Mark Lippmann

October 16th, 2025

• axioms & logic of trust parallel in Mark Lippmann's preliminaries for communal, meta-rational, institutional design
  • > Sort of relatedly, one could sort of have a “three-valued logic” of belief:
    (1) belief, (2) disbelief, and (3) absence of belief
    The first two are sort of “presences,” there’s “something there,” and the last one is of course an “absence,” a “lack.” But, even in that latter case, there might be “another belief, or collection of beliefs” that’s doing the “same or similar work,” were that absence “filled.” For example, a person might not have beliefs (in some sense) about “societies,” but they have beliefs about “civilizations” that do “overlapping work.” Or, someone, loosely speaking, doesn’t believe in water but they do believe in H2O. It’s not quite this, because, again, we’re sort of especially talking about the “sensuous, real-time action-level,” but it is kind of like this. (Those more “abstract” distinctions, used in these examples, do matter, too, actually, and not even just for the situated writing or speaking to other people, that we do, as part of our “seamless actioning in the world.”)
    And so, regarding the “nebulosity of belief,” these sort of “overlapping non-absences” are one dimension of that nebulosity, but not the only one, cf. phenomenologically, musculoskeletally, neurophysiologically, and so on…
    
    • relates also to assertional vs unforeclosing statements

meta-protocol

• Mark Lippmann's meditation protocol includes a section he calls "meta protocol"
  • which is ostensibly very different than the meta-protocol being discussed here, including that it's about individual practice whereas me & Jordan Hall talk about the meta-protocol primarily in the context of interpersonal communication
  • however, in the limit, they are in some sense the same
  • both are the system that navigates the question of what to do in the meantime when your protocol (for meditation or communication) fails
  • and the fractal shape of the universe means that they necessarily need to do this in essentially the same way, including critiquing themselves when they're inadequate
  • and the ways in which interpersonal communication and internal communication are fractally similar mean that meditation is still information-theoretically about communication and about recognizing and reconciling the different needs of the constituents

July 8th, 2022

• thread by Mark Lippmann relevant to romantic relationships trust-dancing How we get there talkaboutability
  • twitter.com/meditationstuff/status/1542541757602201602

Podcast summaries

• 47:07 - 1:08:42 - Interesting moments from my personal history. Earliest introduction to meditation. Getting started with LSA, rationality and Trust dancing. Mark Lippmann's meditation protocol Liminal Space Agency The Stoa Game B
  • 56:52 - M > And, I guess the other thing I could say was that I've long had a fascination with interfaces. And I mean that in very abstract sense, not just like computer interfaces, and not just the interface of designed objects in general, like this handle is an interface with this mug. So, of course, is the lip of the mug, don't forget, that's a necessary interface for drinking. But interfaces between people as well, and like what kinds of interactions between people yield mutually satisfying, 'upward spiral' type dynamics? And what kinds of interactions between people lead to disappointment and despair and frustration and challenges and so forth? Well challenges, you're always going to get challenges, but difficulty in like the psychological sense, strain? And, from the get-go, it was just really clear that these folks had a model of human relating, and thus human interfacing, and that was more sophisticated than anything I'd ever seen. And remained more sophisticated than anything else I would come to see over the following eight years. You know, there's been important key pieces that we've incorporated from other places, and things that I've found, you know, like missing or like necessary elements of various things. But it remains the case that the basic framework being pointed at there is one of the best things I've ever seen in the world for pointing at different human dynamics. And it was outlining kind of, you know, "Here are the basic things that lead to the upward spiral, and here are the basic things that lead to the downward spiral." And having seen that, as clearly as I had, in terms of like, 'what was I trying to accomplish there?' In the most general sense, it's like, "Get the upward spiral going more upwardly and spirally. And, you know, bigger and with more people in it, and more consistency," and whatever else, I mean. Which is pretty general, and I think the generality is something that I've been revisiting recently and sort of feeling into, "Do I want to have more specific targets? Or is that even possible or wise given that part of the nature of things is that you don't know what's possible until you make it possible? And like, you don't want to like constrain yourself too early? And there's this kind of dynamic tension between planning and improv or other dimensions like that. [pause]. Yeah, I think part of what's interesting -in terms of like, "What was I trying to accomplish there?", and I've been reflecting more about this recently- is that in some sense... so, as you know -and it has sorta implicitly been hinted at by how I've been talking about this group versus what I'm doing now as distinct- I left Waterloo and I left that scene in late 2020. And I was reflecting to Eric, recently. We were talking about home and I said, "This feels like it could be home." And he asked, "Was Waterloo home?" And I said, "Ah, hmm." And he and he said... or maybe he asked, like "Waterloo could be home," or something like that. And I said, "No, Waterloo was home. Waterloo never was 'could be home'". And there was something really valuable about getting in touch with how the whole time I've been living in Waterloo, I'd never intended to live there indefinitely. Like, I was there as a university student, who are notoriously transient, right? Although, I mean, a substantial fraction of university students end up living, indefinitely, wherever they do University, it's one of the main things that gets people moving, and so on. But, you know, for the years that I was visiting the Bay Area, I kind of always assumed that sooner or later, I would move there. And, you know, [there were] various factors, including social dynamics and also the fires, as well as other things that led me to sort of feel less inclined to try to move to the bay. But there was something meaningful in recognizing, "Yeah, I haven't been treating Waterloo, like the place I'm intending to live for the rest of my life. Like, I'm mostly just friends with the small group doing this culture incubator thing here." And most of my other friends just measured in terms of like, number of people I know, who know me and know each other kind of thing, are in the bay. And I wasn't bothering to try to make friends in Waterloo for the most part. So, there was a way in which I kind of was recognizing, oh, yeah, I was... I feel like I'm answering one of your questions right now, but I've forgotten which one.

