of being a distraction.

You have to build an "environment" where you can "blog" or w/e you deem productive. I've been looking at https://kinopio.club/ to be my "default screen on computer start" for organizing thoughts, but it's not perfect.

This probably isn't what you're after, but you can blog via a pen & notebook with Paper website: https://daily.tinyprojects.dev/paper_website

(no affiliation and haven't used it, but I love the idea and that person's "tiny projects" are super cool!)

You could use a notebook and handwrite things instead, that helps me.

This post reminds me of the life of Christopher mccandless, the protagonist of into the wild.

McCandless had happily escaped humanity his whole life, only to find that happiness itself can only be amplified when shared. One of his final quotes being:

“Happiness only real when shared.”

I feel like describing him as a protagonist of book/movie misses that he was a real person.

I interpret that in the complete opposite way: he was a deeply unhappy person who didn't realize it until he really experienced being alone. I can be just as happy alone as when I'm with people so the sentiment certainly doesn't apply to some people

This is something many people overlook when they glorify this character

Let's pretend his passion was Nascar driving...

This is adjacent to the notion of a "Flâneur", someone who idly wanders a city with nothing in particular to do, but who engages with it intellectually and socially.

It very much requires a high level of privledge or, in more rare cases (these days), the ability to survive in poverty looking like a homeless person yet still be interesting and welcomed by others.

For Gen-X, this was also known as being a "slacker". It was good while it lasted.

> This is adjacent to the notion of a "Flâneur", someone who idly wanders a city with nothing in particular to do, but who engages with it intellectually and socially.

I've recently started watching Seinfeld again. Kramer seems like exactly this kind of character.

Just last week!

Flânerie: The Art of Aimless Strolling - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32002486 (125 comments)

"All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room."

-- Blaise Pascal

Then our cultures will actively penalize people who can sit still and be happy doing nothing. “laziness” is a cardinal sin and “lack of ambition” a critical issue.

A great deal of human bonding is based around frothing each other up about a topic that either doesn't really matter, or the group present has absolutely zero control over.

I'm sure most people notice this, but if you have freshly improved skills in 'sitting still in a room', this phenomenon is quite noticeable and, if I'm perfectly honest, somewhat alienating.

However possibly he meant sit still usefully, otherwise why sit rather than lounge in an ottoman? sit still, that is, sustain study, or read literature, or have creative idylls, write, comtemplate the inner realms. Sounds to me like the quote is the classical ideal of useful employment, by which comparison much social interaction or being glued to a phone is judged as laziness or, anachronically, dissipation.

The sitting part is actually not in the original quote (“Tout le malheur des hommes vient d’une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre”). It was just about staying at rest in a room.

Note that “at rest” being specified, it really was about doing nothing. And sure, Blaise Pascal was extremely active, extremely prolific since his very early days, and he probably couldn’t stay still doing nothing for long.

Yes, I always thought this was meant a bit tongue-in-cheek as a tautology: the sins (and wonders) of man stem from the compulsion to exercise ones agency.

>the sins (and wonders) of man stem from the compulsion to exercise ones agency.

Nice turn of phrase.

Is it yours or are you quoting from someone else?

This article caught my wandering attention today during an intermittent fast. Normally I'd take a light exercise day to burn a bit more, but a minor injury is telling me to take it easy. Reading HN and tinkering with code isn't enough. Fasting makes me restless. I almost never get "bored", but this brings it on. I want to break the link between boredom and waves of hunger. How we manage solitude and how we manage hunger seem connected.

Even better, do these things with someone else! You're always existentially alone, so no need to make practical life too lonesome either!

Some of us really like our own company, our own streams of consciousness without interruptions.

I went hiking yesterday. I really, really wouldn't have liked if someone nagged me when resting while peacefully gazing over the valley

I find it amusing how for some people the thought that someone might enjoy just being alone a while is some unthinkable Lovecraftian madness

I don't get lonely, I enjoy my solitude.

There is a difference between lonely and alone. You can be very lonely while being with a whole bunch of people, and you can be very much not lonely being all with yourself.

