I am convinced that in pre-secularism days, when "religious" was pretty much the default assumption, there were plenty of monks/nuns who went down that path not because they were particularly devoted but because they failed to fit into any of the conventional roles offered by society but didn't want to become outcasts either. Yes, this might be a misconception (inspired by Eco/Connery?), but it be surprised if there want some truth in it. From that perspective, contemplation and study is more a possible nice side effect than the actual function. With the modern awareness about how unsustainable a norm of spouse-and-three-kids is, perhaps we should consider freeing the monastic lifestyle from religious baggage and think about a mental framework for "orders" for other kinds of lifetime devotions?
The Order of Dependency Management has requested you update your package dependencies to the latest versions.
I have always been fascinated with the thought of a post-society world, where technology still lingers but can only be wielded by few, and perhaps truly understood by none. All previous knowledge gone, people would have to tinker, poke and problem solve their way to understanding how these arcane artifacts and mysterious facilities.
I think it interests me because the idea of idle curiosity and discovery in a vacuum seems wholesome and rewarding. No roles to fill, no bills to pay, and all your capabilities are wrought from your own efforts not bestowed upon you by the exchange of money (smartphones, cars, etc).
I think this is probably a modern bias since we tend to under appreciate the sincerity of religious beleif that many people had , historically. I'm not saying everyone did, but many did.
I think the rigors of monastic life are also off putting to someone just wanting to hang out.
anway, if there is a formula for secular monasticism I would like to see it. In my view, without the orders and vows there is nothing keeping people from leaving - kinda like how communes sort of evapoeate after a while.
I wasn't trying to imply that they went monastic despite not believing, but something quite consistent with your first paragraph: today we assume that only people form, I don't know, the top percentile in the metric of belief sincerity could even consider the monastic path, the pieousest of the pieous. But back then religion was so much a basic part of everybody's mental model of the world, that I don't believe that anybody would be considered, even by themselves, as "not monk material" for lack of belief. Practical reasons to stick to a worldly path, sure, or incompatible desires, preferences. Or, most importantly, simply better options. But hardly ever lack of belief. Just like today people don't usually become a physicist because they are more convinced than others that gravity exists.
Back to secular monasticism: the closest we have are militaries (which have been substitute homes and families for a certain kind of person ever since the invention of standing armies) and the prison system. I wonder if UBI, even a UBI of the very low kind, might end up with something like secular monasticism emerging. Communities with absolute minimalism in terms of individual rooms and all remaining resources (rent and chore hours commitment) put in shared amenities. So many ways to make a setup like that a catastrophic failure, but there might be winning patterns
