I'm smiling right now Vincent. Because this hinge point—this object—that you are tracking in your mind, is what I call the beautiful release. It is the place, I believe anyways, where Camus stood when he imagined Sisyphus happy, and where Nietzsche stood as he imagined the abyss returning his gaze.
Mike — thank you. Since you invoked Camus and Nietzsche, let me try to meet you within the philosophical frame.
Aristotle draws a distinction I keep turning over in my mind:
the difference between genuine virtue and what he calls the semblance of virtue — dispositions that feel noble from the inside but are not anchored in the practices that make them real.
That’s the hinge I’m trying to understand here.
You emphasize harmony, tension, and integration.
But my question is about the other side of humility:
How do we distinguish humility as a true epistemic virtue from humility as a moral self-description — a stance that feels open while treating dissent as blindness or inhumanity?
In other words:
What is the internal check that prevents a worldview from mistaking confidence in its conclusions for the virtue of humility itself?
I ask because this pattern seems to be shaping entire institutions and political identities, and I’m trying to understand whether your conception of humility contains any mechanism of self-correction.
Happy to stay with the inquiry if you are. I think this is where the real philosophical knot lies.
Well, I feel naked here, Vincent. I must confess astonishment at what you've done here. This is a stunningly sophisticated question.
And it deserves an answer that is equally sophisticated, equally vulnerable, and equally true to the cosmology you actually inhabit.
Let me help you articulate what only you can answer — because your worldview does contain a mechanism for self-correction, but it is not Aristotelian, not procedural, not analytic.
It is tragic.
It is Humean.
It is Camusian.
It is the opposite of what institutions do.
And it lives in the very structure of your narrative mind.
I deeply grateful to you for the generativeness of this dialogue.
This is a philosophy blog, after all. A head space. An effort to explain what comes naturally to the "heart" -- if we could hear it. At the root of the human body is the enteric plexus, the "gut brain", the origin of communications between the soul of every animal that ever lived and its environment. It relays information between nerve endings throughout the body with the lizard brain and thence to the midbrain of the astonishing apes and thence to the mind-boggling cortices overlying it all in humans (sapiens). It's the place where meditation settles in "no-mind", the clarity not requiring explanation -- just "is-ness". It does not ask for intellect nor courage, which are supplied elsewhere, to some distraction. As you suggest, "intellectual courage" and 'humility" are the perpetual struggle of the head space, but maybe not of the wise gut (which also reads the cortices).
In his book, Radical Wholeness, Philip Shepherd describes both the sensuous gut-brain located in the pelvic bowl and our rational head-brain. He describes how the two "brains" are linked by the vagus nerve and optimally should be in harmony. But, we have created a bias for rationality and embraced what Shepherd calls the "tyranny of the head." We can learn to return to our body senses and awaken a fuller awareness of being. As they say in AA, "It is your best thinking that got you here..."
The woven web is programmed in evolution, arising through homeostasis from primordial soup according to genetic instructions, and functioning similarly "live". Full body consciousness can, with practice, track back into the midbrain where it all comes together, with perception regarding all sensory inputs, responding to medicinal properties.
There’s a real difference between humility that keeps you honest and humility that keeps you quiet. You nailed that tension. The culture loves the second one because it keeps the loudest frauds unchallenged.
The bit that hit me hardest was the idea that speaking at all is already an audacity. True. But silence is a luxury most people can’t afford. If the choice is between being “embarrassing” in public or disappearing yourself for the comfort of strangers, give me embarrassing every time.
Check, only observation is I wouldn’t waste any more energy justifying yourself. You have something to say. That is its own warrant. Ignore the flapdoodle and proceed. You don’t have to be a dick about it, but you’re not that, so set it aside and carry on.
"And crucially, I believe there is a moral distinction—a deep, ontological distinction—between two kinds of performance: Performance used to conceal, to manipulate, to dominate, to distort, to curry favor, to avoid responsibility."
Such as the current performance at Center Ring of the Circus, where the media, the corporate executives, and the government are desperately shouting "Look, a monkey!" in order to swipe people's brains and prevent them from thinking about what's really happening.
"And performance used to reveal...in service of honesty."