When I'm outdoors I often notice an internal conflict between enjoying the ability to spend the time doing exactly I want to do, and wanting to share the experience with someone.

> Even better, do these things with someone else

Sure but that's missing the point of the book.

People are not meant to alone. If the book is advising to do things alone, I advise not reading the book

If you never do things alone, I suspect you don't read books anyway. So I'll just go ahead and ignore any advice from you about what books I should or shouldn't read...

Could it be that books are the technology that made being alone possible? Apart from monks, have people been alone before the invention of books? Without books, would people learn to stay by themselves and make it a habit?

People have spent a multitude of hours doing other activities alone as well--painting alone, looking at the stars alone, practicing dance alone, using the restroom alone...

No need to see everything in black and white. There are a lot of shades of gray. You're correct that humans work in groups, doing things alone is inefficient, harder and possibly dangerous.

But being alone and learning to deal with your own feelings and thoughts is a good way to mature and know oneself better. Also, there are a lot people that need time alone to recharge and regain energy that they spend socialising and interacting with people.

So there are benefits of being alone.

BTW: haven't read the book and do now know what exactly it is about.

Meant by who? You? God?

evolution. It is in our DNA to be social. Most of us will die without social connections

This book is about learning how to entertain yourself alone during your free time, not mandating that you only recreate alone, much less disconnecting yourself from society altogether.

People without social connections die earlier statistically, but that can be explained by outside effects (e.g. if you do not live in a family structure, chances are you'll be found too late after suffering from a heart attack or stroke; less people around you means less immunisation for common diseases; no friends means a house fire may stress you out more and you becoming homeless ...). Calling that "most would be dying from no social connections" still seems a bit a far reach.

Also, the "we need to be around people at all times" seems to be less determined by genes, but by culture: people in other cultures and at other times seem to have been fine with extended periods of no human contact. Think the 'forest dwellers' in Hindu culture, or monastic hermits.

I wonder if the causation is reversed when people talk about living a shorter life with fewer social connections. If someone has mental health issues or substance abuse problems they're likely burning through their social connections and their health at the same time.

To prove humans need social connection, all you have to do is look at the heartbreaking (and thankfully rare) cases of children that grew up completely neglected and sequestered. As in, locked in a room with no attention for the first decade of their life. When they're discovered, they're not what you think of as human. They never developed language. They never developed the ability to form relationships. They know nothing about the world and have virtually never interacted with anyone. There is no amount of therapy that will ever turn these young people into functional humans and in the case I remember most vividly, they will never develop any real language or ability to communicate either.

Your argument is different from your explanation. You're speaking about complete isolation. Children need some socialization for them to adapt to the modern world. That's different than proving humans need social connections in the long term. Almost all people want some form of socialization, some less, some more. It's extremely rare a person would want complete isolation forever in perpetuity and I say that as a person who can only handle about an hour of socialization before I want to climb in a hole. What no one talks about is when too much socialization can impair growth.

But that's extreme. We don't go back to living in a cave and bashing each other's skulls in with rocks, just because that's where evolution took us. Our minds are above and beyond some aminoacids (or whatever) now.

People are meant to be bored though.

The author has another equally wholesome book, "Where Did You Go? Out. What Did You Do? Nothing."

I borrowed this book from a library at age 10 or so - 50 years ago. As a kid, when we went on holiday as a family the first thing we would do would be to visit the library at our destination and get 'visitor tickets'. I was an only child (still am) and was expected to amuse myself. The title is perfect for an only child. I read this book pretty much cover to cover one holiday and remember making darts out of sewing needles and matchsticks.

> What I call zazen is not developing concentration by stages and so on. It is simply the Awakened One's own easy and joyful practice, it is realized-practice within already manifest enlightenment. It is the display of complete reality. Traps and cages spring open. Grasping the heart of this, you are the dragon who has reached his waters, the tiger resting in her mountains. Understand that right here is the display of Vast Reality and then dullness and mental wandering have no place to arise.

https://wwzc.org/dharma-text/fukanzazengi-how-everyone-can-s...

