I think those would tend to cross most traditions, but the example I used of the body and sex is treated radically differently in different traditions. I don’t think this is a peripheral issue and really, deep down they are all the same tradition. Though the larger religions today could be argued to arrive at a similar place (with some problems with Hinduism, depending on the specific Hinduism) since they tend to share skepticism about desire and thus the freedom of the body. They also each have judgments of emotions, to the degree that most religions have a kind of emotion-phobia of some kind. You can see this clearly in the big two Eastern religions where emotions are generally cut off from full expression and the body.
I’m not sure what you meant here.
I wasn’t saying that Merton wouldn’t have engage with the idea. I was saying that he doesn’t think just any text would work as well as any other. He considered the Bible a special text (not putting it above other sacred texts) but of a different kind and quality compared to a recipe.
The Psalms are the most perfect expression of the human soul speaking to God… They are inspired words in which God Himself teaches us how to pray.
And he spent, I don’t thousands of hours focused on that text. Not just grabbing anything off the shelves at random in the library, let alone recipes. Implicit in Sam Harris’ ‘argument’ is that any text will do. We can project deep meanings on anything. And while the latter is true, the former is not. So, I see in Harris’ comments a flaw in deduction, but then as someone who considers science the sine qua non of evidence, he has none. There’s no empirical study behind his argument. Oddly, his argument seems to miss that with sacred texts, you don’t have to project to get things to a deep level of philosphy/theology/what we experience. Some parts of the texts have this more blank screen to project on, but overall they all have sections openly talking about that stuff.
In other words, we would need to see if people could actually build a religion around a book of recipies. My intuition says that regardless of the flaws the Bible, people would have a much easier time finding answers (both the religious leaders and their followers) in the Bible over the cookbook. I am not saying that a little sect couldn’t arise around a cookbook, but in general there is a resonance for humans in relation to the Bible and the other sacred texts I mention. Which means they function differently from the cookbook and other random texts, if I’m right. Now we are both speculating, but he is treating his conclusion at apriori obviously true. I think that’s absurd. In fact you don’t have to project deep meaning on these texts, they deal with deep meaning, very clearly. That doesn’t mean they are correct on the metaphysical level or as part of spiritual development, but they are different qualitatively from his recipe. Also I think a strong case can be made empirically - something he has not done - that some of these texts in conjunction with religious practices lead to measurable changes - thus predictive value - in the way the person lives, feels, experiences the world.
Since my worldview does not match well with those traditions, the big current religions, this isn’t me advocating for my worldview - I’m not Abrahamist, Hindu, Buddhist, etd, in fact precisely because that development goes against my values, especially in relation to the training around desire, bodies, sex and emotions. But I recognize that they are effective in achieving goals. And, again, based on my intuition, more effective than a cookbook would be as part of some program with practices, rituals etc.
That was the main point of my post. I find this rather common that people are critical of the epistemologies others use while allowing themselves to use epistemologies they themselves are critical of, often very similar to the people they are directly criticizing. Yes, we can project stuff on pretty much any text. But, certain texts engage and function effectively for many people in many cultures and over time. So, perhaps there is a fundamental difference between the interpretation of people like Jordan Peterson or priests or gurus or adherents who use texts he wants to put on a level of a recipe. He simply hasn’t done the work he would expect others to do when reaching their conclusions.
And Sam Harris himself, in conjunction with his meditative practices has use the Pali Canon and other Buddhist texts, rather than pulling random books off the shelf to help him with his practices. Most of his training has come via teachers and retreats, but those teachers have steeped themselves in those Buddhist texts rather than random texts.
As far as the AI use: well, I don’t know how I would have noticed an AI was involved if it merely cleaned up German-affected English. It’s actually pretty rare I think an AI was involved or to that level of certainty. But I’ll accept your explanation. Perhaps you organize your thoughts a lot like an online LLM and have a similar style and flourishes. They do copy us to some extent.