Simone Weil’s Great Awakening
newstatesman.com
newstatesman.com
https://pca.st/episode/46ef86e6-36a9-45db-a263-e278b150b2a4
It was surprisingly relevant to a conversation I had with a friend about the "psychology of work". (At one point, the group in the podcast concretely discusses the idea of a business manager who is formerly an individually contributor, who mechanizes his business, moves up and up in the "abstraction" of all aspects of the business operations, and then rather than being 'totally fulfilled' in the end, finds himself with a whole lot less creative work to do. This is eerily personal for me!)
I also think it's a nice conversation because it explains, without explicitly referencing it, why programming is such a satisfying creative activity, even if automation of labor is ultimately dehumanizing to laborers unless the automation is "total" or "complete", as discussed more in the podcast and by Weil in one of her essays ("Theoretical Picture of a Free Society").
Finally, it relates the idea of flow & creativity to the concept of individual & human liberty, a connection that had never really occurred to me before.
“There are two ranges in the growth of tools: the range within which machines are used to extend human capability and the range in which they are used to contract, eliminate, or replace human functions. In the first, man as an individual can exercise authority on his own behalf and therefore assume responsibility. In the second, the machine takes over—first reducing the range of choice and motivation in both the operator and the client, and second imposing its own logic and demand on both. Survival depends on establishing procedures which permit ordinary people to recognize these ranges and to opt for survival in freedom, to evaluate the structure built into tools and institutions so they can exclude those which by their structure are destructive, and control those which are useful.”
— Ivan Illich, Tools for Conviviality (1973)
and an extended discussion of this theme here: https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/care-friendship-h...
Simone Weil for Americans - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26977605 - April 2021 (5 comments)
Simone Weil and the Need for Roots - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26908295 - April 2021 (70 comments)
The Mathematician and the Mystic: André and Simone Weil - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23494566 - June 2020 (2 comments)
The Logic of the Rebel: On Simone Weil and Albert Camus - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22564898 - March 2020 (3 comments)
Simone Weil is the patron saint of anomalous persons - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20188334 - June 2019 (13 comments)
* https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/serie-avoi...
* https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/serie-simo...
For English speakers, Enlightened By Love: The Life and Thought of Simone Weil (5 hours): https://www.davidcayley.com/podcasts/2014/11/30/1msu5jd829w2...
I can also recommend the already mentioned "Philosophize This!" podcast
As for her writings, I enjoyed these short pieces:
* The Power of Words
* The Iliad, or the Poem of Force
* Écrits historiques et politiques (fr) https://cras31.info/IMG/pdf/simone_weil_-_ecrits_1_--_histor...
For all those like me that don't have the necessary expertise to assimilate the original philosophical texts, I would recommend the excellent work done by Stephen West in his podcast Philosophize This. You might need to consume the work from David Hume onwards up until Simone Weil to get a good understanding, if like me you had no previous formal instruction in philosophy, but it's totally worth the effort.
doxis needs praxis, and vice versa.
Btw, if someone here could recommend books on this level, please do, they would be much appreciated.
https://www.philosophizethis.org/podcast/episode-172-attenti...
Here is the excerpt that made me feel most awkward, translated with Google: "That I disappear so that these things that I see become, because they will no longer be things that I see, perfectly beautiful. I in no way desire that this created world should no longer be sensitive to me, but that it should be sensitive to something else than me. To me he cannot tell his secret which is too high. Let me go, and the creator and the creature will exchange their secrets. Seeing a landscape as it is when I'm not there... When I am somewhere, I defile the silence of heaven and earth with my breathing and the beating of my heart."
This seems like a very Jansenist view of the world, and it seems very dark to me. Anyone would interpret this excerpt differently, and help me understand it better?
You can be so immersed in experiencing the world that you forget everything except the experience itself. And there is great beauty and love and freedom in that.
The flip side of viewing the self as "nonexistent" is to see the world as an extension of self: no-self and Big Self are the same phenomenological experience, in a way. Deep sense of connection.
I have not read Gravity and Grace, should start it by tomorrow! But that is the perspective that is drawing me to her work.
I've been thinking about this a lot recently. The reference to Camus here is interesting to me since it is in the context of Absurdity that I consider this. A paradoxical desire to think the unthinkable, or to know the unknowable.
> Weil was convinced that in the depths of our existence, it is not concepts and arguments that define us as moral beings, but concrete experiences. ... More significantly, for Weil, we are beings moved to action not, in the first instance, by concepts but by forces beyond ourselves: experiences of suffering, love, profound insight or disturbance, whose origins Weil did not shy away from calling transcendent, even divine.
There is something of phenomenology to this idea.
> The true achievement of emancipation, Weil thought, lay in liberation not of the self but from the self. Reflective self-empowerment should make way for a pre-reflective alertness to the beauty and vulnerability of life. This leads to an active care for the world we share with other beings – it made no difference to her whether it was named “nature” or “God”.
This is very powerful thought and very reflective of many spiritual traditions.
> In Weil’s view, we need transformative experiences that arise when we become attentive to the natural beauty and interconnection that lies outside of ourselves. Weil calls such revelatory forms of attention “praying”: “At its highest stage attention is the same as prayer. It assumes faith and love. It is associated with a freedom other than that of choice, which occurs at the level of the will – grace. Being so attentive that one no longer has a choice.”
