unit dev

created 2024-01-02 · edited 2024-01-02 · open in Roam

No content on this page itself — see linked references below.

1 linked reference

January 2nd, 2024

unit dev call w JF
- full-fractal buy-in
  - 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
  - Internal Trust-Dancing
    - 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]
        IF there were a solution that fully satisfied both of them, ACTUALLY, they WOULD like that — they'd prefer that over the stalemate
        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