Mostly broadly correct descriptions of patterns, but needs to be emphasized that these perspectives are not mutually exclusive. (You do say basically this—“any rationalist will probably have elements of all theories at the same time”.)
For example, I consider reading the Sequences (and a very few auxiliary texts) to be important (because they contain the core ideas that must be integrated into your worldview and your epistemic/intellectual practices in order to “become more rational” in any sense). I also believe very strongly in object-level productivity. These are not opposed, in my view. (Indeed, one might say that building ReadTheSequences.com was a manifestation of this combination of views…)
In my experience, what you call “speaking theory”, “workshop theory”, and “altered consciousness theory” are all failure modes (the last of these being the most dreadful of the three).
Mostly broadly correct descriptions of patterns, but needs to be emphasized that these perspectives are not mutually exclusive. (You do say basically this—“any rationalist will probably have elements of all theories at the same time”.)
For example, I consider reading the Sequences (and a very few auxiliary texts) to be important (because they contain the core ideas that must be integrated into your worldview and your epistemic/intellectual practices in order to “become more rational” in any sense). I also believe very strongly in object-level productivity. These are not opposed, in my view. (Indeed, one might say that building ReadTheSequences.com was a manifestation of this combination of views…)
In my experience, what you call “speaking theory”, “workshop theory”, and “altered consciousness theory” are all failure modes (the last of these being the most dreadful of the three).