This strikes me so hard because I have been considering prayer in exactly these terms in recent months. I think we need to reconceptualize prayer and move away from the new-age conception of mindfulness. And I mean "prayer" divorced from any religious context.
Although it isn't immediately related - I think this might be the most powerful use of AI. Instead of attempting to create the most intelligent and infallible oracle, we might instead create the most perfect mirror to reflect ourselves. And in that way we may see the "I" at the center of self dissolve.
I don't think it's an accident that many people consider God to be in their gardens.
What a beautiful idea! Could you tell us more?
I've also been doing something similar with dream interpretation. I personally do not believe in divination or clairvoyance or really anything woo-woo. I'm even pretty skeptical of Jungian ideas of collective subconscious. But I do sometimes want to introspect on my dreams and AI is a fantastic non-judgmental listener. You can have the AI repeat it's understanding back to you and suggest interpretations. This can help you better understand your own interpretations and provide insight into your own personality.
If you find any value at all in keeping a journal for your thoughts, think of it like a super-charged journal. You aren't just working out your thoughts in a linear narrative or essay form, there is an aspect to collaborative exploration of your ideas. In this way, AI is helping you clarify your thoughts more than it is acting like a source for infallible information.
Our minds work in a way that we learn and then repeat patterns in our life. For instance, somebody will end up bad in relationships that are bad in a strikingly similar way.
These patterns must be unconsciously known to the person repeating them -- otherwise they would be unable to repeat them. So, in a way, unless you change something, you will repeat these patterns. So it is trivially so that unless something changes, your future is known. People are not conscious of the patterns, however. If they become conscious of the pattern, it loses its grip.
Much of "divination", such as Tarot cards, is getting a different perspective of your challenges, and becoming more conscious of the patterns you repeat. So, if "divination" works, then actually instead of divining the future, you will become free of the future that would have happened.
One example practice he suggested was to pick a topic you are interested in having creative ideas about, then choose a random word from a dictionary. He argued that the process of trying to connect the word in the dictionary to your topic would force you to connect ideas that were not normally connected in your everyday thinking.
In some way, Tarot cards are very similar to this practice. They provide a source for the random starting point that a person can use to connect ideas. Tarot cards are full of ambiguous symbolism which makes them an even more fecund source of creativity compared to random dictionary words.
However, I ardently oppose any notion that the selection of the random cards in themself reflect any intervention from a divine or some spirit world. It is very easy and surprisingly tempting to start seeing significance in the particular cards selected at random.
I have had a similar journey in the last years, drawing more and more inspiration from Christian, jewish and muslim contemplatives, after years of mostly following a "secular Buddhist" path (basically buddhism without believing in rebirth. Which becomes quite thin, as buddhism is the path towards the end of rebirth...). I am not sure of what you mean by "religion", but what I am convinced about is that we need to allow for more "religiosity" than what the typical mindfulness/secular Buddhist movement allows. What often happens (or happened, as I do not pretend to be an innovator there) in those circles is that the rejection of religiosity means that a lot of assumptions underlying our culture (mostly the materialist ontology) goes unquestioned. There is actually lots of values in opening to religious interpretations of mystical experiences, and opening the range of possible interpretation. Without falling into a new fixed ontology, therr is something freeing in allowing oneself to think in terms of "the divine", "the ground of soul" or "the eternal present".
You make a good point on the question of what I mean by religion. I would say, I want to avoid the dogmatism associated with mainstream institutionalized religions. Something like what I assume you mean by "fixed ontology". Weil, on the other hand, argues that we should embrace it and argues that there is value/beauty in the ceremony, rituals and rites offered by churches.
She really occupies an interesting space. Her contemporaries were the likes of Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. I think that secular humanist crowd was totally unwilling to entertain mysticism. Also, Marx was ardently against religion seeing it as a tool of oppression. So Weil was unique in that she was aligned with them on political and economic issues, she was a grass-roots labour activist to the core, but she was also deeply spiritual and mystically inclined. Her criticisms of Marxism are heavily inspired by her belief in a transcendent divine that is completely absent from normal leftist/materialist view points.
It is sad that she died so young, at 34, before she could more deeply explore this political philosophy. It is interesting to consider what kind of political ideology you might get if you take the core understandings of Marx and even the post-modernists but you re-inject a non-dogmatic mysticism.
Simone Weil - In Our Time BBC Radio 4 - YouTube SIMONE WEIL (1909-1943) Great Lives, Series 22, Episode 5 of 9 With: Matthew Parris, Eleanor Bron https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS961W-Y8Uk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio4/2012/11/in_our_time_simon...
"Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty." -Simone Weil, "Gravity and Grace", 1947
The internet is broken.
The pop web* is broken.
This seems to be the French text of “Gravity and Grace”. The English translation dates from 1997; her other works are even less known and less likely to have sufficiently old translations.
Copyright really does screw over lesser-known philosophers.
The translators having their own copyright is likely the issue.
Simone Veil was one of, if not the, greatest statesman who fought for women's freedom of choice. Her life was recently shown in a biopic in cinemas (the movie is tough, though - as was her life). What a figure!