🐈

A specific example: If "I" feels both pain and pleasure at a situation, you might be tempted to say that "I" is being inconsistent. But with a term like schadenfreude, the paradox resolves. Accepting one who exhibits schadenfreude is the first step to naming schadenfreude.

Each individual is a unique lens that is capable of seeing things that others cannot. Culture is like a common denominator lens that allows individuals to share information with minimal friction. People vary w/ deviation from this common denominator but everyone is unique.

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."