Ironically I kinda see coaching in this light, though only if people end up better off in a real way. Then defining that still feels a little tricky, like maybe I'd have to understand the nature of the Good fully to know what "in a real way" means
Conversation
There is something here that feels fraught and really worth examining.
For ex: seems strange NOT to acknowledge that greater life satisfaction, ease, relaxation are intrinsic goods, yet if they come at the expense of generativity and engagement-with-the-world seems wirehead-y
1
2
So what do, since because of this there *does* seem to be a risk of wireheadiness with offering coaching or circling?
3
2
there's a bit where says explicitly "All things being equal, human beings are ridiculously ANTI-wireheading" and i've been chewing on this
wireheading is not actually the failure mode i'm worried about with coaching etc, it's something a bit different
1
3
i think helping people feel happier etc. is actually highly compatible with increasing their engagement with the world, certainly i myself have been most engaged with the world when i felt the happiest
2
3
what i'm worried about is the possibility of sort of generating self-reinforcing loops - like spreading a coaching philosophy that makes people feel good by giving them hope in various ways but isn't necessarily conducive to like the broader human project in some sense
1
7
or e.g. like creating a "circling ecosystem" that's people running circling workshops which inspire other people to run circling workshops etc. and similarly with people running meditation trainings that inspire other people to run meditation trainings etc.
3
6
I've had the same worry. And I'm really confused about how to think about it, since just going endlessly meta feels like a real risk but then e.g. "raising children" is also kinda meta (just boosting someone else) but also obviously real?
1
2
children are grounding because they're born perfect beautiful animals before we fuck em up!
1
4
Been wondering about considering family as primary and not worrying about whether one's career is meta, since it's just there to provide funding for the family. I feel like the requirement that the career needs to be non-meta, assumes the career is primary in some sense?
2
2
idk if i'd use the word "requirement" i don't want to tie myself down to any particular way of thinking about this yet, just thinking aloud about my own objections to my own possible plans