tldr of this thread... the problem of meaning is a problem of life-force in disguise, and has historically been addressed via one of 3 stances: serious, crazy, and humorous. Meaning-making, gonzo-experiential, and humor. Maps to sorokin's ideational, sensate, idealistic perhaps?
I don't know that I oppose that viewpoint so much as I am interested in a different scope. Developmental psych/philosophy approaches are instrumental in the sense of stack ranking the human condition and making the "best" in some sense better by unpacking it.
-
-
I think I'm interested in the broadest swathe of the human condition, hence my interest in topics like mediocrity, non-growth paths, variety, etc. To the extent that I'm interested in a subset of humans, I'm interested in the ones that simply manage to survive.
-
Ie, looking at adaptive fitness and survival as a mark of interestingness and living richness, without holding any particular opinions on what makes a life worthwhile/rich/meaningful or evolved/growth-oriented. If idiocy or green beards are adaptive, that's what I'm curious about
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Perhaps the parliamentary metaphor wasn't really good. Too adversarial in its connotations, especially when I added the "opposition" part. Given that I hail from a Westminster countr, I should know better. "Council of ideas" rather than "parliament".
-
I like how you explore a similar space (life "unfoldment - creation - discovery" ) that the development people are mapping, but you are using completely different assumptions, frames, tools
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.