On Reality

This essay might be the last thing I will ever write on spirituality, philosophy of life, and such. This essay also might be the most important thing I will ever write on spirituality, philosophy of life, and such.

Warning: this article is pretty long and quite dense. Perhaps it can be padded out into an airport bookshop paperback. Maybe I’ll even do it sometime if a publisher approaches me with a neat upfront payment. For now, take time, take breaks to digest the ideas, and reread as many times as you need to catch the subtleties.

Okay, let’s get going.

For many years, I’ve been trying to put my thoughts on those topics into words, and I’ve never been 100% happy with what I’ve written. After all those years, I still have no idea how to write in a way that would be accessible to most people. Everything I’ve written ended up either (A) impenetrably obscure and weird for the normies, or (B) insufferably banal and watered-down for the insiders, or (C) both at the same time.

Like, a couple of times, I began writing a book about shamanism for software engineers. But then, by chapter three, I invariably ended up asking myself, who am I writing this for?

If I’m writing for someone who has read more than two books by Carlos Castaneda, appreciates Altai throat singing, and has gotten high on lambda calculus on multiple occasions, I don’t have or need to say much. Just a gentle reminder that Haskellito is just as powerful as Mescalito and doesn’t have all the nasty side effects of eating dried cacti.

Whereas, if I’m writing for someone who picked up a bit of PHP only because it pays slightly better than shovelling manure at their uncle’s farm… Where am I supposed to even start to begin? I mean, explaining how to become a man of knowledge is not easy, even when we start with an empathic agreement on why one would even bother. And when we have to build that agreement from the ground up first… You know, if you’re okay with how your life goes, that’s fine by me as well. I’ll just shut up and go get a pizza. Have a good day.

And then, during a deep meditation session, it hit me that I was attempting an impossible task, and the sooner I stopped trying to break a wall of reinforced concrete with my forehead, the better.

The thing is, a person’s outlook on spirituality, philosophy of life, and such isn’t like a stack of cheap t-shirts that can be easily changed, swapped, or discarded. On the contrary, it’s deeply rooted in their idea of how The Universe functions. And that idea of how The Universe functions, it typically crystallises by one’s mid-teens to early twenties.

Of course, it’s influenced by the circumstances and environment in which a person grows, but not necessarily in a trivial way. Two teenagers might be growing up next to each other; one absorbs what the adults around them say and think, and the other rebels against it, and they end up with radically different world views.

It can also change after the early twenties, but then it takes either years and decades to evolve organically, or dramatic life-changing events, or a lot of inner work.

This also means that if a person’s outlook on how The Universe works differs from yours, just leave them alone and let them figure out within their own tribe. It’s not that they’re dumb, it’s not that you suck at explaining, you’re just speaking different tongues, and you don’t want to learn each other’s language.

You can glimpse one’s outlook on how The Universe functions by asking them (or yourself) two questions.

The first question is, how optimistic are you about The Universe? So, which description best represents your worldview?

• The Universe is hostile. The Universe wants you to fail. The Universe wants you to suffer. Life is hard. Life is a struggle. Everything you achieve must be earned with your blood, sweat and tears, and if you don’t achieve enough, no one will rescue you.
• The Universe is friendly. The Universe wants you to succeed. The Universe wants you to be happy. Opportunities are up for grabs, just go take them. Life is a fun and exciting journey… Well, until you fuck it up by your own dubious choices, but that’s on you, okay?
• The Universe is indifferent. The Universe doesn’t care about you. Good things happen, bad things happen, and in the long run, it all evens out.

The second question is, how orderly do you think The Universe is? So, which description do you find the most agreeable?

• The Universe is mechanical. It’s like a machine, and it’s entirely deterministic. You can reliably expect a specific outcome for everything you do and everything you plan. It’s all driven by logical rules you can study and use for your benefit. It can malfunction sometimes, but then it’s just a breakage that must be fixed.
• The Universe is predictable. It’s like an animal. It has certain habits and some peculiar traits, but it also has the freedom of will to do whatever it wants. Logical rules are still there, but they’re really behavioural patterns rather than fixed algorithms. Most of the time, you can expect what you do and plan to result in what you expect to happen. But when it doesn’t, the blame is on you.
• The Universe is chaotic. It’s like an animal, except the animal is a raccoon on DMT. Random shit happens all the bloody time. Chance encounters, unexpected events, spontaneous ideas, omens, signs, all that jazz, and you must incorporate all that into your activity as smoothly as possible. You can have plans, of course, but really, they’re wishlists and will not survive the first contact with reality anyway.

Before I draw a 3x3 diagram, which I will obviously do, there are a few side notes to make.

First of all, the very definition of The Universe depends on who you ask. Certain Christians and certain Buddhists will say that this plane of existence that we currently inhabit is not the only one. There are more, there are worlds beyond this world. So, The Universe at large is very friendly because it hands you all the tools you need to ascend to wherever you ascend in a particular belief system. Whereas this plane of existence is a barely livable wasteland… But then your life is merely a mud race that your Eternal Soul decided to partake in for funsies, so it’s okay.

Second of all, this is not a discrete classification; it is a spectrum with liberally chosen thresholds. Extreme behaviours happen but don’t necessarily apply to the larger group.

Some people are so far on the “mechanical” side of the spectrum that they go grocery shopping, and if the exact type and brand of pasta that their late grandmother used to cook on Thursdays isn’t available, they throw a tantrum. Most are not.

Some people are so far on the “hostile” side of the spectrum that they wear two concealed guns for grocery shopping. Most are not.

