By âdiscardâ, do you mean remove specifically the fixed-ness in your ontology such that the cognition as a whole can move fluidly and the aspects of those models which donât integrate with your wider system can dissolve, as opposed to the alternate interpretation where âdiscardâ means actively root out and try and remove the concept itself (rather than the fixed-ness of it)?
(also đ, long time no see, glad youâre doing well)
Hello! Thanks for the greeting. Do we know each other by chance?
Removing fixedness in ontologies is good. I claim itâs in the good direction. And then you go further in that direction and remove the ontology itself, which is a fixation on its own. The ontology is not strictly needed, in much the same way that you can be looking at a video of a waterfallâbut itâs meaningfully better and more true to look directly at a waterfall. In the same way, you donât need the concept of âwaterfallâ to truly see it. The concept actually gets in the way.
Actively rooting out and removing the concept makes it sound like you are somehow reaching in and pulling it out with force, and thatâs not really how it goes. Itâs more of a letting go of conceptual grasping, like unclenching a hand.
hmmm, Iâm wondering if youâre pointing at something different from the thing in this space which I intuitively expect is good using words that sound more extreme than Iâd use, or whether youâre pointing at a different thing. Iâll take a shot at describing the thing Iâd be happy with of this type and you can let me know whether this feels like the thing youâre trying to point to:
An ontology restricts the shape of thought by being of a set shape. All of them are insufficient, the Tao that can be specified is not the true Tao, but each can contain patterns that are useful if you let them dissolve and continually release the meta-structures rather than cling to them as a whole. By continually releasing as much of your structure back to flow you grow much faster and in more directions, because in returning from that dissolving you reform with much more of your collected patterns integrated and get out of some of your local minima.
Iâm pointing to something more extreme than this, but Iâd say this is a good direction.
I will attempt, badly, to capture it in words inspired by your description above.
I say âbadlyâ because Iâm not fully able to see the Truth and describe it, but there is a Truth, and it can be described. This process you allude to RE: dissolving and releasing is part of how Truth is revealed, and thatâs what Iâm training in.
So my re-write of this:
An ontology restricts the shape of [the perceived world] by being of a set shape. All of them are insufficient, the Tao [is beyond conceptualization], but each can contain patterns that are useful [if and only if] you [use them to] dissolve and continually release [all patterns] rather than cling to them.
You imply, maybe, that the point is to come back and reform. To get all the patterns âintegratedâ and come back into structure.
But the thing around âflowâ and âfasterâ and suchâall of this is better achieved with no structure or meta-structure. Because structure opposes flow, period. The point isnât to create some ultimate ontology or structure, no matter how fluid, fast, or integrated you think it is; this is returning to delusion, or making delusion the purpose.
This takes sufficient letting go to see, but itâs also logically sound even if you canât buy it experientially.
Is there a place for structure? Yes, we use structure as middle way stepping stones to release structure. We have to use delusion (concepts, etc.) to escape delusion because delusion is what we have to work with. The fact that itâs possible to use delusion to escape delusion is the amazing thing.
Interesting, yes. I think I see, and I think I disagree with this extreme formulation, despite knowing that this is remarkably often a good direction to go in. If â[if and only if]â was replaced with âespeciallyâ, I would agree, as I think the continual/âregular release process is an amplifier on progress not a full requisite.
As for re-forming, yes, I do expect there is a true pattern we are within, which can be in its full specification known, though all the consequences of that specification would only fit into a universe. I think having fluidity on as many layers of ontology as you can is generally correct (and that most people have way too little of this), but I expect the process of release and dissolve will increasingly converge, if youâre doing well at it.
In the spirit of gently poking at your process: My uncertain, please take it lightly, guess is that youâve annealed strongly towards the release/âdissolve process itself, to the extent that it itself is an ontology which has some level of fixedness in you.
The benefit of fixing on the release/âdissolve as a way of being is that it will release/âdissolve itself, and thatâs what makes it safer than fixing on anything that doesnât have an âexpiration dateâ as it were.
I think the confusion on this is that
We have this sense that some process is safe or good to fix upon. Because âprocessâ is more change-y than something static.
But even process is not safe to fix upon. You are not a process. Weâre not in a process. To say âprocessâ is trying to âthing-ifyâ or âreifyâ something that does not have a property called âexistenceâ nor ânon-existenceâ. We must escape from the flattening dichotomy of existence and non-existence, which is a nonsense.