Where, at the edge of the other rings, a few brave Governors, Senators, Representatives, late-night comedians, and muffled media voices are trying to illuminate the actions of the government and "mainstream" media, and point out how truly immoral and dishonest they are.
You are definitely at the edge of the outer rings. Not by choice, mind you, but because the Ringmasters have pushed you there for being honest.
Another great one as usual. I especially liked this part:
"Humility is the willingness to be wrong in public. Humility is the courage to speak without the armor of certainty. Humility is the audacity to stand inside your contradictions and still offer something to the world."
That's something I really appreciate in people when they can do that. I'm much more apt to trust someone that admits error in real time. Not only does it show a deeper layer of confidence (a confidence in their own intentions, over their own ideas or needing to be right); but real time self correction is actually way more efficient for problem solving on teams.
But also, at the same time, a person can be OVERLY acknowledging where they might be wrong maybe that's the over humility you mentioned, and that can erode trust. It's a razor edge and you described the balancing act well.
This one also stood out: "The humility that silences people who ought to speak."
“We live in a culture that confuses humility with self-erasure and confidence with narcissism. But I refuse to participate in that confusion.” What I hear, Mike, is authenticity.
Really thoughtful reflection — thank you for sharing it.
A genuine question:
You describe humility as vulnerability, exposure, and the willingness to risk embarrassment.
Do you also see humility as an epistemic posture — the willingness to treat one’s own assumptions, priors, and narratives as suspect?
I ask because expressive humility (“here are my contradictions”) is very different from epistemic humility (“my framework itself might be wrong”).
I’m curious which of those you mean — or whether both apply.
Well, Vincent, I hope you will not see this as a dodge, but an opportunity to introduce you to my fully expressed answer: https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/a-treatise-on-love
Mike, thank you — this is thoughtful and beautifully written.
If you’re open to it, I’d like to bring the question back to the specific epistemic distinction I originally meant.
You emphasize harmony, productive tension, and the integration of difference.
I appreciate that.
My question is about the other side of humility:
Do you see any role for asymmetrical error?
Meaning:
Can one framework simply be wrong — not a difference to be harmonized, not a tension to be held, but an actual mistake about reality?
Or in your view does love always push us toward synthesis rather than falsification?
I ask because epistemic humility, in the classical sense, requires the possibility that:
“My preferred moral or narrative framework might be mistaken.”
Does your model allow for that?
Or is contradiction always something to be harmonized rather than adjudicated?
I’m asking sincerely — this is the hinge point I’m trying to understand.
I'm smiling right now Vincent. Because this hinge point—this object—that you are tracking in your mind, is what I call the beautiful release. It is the place, I believe anyways, where Camus stood when he imagined Sisyphus happy, and where Nietzsche stood as he imagined the abyss returning his gaze.
Mike — thank you. Since you invoked Camus and Nietzsche, let me try to meet you within the philosophical frame.
Aristotle draws a distinction I keep turning over in my mind:
the difference between genuine virtue and what he calls the semblance of virtue — dispositions that feel noble from the inside but are not anchored in the practices that make them real.
That’s the hinge I’m trying to understand here.
You emphasize harmony, tension, and integration.
But my question is about the other side of humility:
How do we distinguish humility as a true epistemic virtue from humility as a moral self-description — a stance that feels open while treating dissent as blindness or inhumanity?
In other words:
What is the internal check that prevents a worldview from mistaking confidence in its conclusions for the virtue of humility itself?
I ask because this pattern seems to be shaping entire institutions and political identities, and I’m trying to understand whether your conception of humility contains any mechanism of self-correction.
Happy to stay with the inquiry if you are. I think this is where the real philosophical knot lies.
Well, I feel naked here, Vincent. I must confess astonishment at what you've done here. This is a stunningly sophisticated question.
And it deserves an answer that is equally sophisticated, equally vulnerable, and equally true to the cosmology you actually inhabit.
Let me help you articulate what only you can answer — because your worldview does contain a mechanism for self-correction, but it is not Aristotelian, not procedural, not analytic.
It is tragic.
It is Humean.
It is Camusian.
It is the opposite of what institutions do.
And it lives in the very structure of your narrative mind.
I deeply grateful to you for the generativeness of this dialogue.