September 4th, 2021

• See on good and bad from Mark Lippmann's meditation protocol

• tracing how Mark Lippmann influenced NNTD
  • some resonance with this and the obstacle is the way
    • > It can be really discouraging when progress seems state dependent (“if only I were in that other state!“), but taking correct actions, as best one can, in any state, is the thing that metabolizes, over a long time, whatever state one happens to be in (and part of that is fully accepting being in the state, if/eventually/when it’s safe to do so).
      
      Like, the state IS the very stuff of practice, not a thing in the background that conditions practice.

September 2nd, 2021

• tracing how Mark Lippmann influenced NNTD
  • something about the layering model
    • which has a lot of implications for interpersonal stuff and is part of why and how blindspot feedback is hard (but possible!)
  • something about losslessness, which doesn't mean perfect memory but there's something about how if you're dealing with an issue in the present, then there's necessarily enough (and the right) data present to satisfyingly untangle it (given enough time and attention)
    • which has been impressively borne out in my experience on interpersonal stuff
    • something like "if you know something, you necessarily know why you know it"
  • > There’s a few broad failure modes that can happen when seeking this ok-ness (if you decide to do so, and it’s ok if you do or don’t, or start and stop, or take a break and pick it up again, later. In no way is it separate from "normal ok-ness.").
    • from ok-ness and cosmology
    • this feels like it's embodying something like sometimes things need to be said even though they feel like they really really should go without saying
      • and in particular, there's a tone of reassurance here that is uncommon
        • it could easily read as passive-aggressive or neurotic, and I'm not even 100% sure it isn't, but it's still a very different stance than the defensiveness = protectiveness anti-reassurance one that I sometimes held prior to discovering the NNTD

July 29th, 2021

• from Mark Lippmann (as paraphrased by Qiaochu, I think)
  • (search "feels wrong" on meditationbook.page for elaborations)

July 3rd, 2021

• talking with Mark Lippmann & Jonathan Leung about NNTD and layering
  • Malcolm > blindspot
  • Mark > layering = any change to system that locks in existing system organization, blocking further change and occludes layers underneath
    • subset = counteractive layering
      • change that's made is in opposition to the layers below
    • Mark > IFS is almost purely for dealing with counteractive layering, so is Feeding Your Demons
      • buddhist "fabrications" seem to map almost 1-to-1 with layering
      • talking about "right effort" - "wrong effort" = layering
  • system blindspots at all scales
    • Mark > writing about domain-specific knowledge
      • a single system can find everything up to the data it's collected
      • Mal > do you think it's possible to collect enough data to be confused about something, but not enough to understand it?
        • Mark > yeah. gets stuck in agnostic state
          • then you have to go out in the world and get more data (deliberately or serendipitously/intuitively)
    • J > circling has a bunch of cool blindspot feedback
      • Mal > and thus a lot of layering?
        • probably depends somewhat but seems likely
        • J > yes, definitely
          • especially since people try to copy teacher moves, while not being as awake/compassionate
  • J > Domain Focusing: focusingnow.com/domain-focusing-self-guiding-form/
    • https://focusingnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/self-guiding_form_2019a.pdf
    • includes checking if move safe
      • full-fractal buy-in

in the meantime

• Mark Lippmann talks about handledness as a first-person experience of everything working in the meantime and in good time

Sequence on NNTD

• layering - Mark Lippmann's meditation protocol

April 27th, 2021

• G > Mark Lippmann's meditation protocol > peoples' bodyminds don't tend to disambiguate between "solved" "will be solved" "best work happening towards solving"

March 13th, 2021

• preliminaries for communal, meta-rational, institutional design (draft; ~6000 words) by Mark Lippmann
  • this bit really resonates with NNTD
    • > We don’t immediately realize how different we are from each other.
    • > Sometimes we surprise each other with our actions: “How could they do that?” Or, “That doesn’t make sense!” Or, “That makes sense, in retrospect.”
    • > Sometimes we surprise each other with our words: “I wouldn’t have put it that way.” Or, “That’s an interesting way to put it.” Or, “What do you mean by that?”

A brief layer model of the mind

• by Mark Lippmann - source: rothos.github.io/protocol_1/#II:Abrieflayermodelofmind%2Cpersonality%2…

February 18th, 2021

• Q > Mark Lippmann says "things can be dissolved, or they can be solved"
  • M > yeah, I like "solved", because it points at like, there being a puzzle, of how to satisfy both sets of needs

• Q > Mark Lippmann talks about "honoring lost purposes"
  • (relates to starting & stopping)
  • my guess is that PJ Eby is doing a lot of layering here

February 11th, 2021

• Mark Lippmann has stuff in his protocol about starting & stopping
  • Qiaochu > so, the protocol has this notion of willing the “start” of something and willing the “stopping” of something, and a thought that occurred to me is that some of the stuff i do might be “starting” things without ever “stopping” them and wondering if anyone has generic things to say about “stopping” (hmm is this alexander technique?)
  • Mark Lippmann > (loosely speaking, I think most people do like 90% starting and 10% stopping, on average, on net, all the time! big imbalance!)
  • relates to "nothing to do" meditation
  • someone else said > I got example of this kind of thing from a handbook on telekinesis of all places.
    • 1. Place your hand on a wall
    • 2. Multiply your two favorite two digit numbers in your head
    • 3. You probably still have your hand stuck to the wall
    • So you start an action of putting your hand against the wall, then you get distracted from that activity, and then you return to it and find that you have been continuing to do this effortful activity the whole time without any continual doing or upkeep

February 9th, 2021

• - Mark Lippmann

January 30th, 2021

• Mark Lippmann's Many Protocol