Feels like this fits on the computational level, but also how we implement thinking about many maps is on the lower levels too.
Reality is kind of all 3 of marr’s level at the same instant. (computational) How do we do it all at once? (algorithm) We strategically think about the right questions to ask and (implementation) do/say what feels best in the moment.
relationships between maps as neglected
relationships between maps as neglected
is this a comment on:
the concept of many maps lightly held,
my ability to communicate it, or
my chosen examples?
Indeterminacy of translation.
Indeterminacy of translation.
Can you expand a bit?
For my own benefit I stumbled back here to add, “what do I mean by translation?“.
Some comments seem to be confused by this not being a language-language translation in the conventional sense. It’s worth pointing out that the word translation is being used to translate across cultural contexts or across jargon barriers and not language barriers. In this sense—still a translation but not an ancient text translation as a cultural bridge.
Sq is a tool. In that sense it can be used badly like a knife or in useful ways (like a knife).
What would make sq genuinely more useful again?
Was that the whole point of Socratic questions? Would he have invented a shitty thing like that? Would it have survived time if it was just an elaborate trap technique? (seems strange to me if that were the case)
[meditation technical stuff]
The breath isn’t a solid sensation, it’s made up of many smaller sensations. Some instructions suggest investigating the “start”, “middle” or “end” of the breath. Try to find the very specific part of that and generally the instructions suggest that you won’t find it because there is no such thing. Owing in the direction of impermanence.
There is a possible meditation method that makes/assumes “permanent” the breath and then practices concentration on the breath as an assumed permanent object. This is important because with increased concentration skill we can then investigate (investigate = insight practice, not concentration practice) and discover the breath is not quite “real” in the permanent bounded conceptual entity that we want it to be when we study it.
There is a possible method of studying the thought stream and the way it changes when the breath changes. This can be seen in simple ways by holding the breath, breathing very quickly, but also noticing the way the breath changes when talking about significant or important matters. Or the way the breath takes shape when angry or anxious. Or excited. There is an interesting breath movement that I see (personal experience here) in theraputic contexts that looks something like a big sigh out. It seems to be that when people are working with an issue and are ready to let go of the issue they breathe out. (in my personal experience) there’s something weird and interesting in the way that the breath ends a thought stream like that.
From a Pranayama book (translated as “breath of life”) was a suggestion that the thought stream is like a bird tethered to a post via a string. The mind can float around but is always pulled back to where the breath is.
Studying the breath happens either at the nose/mouth or at the chest region of the body, this happens to also be the physical location where a large number of emotional reactions are experienced through bodily sensations (book: “the body keeps score” is excellent). With intimate knowledge of the breath comes intimate knowledge of the subtle emotions floating around. That includes many of the tiny reactions that (personal experience) I might feel when I react to some experience in the world. If I want to better shape my experience, interfacing with my own body-based emotional reactions is pretty handy.
There are holotropic breathwork experiences, there are Wim Hoff breathing methods. There are a lot of breath based meditation concepts to explore.
Dan Brown in “pointing out the great way” adds to follow the in breath, and the out breath and in between shift the attention to the body sensations, so that there are no distractions to carry the mind away (as informed by a branch of Tibetan tradition)
When I watch my breath, I notice when my posture is out, when there’s even so much as a sheet of extra weight on my chest. When I’m leaning to the side.
I notice when I run, I can breath clearer.
I can notice when I’m getting distracted from the task at hand.
I notice when I’m overwhelmed with juggling too many things because of the way that adrenaline-feel in my body changes my breathing pattern.
I notice when I’m playing favourites (read: have a crush) with someone because my breathing does (something or other that I don’t have pinned to specifics).
I (recently) notice other people’s breath, and if I’m in contact with their body can read their emotions very accurately. I’d claim to be able to tell when someone is lying, but that’s not quite it. I would claim to be able to read someone’s mind but it’s more like, “I can tell when someone changes their mind” based on the way their breathing changes, I can’t read actual content (however for example: if we are in the same place and there’s a sudden loud noise I can tell somewhat what their internal reactions are based on their breathing change)
There’s a lot of options of interesting things of value from studying the breath. Good books are “The Mind Illuminated” or “The Attention Revolution”.
I would suggest you are not done. You sure did finish discovering a boring corner of meditation, don’t stay there. There’s plenty of valuable things to learn about the inside of the mind.
I would suggest that LW’ers are pretty good and can hurry up with the instructions. Definitely read a book about it because the ability to pick up a map, and follow it—will come easy to LW’ers.
what was your thought stream doing while noticing your breath? The point is not entirely to get good at breathing, but to notice everything else as well.
Integral spirituality is an earlier Ken Wilbur work, I’ve just started “religion of tomorrow” and it might be what you are looking for. I am only a few pages in right now so no guarantees.
colours are meant for efficiency of communication. (Knowing the colour coding) I can describe bringing red values into a blue system, or wanting to bring in healthy orange to a crushing blue bureaucracy (Spiral dynamics colours). Assuming other people also know the system, conversation can go on without me having to explain a whole load of conceptual framework.
I feel like this needs it’s own post and discussion. There’s definitely a difference of opinion here worth clarifying.
Post-rational is a place of development, and it was named by various parties outside of lw terminology.
Integral becomes an organising principle for other concepts to rest in.
I agree and I want to add that there is a shift away from learning from. The source of an original book, and instead learning from what other people have learnt. And the way they learnt, not just the (very old) original work.
Buddhist information is usually participatory. “go and see for yourself” and “don’t take my word for it”.
My strategy is to try to create small exercises that people can try. Experiments or experiences that can show something.
I used to do this for rationality techniques too.
That’s the best way I know how.
There are a few of us that have “crossed over” as you call it.
From my journey it seems to be a developmentally relevant stage.
Read Reggie ray “touching enlightenment with the body”
Best mapped in the very dense book, “pointing out the great way”.
One path to enlightenment is to provide a moment of pure clear seeing (a state of mind) and align the rest of the mind with the path back there. Then let the result play out.
Try not to cling to the past. Instead appreciate what was, and find what is new.
It would depend how far away the candidates are from each other. 5% apart, 10% apart or 1% apart.
Yes, the original problem assumes that you know nothing. If I were adapting for knowledge, I would be doing something very different and I can’t think of what on short notice because that knowledge could be very variable
Bone conduction headphones but they are still alive and coming back into production. (and I would recommend them)
E cigarettes nearly died because the person who first patented them could not monetise them (I believe), then the patent ran out and people started manufacturing them.
There are lots of devices on advertising TV like the slap-chop and the steam mops that seem novel and useful but don’t seem to be mainstream.