Returning to the joyful ease of a child, not putting distinctions and discriminations on play, or worrying about the next thing or even doing the current thing well, is what we train by sitting zazen in Zen Buddhism

> not putting distinctions and discriminations on play

Honestly that stands out for me from your comment. What do you mean? It does not follow logically, at least for me, from the rest of the things you mention.

Zazen is about sitting without making distinctions. If a good feeling arises, we treat it the same as a bad feeling, we just let it arise and pass without judging it. Same for distinguishing between self and other, etc. Zazen is a practise for learning how to cultivate a mind that does not attach to discriminations or distinctions between different mental or physical states or objects.

We put distinctions on the world because we think it's necessary to be able to actually live here, but actually if you let go of distinctions you will find that life lives on as normal and you still somehow know what to do but in a much more liberated way.

"Not putting distinctions and discriminations on play" means to play without making distinctions or discriminations, such as: "am I playing right?", "am I being too loud?", "is this a good use of my time?", "could I be doing something more productive?", etc. Most adults cannot play without attaching to those questions and being bothered by them. One way to learn to not attach to those questions is to practise zazen

>We put distinctions on the world because we think it's necessary to be able to actually live here

You'll find that living on the world without distinctions in some places will get you shot or eaten by wildlife. Which does make your life in the world a wee shorter, yes... Although at that point I guess someone truly enlightened wouldn't mind it

Have you tried it? If you did you will realise that actually it isn't our attachment to distinctions that propels us, but there is an automatic animal decision making process before we rationalise about it. We actually do this a lot but we just don't realise it, afterwards we think that our rational sense of "I" is in the driving seat but really it is a bit different. As I said, it's hard to believe that you could live a life like that, but I promise you that after dropping distinctions you will handle the person shouting at you or the bear attacking you far more effectively than you would if you were rationally deliberating over it. But you'll have to try it to believe me perhaps, I was surprised too. Part of the reason why enlightenment is a long and difficult process is because we are so convinced that we need to hold onto things to keep surviving. Some people are so shocked by the realisation that they even commit suicide, particularly if done in an unsafe setting without support.

I don't think deliberate thoughts are the best tools for all circumstances. That's not my point

Actually getting rid of distinctions requires an overwriting of the non-deliberate thought processes too. You won't "handle" the person shouting at you or the bear attacking you more effectively, you won't handle anything at all. You'll just be the cognitive equivalent of a rock, but in human flesh

You seem to be using "distinctions" as a synonym for deliberate thought (I could be wrong, of course)

Yes, by distinctions I mean rational deliberate ones that arise from attachments to ideas that we have about the world. For example the idea that I am me and you are you. We are attached to this idea and act in a non-optimal way due to it. Being before that mind is called "prajna" or wisdom in Buddhism, prajnaparamita being the "perfection of wisdom". I don't mean the distinctions made by our material condition such as hunger or flight and fight, I mean the reactions to those things.

It is the Buddha's parable of the two arrows: the first arrow (pain) is unavoidable, however we also then take on an unecessary second arrow (negative emotional reaction to pain) that is totally avoidable. I'm talking about the second part.

Letting go of our conscious attachment to distinctions and discriminations we can play like children again

Might want to start using "deliberate thinking" (or something like that) instead of "distinction".

Even if it's valid, "distinction" also has other meanings that might come to mind first in the same context, which can lead people to misunderstand what you are talking about. It's what happened to me

Apologies, Buddhist terminology is extremely difficult to translate accurately into English. For example the word "suffering" is not quite right for translating the sanksrit word "Duḥkha". It's easy to forget to clarify the translations, but that's part of why it is so difficult to learn. When we get more Buddhist texts that are written primarily in English first, it will be easier to communicate

You could make the same argument about listening to music, that wandering around while listening to music will get you shot or eaten by wildlife, and yet people generally gain some benefit from listening to music.

