Conversations with my therapist.
It’s a Thursday evening and I had no plans, so I decide to start talking to my therapist. The italic text are my thoughts, the regular text is the therapists response. It might have created a better understanding of how Buddhism is teaching you to fundamentally strive for 1) Wisdom, 2) Ethical conduct, and 3) Mental discipline. I.e., pay attention and be at peace. Because this is the strongest most effective action I can take.
Maybe it teaches you something too.
I want to better understand what seems to be naturally ‘Good’. I want to try to define the a direction is – if there is one – we can confidently work sustainably towards as society. Are there any philosophical streams that provide various answers to this question? Of is this a somewhat novel question (probably not)? What is even the field of science called that deals with this question?
The field you’re asking about sits at the intersection of moral philosophy (ethics), political philosophy, and increasingly moral psychology and evolutionary ethics. The question of what’s naturally “good” and what direction society should sustainably move toward is ancient, but your framing—seeking something we can work toward confidently and sustainably—has modern urgency.A few major streams:Natural law theorists (Aquinas, modern Catholic social teaching) argue there’s an objective moral order discoverable through reason. Utilitarians point toward maximizing well-being. Virtue ethicists focus on human flourishing (eudaimonia). Evolutionary ethicists look for moral intuitions that enhanced group survival.But here’s what’s interesting from your physics background: you’re essentially asking about attractor states in social systems. What configurations are stable and life-enhancing?The Zen perspective might ask: what if the question itself creates the problem? Murdoch, with her attention to moral vision, might say we need to see clearly what is before prescribing what should be.What draws you to think there might be a discoverable direction? Are you seeing patterns in complex systems that suggest natural tendencies toward certain organizational forms?
Hmm… Those are quite opposite things… One claims doing is what’s required, the other puts not doing as the solutions! (If I interpreted correctly). So what should I do? What is moral behavior? I have to choose an Ethics! Or lays the answer in finding your own? What would be a rigorous approach to choosing an ethics for my own life? What is a wise decision making process? What scientific methods do I have at hand to make a grounded decision?I could try various different ethics, and try to measure what works; Or I could try to better understand why I want to live by an ethics, and use this knowledge to choose the best fit; or I could look at what ethics has the most historical proof of success? What is wise?
You’ve hit the core paradox! Yes, Zen suggests that grasping for moral systems can create the very suffering they aim to solve, while Murdoch insists on the disciplined work of moral attention.But notice what you’re doing right now—you’re already being ethical by taking this question seriously. The fact that you want to choose wisely rather than drift is itself a moral stance.Here’s a rigorous approach: Don’t choose an ethics—choose a method for ethical inquiry.From your scientific background, consider this experimental design:Observe your current ethical intuitions without judgment. What actually moves you to action or restraint?Test small variations. Try Stoic morning reflection for a month, then Buddhist mindfulness, then utilitarian cost-benefit analysis. Measure outcomes you care about.Look for invariants—what persists across different frameworks? These might be your core values.The Zen insight isn’t “do nothing”—it’s that forced choosing often misses what’s already present. Murdoch would add: pay exquisite attention to reality as it is, not as your theories say it should be.What specific life situations are prompting this question? Are you facing decisions where different ethical frameworks give conflicting guidance?That concrete context might reveal more than abstract comparison of philosophical systems.
You know, I think I might feel powerless. I want to change the world for the better – but I’m afraid that all I can control are ‘my’ actions (i.e., my attention).I belief this feeling of powerlessness might make me trying ‘too hard’ on finding how to do good; foolishly hoping there will be some ‘magic answer’ that ‘solve humanities problems’.Stating this explicitly makes me realise that maybe a neat step on my moral path is too accept the enormous amount of suffering there is and will be. Probably by weeping and crying about it.
Ah—you’ve just done something profound. You moved from the head to the heart, from trying to solve suffering to feeling it directly. That shift from “how do I fix the world?” to “how do I be present with what is?” is exactly what both Zen and Murdoch point toward.The physicist in you knows that forces propagate through fields, not through isolated particles. Your attention, your presence with suffering—that’s not “just” personal. It creates ripples.But yes, weep first. The grandiosity of wanting to save humanity can be a defense against feeling how much it hurts that children are hungry right now, that people are lonely, that ecosystems collapse. The tears aren’t weakness—they’re sanity responding to reality.Iris Murdoch wrote that love is “the extremely difficult realisation that something other than oneself is real.” Starting there—with genuine contact with what is—often does more than our grand schemes.The Zen teacher might ask: “When you truly feel powerless, what power remains?”What if the next step isn’t choosing an ethics, but sitting with this grief? Not to wallow, but to let it inform how you move in the world?Have you ever noticed how people who’ve deeply grieved often become the most effective helpers? They’ve stopped trying so hard and started being present.
What can I take from this conversation? Is there a delta that I can incorporate starting now?
Stop trying to choose an ethics. Start practicing grief.The delta: When you feel the urge to solve humanity’s problems, pause and feel the specific suffering that’s moving you. Let yourself weep for what’s actually happening—not as self-indulgence, but as moral practice.This isn’t passivity. It’s precision. You can’t act wisely on what you won’t feel clearly.Immediate practice: End each day by acknowledging one piece of suffering you encountered—in the news, in someone’s face, in yourself. Feel it fully for thirty seconds. Don’t try to fix it. Just let it be real.The physics analogy: You’re moving from trying to control the system to learning its actual dynamics first. You can’t intervene skillfully in what you haven’t truly observed.This grief work is moral development. It’s what transforms the grandiose helper into someone who can actually help.Try it for two weeks. See what actions naturally arise from that quality of attention versus the actions that come from “I must save the world.”The world doesn’t need another savior. It needs more people who can bear witness to what’s actually happening.
That last sentence is really powerful. Thank you. I wish you well.
Thank you. That landed where it needed to. Go well.
