If I taboo “awesome” directly, I’d miss something. (complexity of value)
The point of taboo is usually to remove a problematic concept that has too much attached confusion, or to look inside a black box.
The point of saying “Awesome” is actually the opposite: it was deliberately chosen for it’s lack of meaning (points 1 and 4), and to wrap up everything we know about morality (that we go insane if we look at at the wrong angle) into a convenient black box that we don’t look inside, but works anyway (point 2,3,5).
But again,
If we still insist on being confused, or if we’re just curious, … then we can see the metaethics sequence for the full argument, details, and finer points.
In other words “taboo awesome” is a redirect to the metaethics sequence.
This is interesting. Can we come up with a punchy name for good uses of “reverse tabooing”?
One reason I particularly like the choice of the word “awesome,” which is closely related to and maybe just a rephrasing of your first point, is that it is much less likely to trigger redirects to cached thoughts that sound deep. Moreover, since “awesome” is not itself a word that sounds deep, talking about morality using the language of awesomeness inoculates against the trying-to-sound-deep failure mode.
Can we come up with a punchy name for good uses of “reverse tabooing”?
How about “Plancheting”?
A ‘planchet’ is a blank coin, ready to be minted—which seems analogous to what’s being done with these words (and has the delightful parallelization of metaphor with “coining a phrase”).
The downside of this is that most people won’t know what “planchet” means. The advantage of “taboo” is it’s already intuitive what is meant when you here it.
“Reverse tabooing” seems like a fine phrase. It’s at least somewhat clear what it means, and it doesn’t come pre-loaded with distracting connotations. I think it would be difficult to improve upon it.
Interesting rephrasing of morality...but would it still hold if I asked you to taboo “awesome”?
No.
If I taboo “awesome” directly, I’d miss something. (complexity of value)
The point of taboo is usually to remove a problematic concept that has too much attached confusion, or to look inside a black box.
The point of saying “Awesome” is actually the opposite: it was deliberately chosen for it’s lack of meaning (points 1 and 4), and to wrap up everything we know about morality (that we go insane if we look at at the wrong angle) into a convenient black box that we don’t look inside, but works anyway (point 2,3,5).
But again,
In other words “taboo awesome” is a redirect to the metaethics sequence.
This is interesting. Can we come up with a punchy name for good uses of “reverse tabooing”?
One reason I particularly like the choice of the word “awesome,” which is closely related to and maybe just a rephrasing of your first point, is that it is much less likely to trigger redirects to cached thoughts that sound deep. Moreover, since “awesome” is not itself a word that sounds deep, talking about morality using the language of awesomeness inoculates against the trying-to-sound-deep failure mode.
“blackboxing”?
As in “I blackedboxed metaethics by using the word ‘awesome’”.
Nice, I wish I could blackbox in newcomb’s problem (like eliezer does).
How about “Plancheting”?
A ‘planchet’ is a blank coin, ready to be minted—which seems analogous to what’s being done with these words (and has the delightful parallelization of metaphor with “coining a phrase”).
The downside of this is that most people won’t know what “planchet” means. The advantage of “taboo” is it’s already intuitive what is meant when you here it.
That’s a good point.
“Reverse tabooing” seems like a fine phrase. It’s at least somewhat clear what it means, and it doesn’t come pre-loaded with distracting connotations. I think it would be difficult to improve upon it.
Isn’t what “naming” means in the first place?
Heh, good point(s) there. I never thought removing meaning would actually make an argument clearer, but somehow it did.