Well, this is only an introductory part. The glyphs are to be described later, and they stand for the meaning of the intense emotion. Much like the idol symbolizes the emotion as a whole, the glyphs on it are specks which may be analyzed.
If I may, to address both yours and MakoYass gist of the replies:
-I do feel that the summation of the excerpt is not loyal to the idea I had—which, to be sure, means I did fail, cause I cannot ask of the reader to see just what I aimed. That said, my own summation would be as follows:
1) vengeful acts seem to be usually not very analyzed, particularly by their agents
2) even in the case of calculative agents, this doesn’t change in the crucial part (the calculative agent still won’t examine the actual emotion, it is just that in their case they are more able to distance themselves from it).
The piece would then move on to examining whether the emotion which tends to lead to vengeful action (in cases where it is potent enough; eg to lead to murder in reciprocation) was actually tied to the event which triggered it; and therefore to examine if such an agent is actually negating the source of injury. The main idea is that no, it isn’t much tied, but it is felt as tied and due to lack of ability to analyze the mental phenomenon it is usually the case that seeking to just negate the idol of it (the emotion) suffices here for the individual.
Emotions can serve as a block. The metaphor of the idol is tied to the one about the barrier mentioned earlier on. The underlying issue, however, is that if you are presented with an emotional wall, you would have to undertake more complicated steps to approach the matter differently; in a way, reacting to the emotion is like throwing back a ball you got into your yard, from someone who threw it behind a tall wall. But you can also try to go to the area from where it got sent to you—yet, for whatever reason or balance, apparently this was not the automatic development of this situation.
Big fan. The universe is weird and scary. Rationality tends to help you to feel this more deeply than you would otherwise.
Well, this is only an introductory part. The glyphs are to be described later, and they stand for the meaning of the intense emotion. Much like the idol symbolizes the emotion as a whole, the glyphs on it are specks which may be analyzed.
So I’m not exactly sure what the literary goal of this piece is. If you’re writing to give people an understanding of something to people, it’s good form to sign-post things that will be important later as things that will be important later—otherwise readers will just blow past them and get confused later on when they come up again.
Stuff like this sometimes works in fiction (ie Chekhov’s Guns) but isn’t optimal for helping people understanding things
Also, meta-point (Note—I’m not a moderator, I’m just some guy):
This isn’t a big deal but, in general, Less Wrong is about exploring an understanding of rationality and rationality-adjacent things and given the three observations below--
1. We, as a community, have a pretty deep game-theoretic understanding of why people feel motivated to engage in vengeance—and this piece doesn’t really go there
2. This piece isn’t really optimized for clearly conveying the conclusions in your summary—so if someone is reading this piece for insight, it’s hard for them to figure out if what the piece is saying is something they already know
3. This piece is making a request of readers to review it and give feedback
This post in general is alright but you are making a request of Less Wrong users that isn’t particularly well-aligned with community interests. And, consequently (I think), this post has a pretty low response rate. If you’d like to get a more positive response/more feedback on Less Wrong in the future, I suggest that you do some number of the following things
Incorporate the Less Wrong corpus of knowledge on the topic you’re discussing into your discussion of the topic
Provide a summary of the claims made in your writing piece prior to the piece itself (this will help readers both give feedback and decide more quickly about whether they want to read it)
Link your writing to other relevant pieces of your writing (for instance, Word-Idols is a clearly relevant piece in understanding this text and you don’t do anything to connect the two)
Cthulhu ^_^
Well, this is only an introductory part. The glyphs are to be described later, and they stand for the meaning of the intense emotion. Much like the idol symbolizes the emotion as a whole, the glyphs on it are specks which may be analyzed.
If I may, to address both yours and MakoYass gist of the replies:
-I do feel that the summation of the excerpt is not loyal to the idea I had—which, to be sure, means I did fail, cause I cannot ask of the reader to see just what I aimed. That said, my own summation would be as follows:
1) vengeful acts seem to be usually not very analyzed, particularly by their agents
2) even in the case of calculative agents, this doesn’t change in the crucial part (the calculative agent still won’t examine the actual emotion, it is just that in their case they are more able to distance themselves from it).
The piece would then move on to examining whether the emotion which tends to lead to vengeful action (in cases where it is potent enough; eg to lead to murder in reciprocation) was actually tied to the event which triggered it; and therefore to examine if such an agent is actually negating the source of injury. The main idea is that no, it isn’t much tied, but it is felt as tied and due to lack of ability to analyze the mental phenomenon it is usually the case that seeking to just negate the idol of it (the emotion) suffices here for the individual.
Emotions can serve as a block. The metaphor of the idol is tied to the one about the barrier mentioned earlier on. The underlying issue, however, is that if you are presented with an emotional wall, you would have to undertake more complicated steps to approach the matter differently; in a way, reacting to the emotion is like throwing back a ball you got into your yard, from someone who threw it behind a tall wall. But you can also try to go to the area from where it got sent to you—yet, for whatever reason or balance, apparently this was not the automatic development of this situation.
Big fan. The universe is weird and scary. Rationality tends to help you to feel this more deeply than you would otherwise.
So I’m not exactly sure what the literary goal of this piece is. If you’re writing to give people an understanding of something to people, it’s good form to sign-post things that will be important later as things that will be important later—otherwise readers will just blow past them and get confused later on when they come up again.
Stuff like this sometimes works in fiction (ie Chekhov’s Guns) but isn’t optimal for helping people understanding things
Also, meta-point (Note—I’m not a moderator, I’m just some guy):
This isn’t a big deal but, in general, Less Wrong is about exploring an understanding of rationality and rationality-adjacent things and given the three observations below--
1. We, as a community, have a pretty deep game-theoretic understanding of why people feel motivated to engage in vengeance—and this piece doesn’t really go there
2. This piece isn’t really optimized for clearly conveying the conclusions in your summary—so if someone is reading this piece for insight, it’s hard for them to figure out if what the piece is saying is something they already know
3. This piece is making a request of readers to review it and give feedback
This post in general is alright but you are making a request of Less Wrong users that isn’t particularly well-aligned with community interests. And, consequently (I think), this post has a pretty low response rate. If you’d like to get a more positive response/more feedback on Less Wrong in the future, I suggest that you do some number of the following things
Incorporate the Less Wrong corpus of knowledge on the topic you’re discussing into your discussion of the topic
Provide a summary of the claims made in your writing piece prior to the piece itself (this will help readers both give feedback and decide more quickly about whether they want to read it)
Link your writing to other relevant pieces of your writing (for instance, Word-Idols is a clearly relevant piece in understanding this text and you don’t do anything to connect the two)
Hope you find this helpful.