Yes, however people don't come up with philosophies about hijacking your whole thought process so the only thing left is listening to music

If someone is selling a fundamental truth about the universe, it better damn well work in every situation

One way I gain confidence in it is to think about how it has had 2500 years of research and development, and in that time has not asked the majority of Buddhists to accept a set of beliefs blindly. It has changed drastically with time and culture: Japanese Buddhism is very different from Chinese Buddhism, Japanese Buddhism in the 1200s is very different from in the 800s. It is allowed to evolve with what works for people, and I find that quite compelling. Of course that alone is not enough, I have to also actually do the practise myself and see what happens

Aside from the blind acceptance, how can you be so confident in "it" if Japanese Buddhism is so different from Chinese Buddhism? Haven't the other major religions existed for almost the same amount of time and gone through just as much "research and development"? Doesn't that give you confidence in them? Have you practiced them and seen what happens?

The difference is that the Buddha specifically taught that the way to verify his teachings was to practise it. Buddhism gives you a path to become a Buddha. In contrast, Christianity does not give you a path to become Christ, or even become sure of Christ. You are expected to believe in Christ without ever seeing any evidence of it. It is the same for many other religions, they do not offer empirically tested methods for personally verifying the teachings, but Buddhism does.

Japanese Buddhism is so different from Chinese Buddhism because the cultural background of Japan is very different to China, so people have different needs, propensities, and capabilities.

> If someone is selling a fundamental truth about the universe, it better damn well work in every situation

Seems like a strange thing to say. Fundamental truths don't have to be useful period, let alone be useful in every situation.

If someone tomorrow proved that life simply had to be common in the universe, that would hardly be useful to any situation you'd face in your lifetime.

>Fundamental truths don't have to be useful period, let alone be useful in every situation.

They have to if the fundamental truth pertains to the One True mental state one should achieve

I probably should have used more qualifiers to make the context explicit...

meta -- i'm just wondering if the OP found this blog post through the https://projectnaptha.com main page screenshot of the book. these two posts are side-by-side on HN now and it gave me the chills "what a coincidence" - perhaps not.

I confirm your suspect! =)

Just at the start

> now more than ever, it seems — have a profound civilizational anxiety about being alone.

It seems to me the "natural" state of things is to NOT be alone. Did cavemen survive if they were alone? It use to be common for the majority of people in the world it live in single room houses. I'd think the "natural = better" crowd would be very much of the thought that being alone is a symptom of modern society. I'm not personally saying that being alone is bad. Only that the framing seems to be that not having alone time is bad and that seems like a strange framing to me if for most of our existance we were rarely alone.

Also, I notice almost none of the comments are about the "Do nothing" part. They're all about "do something with nobody all alone by yourself", not "do *nothing* with nobody all alone by yourself"

You're right. Being alone and the very idea of privacy is a modern "luxury". It did not exist as hunter gatherers nor in the "african village" model. In some cultures, it still doesn't exist, think a multi generational home where rooms are shared with many people.

I think indeed the emphasis should be on the "do nothing" part. Which very much is natural. I've once read that hunter gatherers "worked" for about 4 hours per day. As for the rest of the day? Rest, watch the sun set, gaze at the stars.

Many animals also do fuck all for a considerable part of the day.

There is no such thing as a natural state. At all stages of human development you'll find loners who lived off by themselves in the woods, like shaman or trappers, and others who formed towns and tribes.

As for the "do nothing" part, you'll find plenty of people here who meditate regularly. That's the pinnacle of doing nothing, all alone by yourself.

I am reminded of James Thurber's short story "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty." So much of my life has required just waiting, so daydreaming, people watching and hyper-focusing on my surroundings have become valuable skills.

These skills allow me to "be there" for others. My mom had many surgeries and I would go to the hospital and just wait with my dad. We said little. He would read paperback fiction, a pastime he learned riding in carpools, but he was not alone.

I read this book as a child in the 1990s. I think I picked it up at a garage sale, along with another of his books "Where did you go?" Out "What did you do?" Nothing", an entertaining memoir of his youth and all the nonsense he got up to with the other kids.

Highly recommended by 12-year-old me.

"[The Internet] also grows exponentially worse at helping us discover what we don’t yet know we ought to know, those invaluable unknown-unknowns."

Really? Has the author ever been to Hacker News, I wonder.

"Boredom is insight into the essentially void nature of our existence and the existence of all things" — Keiji Nishitani

thanks, my son would love this :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com