Thanks, Owen. What a nourishing post. The evocative images help.
“what is good and right and comfortable?”—mh, I would switch ‘comfortable’ for ‘at ease’ (to include consciously preferred discomfort, which is ok).
It could appear a sazen, to some. Also, a bit cordially funny-sad, how the explanation has underperformed in seducing some of those who may benefit from it. Would need to refine the teaching.
I’ll try to add my very subjective take, since I have not noticed this understanding in the comments yet:
‘Wholesomeness’ is used as a an evocative label (and as such the label is more assotiative art than definition—which is good in case of trying to tap into mental blockages one might be in denial about). It points to a certain, subjectively interpreted inner state. It marks a moral epistemic (!) quality—how I go about believing to have gained assurance that my considered course of action or option is the one to go forward with.
It’s akin to an integral check-in, where you connect to not only your cognition, but in turn also your feelings, your body sensations, and your imagined relation to personal spirituality. (here, I guess, focus is on the feelings).
The key to getting it is to not do it (mostly) cognitively. The choice of verbs of ‘feel’ vs. ‘think’ is not arbitrary. As long as attention is focused on explaining, understanding, and other mental activities, the mind is leaning forward to examine a certain piece of information, or doing a meticulous systematic inventory, bit by bit, very focused. But all the while the tapped emotions are those associated with those pieces and/or the general inquiry mode, e.g., could be anxious, curious.
By contrast, checking in with one’s feeling in a way of unwinding calmness and observing and seeing if there is any remaining discomfort to be sensed and where that discomfort might take me to (potentially unwholesome bits, subconsciously registered caveats) - is a way to bring up challenges that the consciousness had ignored or even pushed away.
So it’s like a sort of intuition, or unfixation. If we think of a metaphor from eyesight, it’s not looking at any one specific object, but resting the eye in a semi-unfocus, as the room perception settles into one picture of everything in its place.
Emotionally, it also has a quality of accepting things as they are (appreciating unwholesomeness).
Ok, so this is how to do the inquiry. The end state I am checking for is not so much calmness, but more of a deep joy. This comes when I have not just accepted, but indeed appreciated the options—from my intuitively best known stance, unrelated to the current case. I.e., I might come up with a completely different option, based on a much more fulfilling experience I’ve had before, that I therefore knew was possible (although I only remembered it as a feeling), and which got remembered as a personal standard of how awesome things can be in terms of relational quality. So, it’s a subconscious check against one’s experienced optimal solution or at least slightly above acceptable or good solutions from the past (the feeling one had).
The advantage is that, likely, different kinds of information, i.e., ‘relational’, are encoded in the emotion, and a feeling overlap check allows for more efficient processing than bit by bit. Maybe similar to the experience of tasting a dish to see if it is fully satisfying or needs anything else.
The difference with virtues or rightness, may be that we encode different emotions with these (based on our experiences with the terms in their experienced contexts), and that both of these appear to strive only for the good side and to discriminate the bad side, whereas wholesomeness has an acceptance of the imperfect, as well (albeit appropriately deprioritized under the more comprehensive view). ‘Unwholesomeness’ might accordingly be a misleading terms, as it’s not an opposite, but a sensed subpar option. I’d opt for something like ‘not-yet-wholesomeness’. Hence, wholesomeness might be the name for a heuristic check of completeness and optimality.
It sounds similar to holistic or ideal—though includes a bit less striving and more sensing for ease. It’s not meant to evoke complacency, if I can tell.
The content of the judgment is not objectively informative, but a guidepost for an internal inquiry or check-in against one’s individual experience base. If a lack is sensed, this can be investigated to find it, explicate it, and then share. If an OK option is sensed, one might still proceed to try and make it a great option. Someone sensing unease in the other, might invite them to share what would be a more wholesome option.
Still, as a generalizable rule, it seems to call for a relaxation before sharing one’s judgment or course of action, and might lead to more balanced, less edgy choices.
...
Trying to cautiously apply this to my interpretation of the case of Ben’s example. He chose to prioritize the mission over others’ feelings. Now this seems perfectly fine, in terms of priorities. Still it seems to contain a regret about having been unable to optimize for both. The question here is, is it possible to do both? For Ben, it sounds it was mentally demanding to do both at the time, or maybe to cushion the rejection (which is a kind of practice, once I have mastered one, then to layer the other on top). So, here, applying wholesomeness can point to the wish to communicate a necessary rejection in a more caring way (to also preserve the relationship or strengthen the colleague after a blow—in a sincere way), but without significantly more effort (which supposes a bit of tryout). This legitimate wish seems easily confoundable in this example with the agreed upon irrelevance of bringing up feelings altogether as an uninformative complaint (which may or may not be the case). Feelings shouldn’t be interpreted as being possible to be hurt under a mission or growth mindset at all, but expectations might be disappointed, trust eroded, and in essence some real issue might be hiding there, but most likely insecurity around exposure of perceived incompetence and fear or stress around workplace consequences, (resentment not yet overcome as a mode of meaning making) which may be addressed with a policy of emotional safety climate or constructive error culture. In turn, Ben might wonder, besides venting frustration, if he could, what positive effect would he like to have as an outcome of the communication (e.g., invite a learning, better coordination, better focus on the project) - and then try and explicitly boost this main purpose in the explanation, just as a bonus. With leisure and for extended collaboration, one might decide to explore expectations, failures to meet them, and optimal signaling. Or not, if it’s too much effort. It’s not a must, if one optimizes for mission only, one can, e.g., awkwardly ignore or rely on the local version of ‘I know it appears harsh at first, now deal with it’ or ‘kids, will grow out of it’. If one also optimizes for swifter recovery and extended functioning of the ‘missionaries’, it might be worth a try. To me it seems, both choices are fine from an observer’s perspective, but for Ben’s individual preference set likely only one of them or an altogether different one might align best. Wholesomeness is then the check of being satisfied and/or holding oneself to highest desired standard.
