June 20th, 2024
- showed @Morphenius this blog post excerpt and he said "huh, you're talking about downward-spiral friddlydazmilagoolia thought.. which you manage to point at by talking about how you can't point at it without instantiating it"
- (the post itself)
malcolmocean.com/2021/11/thinking-that-rejects-other-thinking/
- convo w Michael "Valentine" Smith
- aka
- = is it real?
- = does it increase life? / does it serve life?
- = does it solve the problem?
- = does it usefully organize negentropy
- definition has to anchor back in the first person
- "what matters" can't be an objective definition
- if you say "solve the problem" then you've baked in relevance
- which has the problems pointed at by 2012 paper Relevance Realization and the Emerging Framework in Cognitive Science
- but I think that's inherent to it; the aim is not to solve that part but to factor it out so it can be multiplied by something else that is clear
- relevance × (... ... ...)
- part of what's great about the growing corn frame is that it's like 0-1 in terms of simulacra levels
- = is it solving a problem that exists without other minds?
- what's really grounding about growing corn is you need to eat
- intelligence as non-lifecycle-based adaptation
- "the meme is not informing you what the problem is"
- it informs on the level of strategies
- analogue to NVC's strategies vs needs
- "what's the real problem when you factor out the solution frame?"
- "your problem is you might go to hell if you don't accept Jesus as lord and savior"
- "every apparent problem/solution has something real to it—that's how it's able to grip you
- but that doesn't mean the frame is telling you anything useful about what the problem is"
- "problems are problems you can tell for yourself before you're given a frame"
- me > what about the problem of calculus not integrating with the rest of math? (for the first 200 years)
- "well, calculus is not saying that calculus needs to be plugged into the rest of math"
- how can I tell if a problem is solved?
- "does it actually work?"
- do I have enough counter-space for the cooking I'm about to do?
- am I saved by Jesus?
- is my apartment a safe place for a toddler?
- self-help has a baselessness
- heideggerian problems? see nosilverv's thread
- long thread by nosilverv, that talks about heidigger's present-at-hand and ready-to-hand and self-improvement requiring self-as-object, and 4chan
- difference between "X" and "my conception/experience of X"
- "the problem is solved" is not framed in terms of my conception of it
- terminal goals, temptation to write-off
- original spin — in spirituality, the "your resistance is a problem"
- you can't tell that it's a problem until they're telling you so
- and then the only way you can tell is they're telling you
- which is giving you a solution to a problem you couldn't tell you had before they gave you a solution
- me > but sometimes it's "the reason you're hurting is your resistance"
- which has a different issue, not this one
- tracking "is it real" that go up a lot higher
- eg the emotional torment of being stuck in naraka
- if there's an intervention that can relieve the torment, that counts as growing corn
- M > what about solving a problem someone doesn't know they have until it's solved?
- but you can tell, after the solution was implemented, that a real problem was solved
- "what is the problem that is being solved, by the solution that is being abstractly described as removing original spin?"
- I mean, shoulding yourself in the foot
- business is solving problems for other people
- = you can't escape learning
- = you can never solve all your problems
- the issue arises when you try to be free of problems, rather than trying to be free of this problem
- we are trying to solve both
- suffering / being trapped in an experience you don't like
- inability to get along
- your mating dance stuff has the potential to be real... but your feedback loops may be kinda fuzzy
- could be worth trying to rework that
- vs speaking to a group of people about abstract principles about NNTD and how it applies to relationships
- where the feedback loop is people saying "wow that's really insightful" but does not show you that the problem has been solved
- alternatives to 4-week course:
- 1y monthly call
- 1-on-2 coaching packages?
- doing mating dance coaching for couples
- where your intent is on helping them land on clarity of
- "we're not for each other"
- "fuck yes let's get married"
- "we're exploring the question in a way that feels really good" (although that's gameable unless it's a feeling that persists in the context of awareness of death, marriage, etc)"
- they can both tell that the way they're exploring this is CLEARLY oriented to the question of whether
- not just a narrative thing
- that they don't yet know but they can tell that they're discovering it
- and this process-level I can tell for myself clarity leads to an outcome clarity of apart or married
- a tiny bit of fuzz - how long does clarity take to get?
- moreover, there can end up instead being a narrative saturation of "we're all about clairty"
- "deals" seem in part about each person being with their real problems
- but also there's something else that maybe feels missing in that
- where eg in Jan+March I brought in that I was stressed about money