🐈

Certain lenses have historically had more impact and are described in more detail. E.g. the perspective of a "Steve Jobs" has higher social status and impact than someone less famous. Without the living POV, there is no source.

You only have rough heuristics like "What would Steve do?" that can lead to ham fisted rules of thumb like "Be and asshole." or "Argue angrily with people about colors and fonts."

This is why teaching is IMO an intrinsically egoic process that easily becomes preaching. The "I" tool is repeatedly used in order to ensure fidelity but creates a bag of contradictions that can only be resolve w/ "Just accept this as truth!"

The act of teaching is the act of asking to be understood, which is often a cruel expectation of others when you don't even(can't) understand 'yourself'.

It also offers a bridge to why "Doing" is the most enlightened form of knowledge. Knowledge in action is Being that allows the newness of whatever "I" is trying to express to be seen most clearly.

Without "Being" the "I" is channeled mostly through words and mostly misunderstood. "Man I hope this string of tokens from a bag of 26 letters really expresses all of who I really am."

I dunno but maybe this is why artists, writers, musicians, etc... tend to feel depressed. The fidelity of their chosen method of self expression never fully articulates who they are b/c they are logically consistent systems that cannot express paradox.

In that sense, creatives sometimes never really "Be" because they're *trying* to "Be". The trying is the red flag that indicates wrongness since the being by definition requires 0 trying.