Here, experienced lack of wholesomeness might point to either ignoring one’s highest priority, or if it is met, a longing to meet the lower priorities, as well.
I wish I had a good way of teaching this… maybe the practice of breathing and putting down current surface emotions to settle and note any tensions underneath. what they might tel us. and then any wishes for improvement. Together with having good reasons for doing it in the first place, i.e., not ignoring the problem, but to uncover subconsciously stored information, optimal choice with less effort, invite creativity and wellbeing, have richness of experience in interaction, touch base with moral values when deciding.
For a seasoned or even ‘compulsive’ rationality user, it might seem irritating, 1) as the unfocus is like taking a break at the wrong time or giving up altogether, but it actually helps synthesizing. 2) one has to admit that actually one has overlooked a whole strand of available information, 3) it reminds of arrogance (but isn’t actually), rather lack of practice in remembering to come from a place of compassion, gratitude, generosity. 4) The resulting higher-level symmetry or alignment can be annoying.
Given the subjectivity, I don’t see how to adopt it for AI.
@owencb : I’m curious if this overlaps with your experience. Again, big respect for the post. The examples and connections shown are possibly outcomes of applying an idea of wholesomeness, and as a result not going against one’s moral compass, in terms of relations to others and self, and examples are key to recognizing sources of tension. I’m trying to think of a good-to-wholesome example.
Thanks, yes, I think that you’re looking at things essentially the same way that I am. I particularly like your exploration of what the inner motions feel like; I think “unfixation” is a really good word.
Thanks, Owen. What a nourishing post. The evocative images help.
“what is good and right and comfortable?”—mh, I would switch ‘comfortable’ for ‘at ease’ (to include consciously preferred discomfort, which is ok).
It could appear a sazen, to some. Also, a bit cordially funny-sad, how the explanation has underperformed in seducing some of those who may benefit from it. Would need to refine the teaching.
I’ll try to add my very subjective take, since I have not noticed this understanding in the comments yet:
‘Wholesomeness’ is used as a an evocative label (and as such the label is more assotiative art than definition—which is good in case of trying to tap into mental blockages one might be in denial about). It points to a certain, subjectively interpreted inner state. It marks a moral epistemic (!) quality—how I go about believing to have gained assurance that my considered course of action or option is the one to go forward with.
It’s akin to an integral check-in, where you connect to not only your cognition, but in turn also your feelings, your body sensations, and your imagined relation to personal spirituality. (here, I guess, focus is on the feelings).
The key to getting it is to not do it (mostly) cognitively. The choice of verbs of ‘feel’ vs. ‘think’ is not arbitrary. As long as attention is focused on explaining, understanding, and other mental activities, the mind is leaning forward to examine a certain piece of information, or doing a meticulous systematic inventory, bit by bit, very focused. But all the while the tapped emotions are those associated with those pieces and/or the general inquiry mode, e.g., could be anxious, curious.
By contrast, checking in with one’s feeling in a way of unwinding calmness and observing and seeing if there is any remaining discomfort to be sensed and where that discomfort might take me to (potentially unwholesome bits, subconsciously registered caveats) - is a way to bring up challenges that the consciousness had ignored or even pushed away.
So it’s like a sort of intuition, or unfixation. If we think of a metaphor from eyesight, it’s not looking at any one specific object, but resting the eye in a semi-unfocus, as the room perception settles into one picture of everything in its place.
Emotionally, it also has a quality of accepting things as they are (appreciating unwholesomeness).
Ok, so this is how to do the inquiry. The end state I am checking for is not so much calmness, but more of a deep joy. This comes when I have not just accepted, but indeed appreciated the options—from my intuitively best known stance, unrelated to the current case. I.e., I might come up with a completely different option, based on a much more fulfilling experience I’ve had before, that I therefore knew was possible (although I only remembered it as a feeling), and which got remembered as a personal standard of how awesome things can be in terms of relational quality. So, it’s a subconscious check against one’s experienced optimal solution or at least slightly above acceptable or good solutions from the past (the feeling one had).
