Conversation

Replying to
This approach seems contradictory. You have to accept that things obviously have a beginning and ending, then ignore that for as long as you can and pretend that you're always equidistant from the beginning and end. It's like an inside-out Xeno's Paradox. 1/n
2
Replying to and
It makes more sense to me at the moment if it's adjusted to match the concept of an origin point or relative positioning. Being "centered" means defining yourself as the reference point and understanding where everything else falls in that system. 2/n
2
Replying to and
You don't have to pretend that being the "center" or the default reference point also makes you equidistant from all of the things you measure. That's silly. Things will approach and depart your origin point constantly. 3/n
2
Replying to
You’re working out an alt mental model rather than critiquing mine. They serve different kinds of centering needs. Clearly you don’t experience one of them
2
Replying to
Yeah, I mean it sort of makes sense for a 5 yr old to think they'll only live 5 more years, cuz kids are ignorant. But an 85 yr old definitely needs to think they'll only live 5 more years. It would be ignorant for them to think they'll live another 85.
2
Replying to
I did finish. Sure, you can combine two different "half cycles" that happen to have the same length like your own "before now" and someone else's "after now" but that seems like a crude hack.
1
Replying to
Not really. It’s a way to modulate relationship priorities. I find it very elegant and poetic actually. A social space time continuum. But probably not useful or effectual for practical people/doers.
1
Show replies