A âuniverseâ cannot be fully specified, and I believe our physics has made that clear. But also our idea of âuniverseâ is ridiculously small-minded still. Science has narrowed our vision of what is, and fixated upon it, and now weâre actually more ignorant /â deluded than before. Although I also appreciate the beauty of science and math.
By âdiscardâ, do you mean remove specifically the fixed-ness in your ontology such that the cognition as a whole can move fluidly and the aspects of those models which donât integrate with your wider system can dissolve, as opposed to the alternate interpretation where âdiscardâ means actively root out and try and remove the concept itself (rather than the fixed-ness of it)?
(also đ, long time no see, glad youâre doing well)
Hello! Thanks for the greeting. Do we know each other by chance?
Removing fixedness in ontologies is good. I claim itâs in the good direction. And then you go further in that direction and remove the ontology itself, which is a fixation on its own. The ontology is not strictly needed, in much the same way that you can be looking at a video of a waterfallâbut itâs meaningfully better and more true to look directly at a waterfall. In the same way, you donât need the concept of âwaterfallâ to truly see it. The concept actually gets in the way.
Actively rooting out and removing the concept makes it sound like you are somehow reaching in and pulling it out with force, and thatâs not really how it goes. Itâs more of a letting go of conceptual grasping, like unclenching a hand.
Yup, DMing for context!
hmmm, Iâm wondering if youâre pointing at something different from the thing in this space which I intuitively expect is good using words that sound more extreme than Iâd use, or whether youâre pointing at a different thing. Iâll take a shot at describing the thing Iâd be happy with of this type and you can let me know whether this feels like the thing youâre trying to point to:
Iâm pointing to something more extreme than this, but Iâd say this is a good direction.
I will attempt, badly, to capture it in words inspired by your description above.
I say âbadlyâ because Iâm not fully able to see the Truth and describe it, but there is a Truth, and it can be described. This process you allude to RE: dissolving and releasing is part of how Truth is revealed, and thatâs what Iâm training in.
So my re-write of this:
You imply, maybe, that the point is to come back and reform. To get all the patterns âintegratedâ and come back into structure.
But the thing around âflowâ and âfasterâ and suchâall of this is better achieved with no structure or meta-structure. Because structure opposes flow, period. The point isnât to create some ultimate ontology or structure, no matter how fluid, fast, or integrated you think it is; this is returning to delusion, or making delusion the purpose.
This takes sufficient letting go to see, but itâs also logically sound even if you canât buy it experientially.
Is there a place for structure? Yes, we use structure as middle way stepping stones to release structure. We have to use delusion (concepts, etc.) to escape delusion because delusion is what we have to work with. The fact that itâs possible to use delusion to escape delusion is the amazing thing.
Interesting, yes. I think I see, and I think I disagree with this extreme formulation, despite knowing that this is remarkably often a good direction to go in. If â[if and only if]â was replaced with âespeciallyâ, I would agree, as I think the continual/âregular release process is an amplifier on progress not a full requisite.
As for re-forming, yes, I do expect there is a true pattern we are within, which can be in its full specification known, though all the consequences of that specification would only fit into a universe. I think having fluidity on as many layers of ontology as you can is generally correct (and that most people have way too little of this), but I expect the process of release and dissolve will increasingly converge, if youâre doing well at it.
In the spirit of gently poking at your process: My uncertain, please take it lightly, guess is that youâve annealed strongly towards the release/âdissolve process itself, to the extent that it itself is an ontology which has some level of fixedness in you.
The benefit of fixing on the release/âdissolve as a way of being is that it will release/âdissolve itself, and thatâs what makes it safer than fixing on anything that doesnât have an âexpiration dateâ as it were.
I think the confusion on this is that
We have this sense that some process is safe or good to fix upon. Because âprocessâ is more change-y than something static.
But even process is not safe to fix upon. You are not a process. Weâre not in a process. To say âprocessâ is trying to âthing-ifyâ or âreifyâ something that does not have a property called âexistenceâ nor ânon-existenceâ. We must escape from the flattening dichotomy of existence and non-existence, which is a nonsense.
A âuniverseâ cannot be fully specified, and I believe our physics has made that clear. But also our idea of âuniverseâ is ridiculously small-minded still. Science has narrowed our vision of what is, and fixated upon it, and now weâre actually more ignorant /â deluded than before. Although I also appreciate the beauty of science and math.