The advantage is that, likely, different kinds of information, i.e., ‘relational’, are encoded in the emotion, and a feeling overlap check allows for more efficient processing than bit by bit. Maybe similar to the experience of tasting a dish to see if it is fully satisfying or needs anything else.
The difference with virtues or rightness, may be that we encode different emotions with these (based on our experiences with the terms in their experienced contexts), and that both of these appear to strive only for the good side and to discriminate the bad side, whereas wholesomeness has an acceptance of the imperfect, as well (albeit appropriately deprioritized under the more comprehensive view). ‘Unwholesomeness’ might accordingly be a misleading terms, as it’s not an opposite, but a sensed subpar option. I’d opt for something like ‘not-yet-wholesomeness’. Hence, wholesomeness might be the name for a heuristic check of completeness and optimality.
It sounds similar to holistic or ideal—though includes a bit less striving and more sensing for ease. It’s not meant to evoke complacency, if I can tell.
The content of the judgment is not objectively informative, but a guidepost for an internal inquiry or check-in against one’s individual experience base. If a lack is sensed, this can be investigated to find it, explicate it, and then share. If an OK option is sensed, one might still proceed to try and make it a great option. Someone sensing unease in the other, might invite them to share what would be a more wholesome option.
Still, as a generalizable rule, it seems to call for a relaxation before sharing one’s judgment or course of action, and might lead to more balanced, less edgy choices.
...
Trying to cautiously apply this to my interpretation of the case of Ben’s example. He chose to prioritize the mission over others’ feelings. Now this seems perfectly fine, in terms of priorities. Still it seems to contain a regret about having been unable to optimize for both. The question here is, is it possible to do both? For Ben, it sounds it was mentally demanding to do both at the time, or maybe to cushion the rejection (which is a kind of practice, once I have mastered one, then to layer the other on top). So, here, applying wholesomeness can point to the wish to communicate a necessary rejection in a more caring way (to also preserve the relationship or strengthen the colleague after a blow—in a sincere way), but without significantly more effort (which supposes a bit of tryout). This legitimate wish seems easily confoundable in this example with the agreed upon irrelevance of bringing up feelings altogether as an uninformative complaint (which may or may not be the case). Feelings shouldn’t be interpreted as being possible to be hurt under a mission or growth mindset at all, but expectations might be disappointed, trust eroded, and in essence some real issue might be hiding there, but most likely insecurity around exposure of perceived incompetence and fear or stress around workplace consequences, (resentment not yet overcome as a mode of meaning making) which may be addressed with a policy of emotional safety climate or constructive error culture. In turn, Ben might wonder, besides venting frustration, if he could, what positive effect would he like to have as an outcome of the communication (e.g., invite a learning, better coordination, better focus on the project) - and then try and explicitly boost this main purpose in the explanation, just as a bonus. With leisure and for extended collaboration, one might decide to explore expectations, failures to meet them, and optimal signaling. Or not, if it’s too much effort. It’s not a must, if one optimizes for mission only, one can, e.g., awkwardly ignore or rely on the local version of ‘I know it appears harsh at first, now deal with it’ or ‘kids, will grow out of it’. If one also optimizes for swifter recovery and extended functioning of the ‘missionaries’, it might be worth a try. To me it seems, both choices are fine from an observer’s perspective, but for Ben’s individual preference set likely only one of them or an altogether different one might align best. Wholesomeness is then the check of being satisfied and/or holding oneself to highest desired standard.
Here, experienced lack of wholesomeness might point to either ignoring one’s highest priority, or if it is met, a longing to meet the lower priorities, as well.
I wish I had a good way of teaching this… maybe the practice of breathing and putting down current surface emotions to settle and note any tensions underneath. what they might tel us. and then any wishes for improvement. Together with having good reasons for doing it in the first place, i.e., not ignoring the problem, but to uncover subconsciously stored information, optimal choice with less effort, invite creativity and wellbeing, have richness of experience in interaction, touch base with moral values when deciding.
For a seasoned or even ‘compulsive’ rationality user, it might seem irritating, 1) as the unfocus is like taking a break at the wrong time or giving up altogether, but it actually helps synthesizing. 2) one has to admit that actually one has overlooked a whole strand of available information, 3) it reminds of arrogance (but isn’t actually), rather lack of practice in remembering to come from a place of compassion, gratitude, generosity. 4) The resulting higher-level symmetry or alignment can be annoying.
Given the subjectivity, I don’t see how to adopt it for AI.
@owencb : I’m curious if this overlaps with your experience. Again, big respect for the post. The examples and connections shown are possibly outcomes of applying an idea of wholesomeness, and as a result not going against one’s moral compass, in terms of relations to others and self, and examples are key to recognizing sources of tension. I’m trying to think of a good-to-wholesome example.
Thanks, yes, I think that you’re looking at things essentially the same way that I am. I particularly like your exploration of what the inner motions feel like; I think “unfixation” is a really good word.