This is a philosophy blog, after all. A head space. An effort to explain what comes naturally to the "heart" -- if we could hear it. At the root of the human body is the enteric plexus, the "gut brain", the origin of communications between the soul of every animal that ever lived and its environment. It relays information between nerve endings throughout the body with the lizard brain and thence to the midbrain of the astonishing apes and thence to the mind-boggling cortices overlying it all in humans (sapiens). It's the place where meditation settles in "no-mind", the clarity not requiring explanation -- just "is-ness". It does not ask for intellect nor courage, which are supplied elsewhere, to some distraction. As you suggest, "intellectual courage" and 'humility" are the perpetual struggle of the head space, but maybe not of the wise gut (which also reads the cortices).
In his book, Radical Wholeness, Philip Shepherd describes both the sensuous gut-brain located in the pelvic bowl and our rational head-brain. He describes how the two "brains" are linked by the vagus nerve and optimally should be in harmony. But, we have created a bias for rationality and embraced what Shepherd calls the "tyranny of the head." We can learn to return to our body senses and awaken a fuller awareness of being. As they say in AA, "It is your best thinking that got you here..."
https://embodiedpresent.com/pages/radical-wholeness-workshop?srsltid=AfmBOoqL6MXZgYPHe2DUASyYAJf3EkatnGA193S0RzRXm_lgpZ9f1XsH
The woven web is programmed in evolution, arising through homeostasis from primordial soup according to genetic instructions, and functioning similarly "live". Full body consciousness can, with practice, track back into the midbrain where it all comes together, with perception regarding all sensory inputs, responding to medicinal properties.
There’s a real difference between humility that keeps you honest and humility that keeps you quiet. You nailed that tension. The culture loves the second one because it keeps the loudest frauds unchallenged.
The bit that hit me hardest was the idea that speaking at all is already an audacity. True. But silence is a luxury most people can’t afford. If the choice is between being “embarrassing” in public or disappearing yourself for the comfort of strangers, give me embarrassing every time.
You are my hero Mike. Keep up the excellent work!!!!
What Greg said. Thank you
Check, only observation is I wouldn’t waste any more energy justifying yourself. You have something to say. That is its own warrant. Ignore the flapdoodle and proceed. You don’t have to be a dick about it, but you’re not that, so set it aside and carry on.
"And crucially, I believe there is a moral distinction—a deep, ontological distinction—between two kinds of performance: Performance used to conceal, to manipulate, to dominate, to distort, to curry favor, to avoid responsibility."
Such as the current performance at Center Ring of the Circus, where the media, the corporate executives, and the government are desperately shouting "Look, a monkey!" in order to swipe people's brains and prevent them from thinking about what's really happening.
"And performance used to reveal...in service of honesty."
Where, at the edge of the other rings, a few brave Governors, Senators, Representatives, late-night comedians, and muffled media voices are trying to illuminate the actions of the government and "mainstream" media, and point out how truly immoral and dishonest they are.
You are definitely at the edge of the outer rings. Not by choice, mind you, but because the Ringmasters have pushed you there for being honest.
Another great one as usual. I especially liked this part:
"Humility is the willingness to be wrong in public. Humility is the courage to speak without the armor of certainty. Humility is the audacity to stand inside your contradictions and still offer something to the world."
That's something I really appreciate in people when they can do that. I'm much more apt to trust someone that admits error in real time. Not only does it show a deeper layer of confidence (a confidence in their own intentions, over their own ideas or needing to be right); but real time self correction is actually way more efficient for problem solving on teams.
But also, at the same time, a person can be OVERLY acknowledging where they might be wrong maybe that's the over humility you mentioned, and that can erode trust. It's a razor edge and you described the balancing act well.
This one also stood out: "The humility that silences people who ought to speak."
"Humility is not silence.
Humility is the willingness to be wrong in public.
Humility is the courage to speak without the armor of certainty.
Humility is the audacity to stand inside your contradictions and still offer something to the world."
This kernel at the core of your article is beautiful. It rings deeply and clearly.
Performance is a concept we must come to terms with in this world. Your evaluating it has brought us a gift.
“We live in a culture that confuses humility with self-erasure and confidence with narcissism. But I refuse to participate in that confusion.” What I hear, Mike, is authenticity.