Conversation

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
uncatherio
@uncatherio
ooh, okay, yes. I think my (inchoate! messy!) lens on this is that *every* human value, from curiosity to approval-seeking, can be modeled as EITHER being "in service of" something OR as being terminal the whole thing, everything that's going on, is just a big tangle of such
1
3
uncatherio
@uncatherio
although it doesn't necessarily go the other way, though; plenty of activities are ONLY really well-modeled as being "in service of" something else (or a lost purpose), and are NOT well-modeled as being "terminally valuable"
1
1
uncatherio
@uncatherio
I have an intuition that if we treat "lost-purpose-ness" as a sort of continuous property of a system, then we can (should usually) aim to "decrease total lost-purpose-ness" in the system without needing to commit to a particular lens on which things are because-ful vs. terminal
1
4
Mark
@meditationstuff
I'm unusually rushing, and I didn't read the whole thread (yet), but, if I understand you, yeah! It can become safer over time to let hopelessness, meaninglessness, defeat, etc., expand and expand, because there's a deeper "process trust" to rest in /
1
5
Mark
@meditationstuff
/ and that resting in purposelessness, etc., allows for it be more efficiently "integrated," cleaned up, etc. (Very important to not dive into it forcefully or too soon! etc. etc.)
1
5
Mark
@meditationstuff
and that deeper process trust sort of makes it safer and safer to not need *any particular* concrete solution, and even the hyperparameters can become somewhat fluid, with an even deeper trust that each better solution will be (nonmonotonically) more wholehearted, heartfelt
1
4
Mark
@meditationstuff
a reading more carefully, I call "lost purposes" sort of "plandrels" (after evo spandrels; only a fun/partial analogy), as in plans that are confused or no longer make sense. one can clean these up over time! but have to fully honor each one & accept all wisdom/goodness therein!
2
2
9