Some people are so far on the “chaotic” side of the spectrum that they can go grocery shopping, and forty-eight hours later, they’re running a yoga studio in Guayaquil. Most are not.

Some people are so far on the “friendly” side of the spectrum that they go grocery shopping without any money, expecting some kind of a miracle. You get the idea.

Also. Perception of The Universe doesn’t influence what people do nearly as much as how and why they do it.

You can be a “free-spirited” hippie who complains that weed doesn’t smell precisely how they expect and that his children don’t want to be weed-smoking hippies. Or you can be a business executive who gets into her SUV in the morning and has no idea if forty-five minutes later she’ll be in her office or in Narnia. I’ve met real people from both of these types.

By the same token, one’s perception of The Universe doesn’t always define what they say, but it does define what it actually means to them.

That’s why communication between people is such a bloody shitshow.

Imagine we have Alice, Bob, Camilla, and David.

Alice is a chaotic left-wing: she thinks that the world is unpredictable, and that’s why we must have a social safety net for people who are simply unlucky.

Bob is a chaotic right-wing: the world is unpredictable, and that’s why we must deregulate as much as possible so that entrepreneurs can efficiently utilise the opportunities they see.

Camilla is a mechanical right-wing: the world is deterministic, poor people are simply lazy, and the social safety net is redundant and even harmful.

David is a mechanical left-wing: the world is deterministic, the free market is inefficient, and we must do central planning using modern technology.

Now imagine lumping them into Team Left against Team Right and pitting them against each other for a debate. What can possibly go wrong?

The same goes for religion. A person on the “mechanical” side of the spectrum would imagine a God as a giant robot that walks around the streets and punishes the sinners who have oral sex of Thursday because the commandment says no. Whereas a person on the “chaotic” side of the spectrum would imagine a God as a creative spirit that uses this world as her canvas for whatever arty-farty idea she’s got this morning, and let’s hope it doesn’t involve painting with human blood.

Whether a person believes in God or not, and what house of worship they attend, if any, all that can be changed on a whim, and it’s not nearly as important as what kind of God they believe (or don’t believe) in.

You know what, writing this, I realised I should study Hinduism more deeply. The whole idea that there’s a whole ton of manifestations of Brahman, and you’ve got to pick and choose whatever you like better, those folk are really onto something.

Back to the topic of this article. Some behavioural patterns transpire directly from one’s perception of The Universe.

For instance, the “The Universe is mechanical” people tend to be more blunt and aggressive. Comparatively, the “The Universe is chaotic” ones tend to be more conflict-averse and diplomatic.

Which makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

If the world is an algorithm, and the rules (whatever “the rules” are) tell that you can attack and humiliate someone and get away scot-free, sure thing, go for it.

And if the world is a whirlwind, and you never know if tomorrow your life will depend on a person in front of you, and it would be very unfortunate to hear them say, “Just go fuck yourself and die, you moron,” naturally it’s better to play safe and be polite and gentle.

Similarly, the “The Universe is friendly” people tend to be more risk-taking, while the “The Universe is hostile” ones tend to be more risk-averse.

Which also makes a lot of sense. If you believe a single mistake can ruin your life, you’d typically play it the safest you possibly can. And if you believe that the worst that can happen is you’ll have a lot of lessons to learn and another chance, you can just give it a try.

Even those are more tendencies than strict rules. A person on the “hostile” side of the spectrum can go all in when they feel like they have nothing to lose anyway. A person on the “chaotic” side of the spectrum can be fierce when pressed to. A person on the “mechanical” side of the spectrum can be servile when the rules demand it. A person on the “friendly” side of the spectrum can be relaxed and lazy when they already have all they need.

And now, I finally get to draw the 3x3 diagram.

I’d like to remind you that there are no good and bad personality types here. Your core beliefs may evolve over time, but that’s a lengthy process, and that’s why saying “improve your mindset” is a bit like saying, “If you’re homeless, just buy yourself a house.” For all practical intents and purposes, you’d better understand and master what you are rather than dream of becoming something else.

Also, if you dream of becoming something else, there’s a good chance you’re already there, and you’re just forced by society to pretend to be something you’re not. Reflect on that.

So, people with the “The Universe is friendly and predictable” outlook are The Realists. Let’s admit it: the world around us is wonderful, and with a bit of effort, you can get all its wonders. So it makes perfect sense to follow your dreams wherever they might take you. No, you’re not naive or stupid. You have a decent success track; what other proof do they need.

People with the “The Universe is hostile and mechanical” outlook are The Realists. Let’s admit it: the world around us is dark and gloomy, but if you stick to the rules, you can get by just fine. So it makes perfect sense to keep your head low, do what they tell you and don’t ask too many questions. No, you’re not cynical or nihilistic. You have many principles and ideals, which are all approved by the authorities.

People with the “The Universe is indifferent and chaotic” outlook are The Realists… Let’s admit it: I’m not interested in writing an airport bookstore paperback with an actual 3x3 diagram, mnemonic names for different types, and two hundred pages of psychobabble about how they interact in various situations. Oh, and hidden propaganda about how the “The Universe is friendly and chaotic” mindset is the best and how everyone must strive to adopt it. Because that’s who I am, and so even my ways to overcome bias would themselves be biased.

So, there’s really one idea I’d like you to take away from this essay.

Your point of view makes perfect sense, from your point of view. It’s the others who are reckless, frightened, rude, sly, obsessive, compulsive, short-sighted, messy, insecure, dishonest, idealistic, immoral, and such.

And that’s fine, it is what it is.