January 2nd, 2024
- my threads on twitter accidental thread about naraka
- my threads on twitter - short thread on New Years Eve, chronos/kairos, ritual
- the idea of "web browser" is woefully out of date
- maybe what I make will also get called a browser, like we call smartphones "phones"
- but I want to take seriously the idea of making something new in kind, and not limit it by conceiving of it as a "browser" first and foremost
- to a large extent I am orienting to building an operating system, I just don't want to do kernel stuff (at this phase anyway) and the internet is a nice modular abstraction layer already, where the engine is very cross-platform etc
- random desiderata
- intentionality
- for the system to have a sense of "what am I doing right now?" that affects both the structure and the style of the UI
- if you go to do a small thing, it hides all the other stuff in various ways
- once complete a thing, it gives space between you and seeing all the other stuff you have open
- many things that affect the way that open tabs can be used as implicit "tasks"
- arc handles this in some creative ways, with default archive (but their archive is shit)
- in a sense I want the fundamental unit to be the intention, and then tabs and pages and apps are tools in service of the intention
- and intentions here could include sort of exploratory fuck-around intentions
- extensions
- more powers, of various kinds
- ability to remove sites
- unit dev call w JF
- his approach to internal conflict:
- finding a sentence to write down that's the thing, in proposition form
- M > the nature of the conflict?
- yeah... thesis. often in quote marks
- eg if deciding whether to stay for a job or move internationally
- "this is not an opportunity you will get again"
- externalize it, stake it
- M > then you can investigate: is that true, what would it mean if it were...
- M > so guessing that despite having this technique, you don't resolve all of your internal conflicts all the time automatically
- so then a Q of "why not?"
- J > exponential/fractal nature, expands to too many statements
- M > in almost any negotiation, part of what is being negotiated over is the terms of negotiation
- M > if there were a way to resolve internal conflicts that all parts of me felt good about, then they'd obviously want to use that method
- (tautological)
- but how would we find such a way?
- well, if there were a way to FIND such a way, that all parts felt good about, then they'd obviously want to use that
- and this fact is independently verifiable from each part's perspective
- so any part will want to participate in negotiations that feel like they'll work for it, and not negotiations that feel like they won't
- J > two phantom directions
- was expecting you to tell me some conception of the meta-protocol
- or something about understanding that frame negotiations are part of the thing
- ...so yeah, was expecting you to present a method of frame negotiation
- imagining a zipping up fractal coherence of parts
- as a state of affairs for an inner parliament
- M > yes, but it's less about having an approach that works for all time in all contexts (which is impossible and absurdly costly)
- (example of friends resolving fight by yelling & wrestling, which works for them but wouldn't work for all)
- and more about having a stance of finding what works for both/all-involved
- and mutual recognition of this self-evident thing
- (aha it's co-gnosis)
- M > not a commitment but a recognition of fact
- if it appeared to work, either
- it was done in a way that worked for all of us
- the appearance is an illusion
- M > so explore making this move, from a part that really likes the propositional technique you mentioned earlier
- of bringing that part into these recognitions
- J > ...okay, something happened
- held the two (liking propositions, self-evident need for satisfying all)
- sense of shame that came up
- then went for it again, with an inner conflict I'm working with
- got a blinding white "NO"
- so sense of projection
- I would rather hold out in guerilla warfare than think about seceding or acquiescing
- M > so find the part the NO was at
- J > I was kind of in both
- M > NO to each other? yeah
- M > so seems like these parts don't have a sense that a win-win is possible
- or don't trust the other not to hoodwink them on the way there
- M > is there a way for them to recognize together that
- IF there were a solution that fully satisfied both of them, ACTUALLY, they WOULD like that — they'd prefer that over the stalemate
- J > mmm, sense of lightness, grace, relief
- M > a move here of like "well, it makes sense that you don't trust me and that you're digging in your heels while you don't trust me"
- [J intense look on face, kinda still, stiff]
- impressions, as they arose, were something like...
- the part that has been getting its way... made contact with the sense of "I see why you wouldn't trust me"
- very emotive, sense of solidarity/progress
- then that part came down
- and there was a bringing in the part that was more antagonistic / not as much getting its way
- and brought the "I see why you wouldn't trust me" to that part
- and it was like "nah I'm in the right"
- and then the first part kinda backed up from the solidarity into a "fuck you"
- M > seems like the symmetry has shifted dramatically
- this node of "I can see why you wouldn't trust me" feels interesting but doesn't fit back with the tree
- M > well the sense that it makes that the other doesn't trust... comes from the recognition of the self-evident stuff
- M > does it seem like the two parts do actually see this? [together]
- J > let's see if I can fit all that in working memory...
- they don't seem to be able to do that, quickly
- seems like what I've been doing is feeling into the part, and bringing a thing in contact with it
- and it feels like this would be bringing both parts up AND the recognition
- M > I could break it down
- M > bring up part A... can you see this? IF there were a solution that fully satisfied both of them, ACTUALLY, they WOULD like that — they'd prefer that over the stalemate
- J > yeah, self-evident
- M > now bring up part B... can you access the memory of that feeling self-evident to part A, moments ago?
- J > ow
- uncomfortable, I seem to be flinching from understanding that part while embodying it from its perspective
- even being able to be in a state where...
- I'm imagining... a 6-party parliament, some new event
- figuring out coalitions
- for the parts to be able to interface with the full-fractal buy-in
- it's hard to do that when they can't even occupy consciousness
- M > together or at all?
- J > at all, from their own perspective
- M > yeah so maybe either the first part or some third as-yet-unnamed part is objecting to you taking the other part's perspective
- J > yeah could be part A but seemed more like the broader system
- when you get a flash of how someone else is seeing you, and it feels unacceptable
- not sure what part is rejecting what tho
- M > move of differentiation, like OH, you actually DO see me that way, and that doesn't mean I have to
- J > that was quite helpful
- M > say more?
- have been intending to do / get into more IFS around this thing
- so just kinda having time & space to take a full serious IFS approach to this situation was helpful
- I imagine doing this with a therapist and not trusting them somehow
- whereas I seem to trust you more
- somehow didn't feel as serious as it would in a therapist's office
- which somehow helped me take it more seriously
- holding a gestalt of what it means to acknowledge that having a recursive method or process... then holding that either propositionally or in a felt-sense, while doing internal conflict resolution
- seems promising