←back to thread

The Zen of Quakerism (2016)

(www.friendsjournal.org)
124 points surprisetalk | 3 comments | 29 Jun 25 13:40 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
quacked ◴[02 Jul 25 18:23 UTC] No.44447143[source]▶
It's always weird to see Quakerism be mentioned somewhere else. I grew up Quaker and still sometimes attend Quaker meeting, and I related to his ceiling-tile counting; I used to count the wooden boards that formed the ceiling of our meetinghouse.

The best part about Quakerism, in my opinion, is that it teaches a very hearty disrespect of un-earned authority without teaching disrespect for the concept of authority itself. One of my favorite anecdotes is a group of Quakers who refused to doff their hats for the King, as they only doff their hats for God.

There's another old practice of refusing to swear on the Bible before telling the truth, as that would imply that they weren't telling the truth before they were sworn in.

I find the inclusion of Zen in this article is interesting, as you won't find the word "Holy" or "God", used, and "Spirit" is only used twice, once to comment on how he felt pressured to receive a message from it. The original purpose of Quaker silent worship was to remove the church-imposed barrier between man and God (the "Holy Spirit") so that anyone could be a mouthpiece for the wishes and desires of the Spirit. Modern American Quakers, especially the ones who write in Friends Journal, tend to be pretty secular.

replies(7): >>44447205 #>>44447278 #>>44447323 #>>44449740 #>>44450151 #>>44450473 #>>44450910 #
JKCalhoun ◴[02 Jul 25 18:40 UTC] No.44447323[source]▶
Attended Quaker meeting as a kid growing up as well. I appreciated the non-heirarchical aspect of it. No priest or anyone "leading" the "worship". No crosses or statuary of any kind. A simple room with half the seats in the room facing the other half. Occasionally someone broke the silence and said something short ... meditative?

When I was told Quakers did not kill, would not take up a gun and point it at a fellow human, I was surprised. "What if they are trying to kill you?" little kid me asked with incredulity. "You cannot even kill in self-defense," I was told.

Even then I could appreciate the seriousness of their conviction.

replies(3): >>44447513 #>>44447887 #>>44450051 #
ultimafan ◴[02 Jul 25 23:45 UTC] No.44450051[source]▶
The interesting (to me) part about such a philosophy is that it seems like it can only really survive and prosper within a society where someone else is willing to pick up the burden of doing the killing for you.

It seems like in nature or on its own such a mindset would be akin to being in a death cult- you're just going to get rolled over by someone else and your "tribe" won't be around long enough to have this belief "reproduce" and be passed on.

But if you live in the midst of a society full of other people who are willing to kill or be killed to protect those in it beliefs like that can grow and gain followers without any risk of external challenge putting their faith to the test.

Reading my comment I realize it may sound a little bit inflammatory or perhaps bloodthirsty- that's not my intention, I don't know how to word it better. Just a passing thought on this topic

replies(4): >>44450107 #>>44451173 #>>44452433 #>>44457226 #
krapp ◴[02 Jul 25 23:54 UTC] No.44450107[source]▶
>The interesting (to me) part about such a philosophy is that it seems like it can only really survive and prosper within a society where someone else is willing to pick up the burden of doing the killing for you.

This seems to assume the "the burden of killing" is not only necessary but unavoidable, as if violence were a constant which should be equitably distributed amongst everyone. If so, I would presume the Quakers would disagree, and would be perfectly satisfied if no one bothered killing at all.

And historically speaking not a lot of people have been willing to kill to protect pacifists like the Quakers who have little capital, social clout or political power. So it isn't much of a burden to begin with.

replies(1): >>44450185 #
1. ultimafan ◴[03 Jul 25 00:07 UTC] No.44450185[source]▶
It's not a condemnation of the morals within their belief system, and not a demand that everyone should participate equally in (potential) violence that comes along with protecting a community/country.

Just an observation that at any given point in human history such a philosophy could only survive long enough to be passed generation to generation if its members offloaded the burden of having to make that moral choice onto someone else ie police or military. I don't think such a belief could have ever developed and survived in a vacuum.

Every group of humans with surviving beliefs in known history have had some subgroup of (or been a subgroup of) other humans willing to resort to violence to protect the whole.

replies(1): >>44450301 #
2. krapp ◴[03 Jul 25 00:24 UTC] No.44450301[source]▶
>Just an observation that at any given point in human history such a philosophy could only survive long enough to be passed generation to generation if its members offloaded the burden of having to make that moral choice onto someone else ie police or military.

People have no choice but to offload the "burden" onto the police and military, that's the entire premise of civil society and the state's monopoly on violence. Your ability to commit violence within society is already legally proscribed, and except in the case of military conscription, has never been required.

>I don't think such a belief could have ever developed and survived in a vacuum.

No, because it is explicitly an expression of opposition to the violence of secular society. In the absence of such violence, such a belief wouldn't be necessary.

>Every group of humans with surviving beliefs in known history have had some subgroup of (or been a subgroup of) other humans willing to resort to violence to protect the whole.

We're going to have to agree to disagree that the purpose of the police and military, or most equivalent groups throughout history, has ever been to "protect the whole."

replies(1): >>44450570 #
3. ultimafan ◴[03 Jul 25 01:06 UTC] No.44450570[source]▶
You do have a choice, because the state/police/military aren't an opaque non-human monolith. They are made up of people who DID make the choice to take up that burden, for any given reason, it doesn't have to be an act of selflessness or duty or love for people or country. It just requires some subset of your population being morally at ease with that.

Being able to endorse extreme pacifism long enough to have your belief turn into a large group with many followers is a privilege of being a subgroup in a society where someone else isn't bound by that particular moral outlook. That's all I meant by offloading the burden. You can oppose the violence of secular society, as you put it, while also accepting that that opposition would only ever have worked at any point in history if only a part of your population agreed with you.