I initiated, saidA did not reply.
Story of Richard hamming:
Richard hamming used to work at Bell labs, where he would befriend someone new in the cafeteria and talk to them about their field.
The next day he would ask them about the most prominent and important problems in their field.
And in the third day he would ask, “why aren’t you working on the most important problem?”
On day 4 he would have to find a new friend to annoy at lunch time.
He inspires us to ask each other, “what is the most important problem in your life?” and “why aren’t you working on it?”
S1 knows a lot of things. Some examples include “gut feel”, that can usually be inquired about and led back to a memory.
Example: I was once playing Blood on the Clocktower, a group party game. I used my gut to suspect someone, when I asked it why, A moment of the person looking down in a particular way after saying something came to mind. Turns out I was right and we killed the evil person on the first turn. Something that’s supposed to take all game.
S1 knows how to ski better than S2. When I went skiing a few years ago, people would ski for a bit while watching what their s1 was doing, then stop to explain which way to lean or how to ski and repeat for a few instructions (lean to the left, put the weight to the right). Skiing has some counter-lean behaviours which are hard to insist via s2 first.
The same thing applies for juggling, or learning how to juggle, riding a bike, swimming, dancing, and most physical skills.
S1 also handles emotions better, where s2 would like to cognitively soothe via intellectual justification, s1 can usually declare, “I feel bad”, and soothe via self validation of emotion in a way that s2 can only narrative about how I feel bad and why.
Looks like from a rational perspective we can notice that our sensors are fallible.
Breathing walls seems to be the whole body/heart beat throwing the visual field out of lock. Usually counteracted by the brain in normal processing of the vision.
Visual snow is the noise in the visual field if it’s too sensitive and after image is literally after image in the proteins in the back of the eye.
The gap between the sensor bug, brain compensation mechanism and imaginary mental “control” of a kasina after image is a pretty slim one.
It is interesting to explore that and hopefully can help break people out of perfect trust in what they have of their sensory apparatuses and brain interpretation mechanisms
Some people have it more than others.
From a non rational and mystical perspective, as the distinction between map and territory becomes blurred and the white noise can organise itself into information, there are interesting things to be learned about the way that s1 “knows” things that system 2 does not explicitly know until it self inquires.
There’s something like a mental motion that I’d call “escalation”. A sudden leap from zero to “aaaaaaah”. you seem to be pointing to the way that brains sometimes escalate in unimportant situations (and build a narrative around what’s going on and why escalation is the self justified behaviour).
I’m currently exploring causal chains. To use one of your examples,
I asked if I could bring a cushion from home for a retreat. I was told yes. I brought it. The cushion was orange, the zendo’s cushions were black, it stuck out, and I was told I couldn’t use my cushion.
I complied, but I was immediately caught by thoughts like “but you told me I could use my cushion” and “now my meditation will be worse because I’ll be less comfortable” and “I’m not as good a zen student as I thought”.
I felt embarrassed, defensive, let down, and defeated. I felt like a failure, like I was 2nd grade Gordy again getting in trouble for being weird.
At the moment of being told, the thought stream built a causal chain like:
1. Ask permission
2. Receive permission
3. time passes, events happen
4. told something that reverses the permission
5. feel “embarrassed, defensive, let down, and defeated. ”
6. I felt like a failure, (Narrative) like I was 2nd grade Gordy again getting in trouble for being weird.
My current interest is in tracking these causal reasoning chains and noticing the moment of 5 that makes the link to 6. Often is feels like 1-4 are agency actions (my choices), but 5 happens to me, (and 6 follows naturally).
Do you have any thoughts on that?
No medication. I have no symptoms any more either.
Tara Brach is good yes.
take it seriously?
take it seriously?
That’s up to you. I’ve got a lot of value from the structure he outlines. It’s a lot more reasoned than some of the other mysterious odd things I read.
If there is something wrong with the theory and the way it maps to the practice, is it better to read more theory or do more practice and make new theories? I would suggest it depends on the person and what they have found to work in the past. And also with an awareness to the loops of bad habits—“sharpen the saw” type problems. Sometimes it’s more valuable to stop sharpening the saw, and start cutting down the tree. (rationality frame of thinking loves to sharpen more and cut less)
I can offer an explanation that might fit. Rationalists tend toward expertise mode thinking (expert from the torbert action logic framework). Behaviour like reading the book is in line with the expert behaviour.
Cfar techniques and related in-person methods are not always about being the expert, they are about doing the best thing. Being a better expert is not always the same as being the better munchkin, the better person or the person who can step out of their knowledge beliefs.
In theory, the expert thing is the best thing. In theory there’s no difference between theory and practice, in practice, there’s a big difference between theory and practice.
Having said that, I’ve never done cfar, and I teach workshops monthly in Sydney and I think they are wrong to discourage sharing of their resources. As the same time I accept the idea of intellectual property being protected even if that’s not the case they are claiming.
(I’m in the process of writing up my resources into a collection)
I too know how to juggle… Some of this post is remarkably familiar to me.
I’d appreciate this information (about looking at votes) being published in meta.
The difference between “confusion” and “complain” is a grey area. I’ve heard people exclaim, “I’m so confused. This is exciting!” and other times people exclaim, “I’m so confused, this is frustrating”.
I suspect you weren’t sharing your confusion because you had a fun and jolly sentiment behind it. But being text, it’s very hard to tell. (hence the follow up question, “how was that confusion for you?”—which I assume you weren’t taking seriously and weren’t going to answer, particularly because I put you on the defensive about mod culture and powers)
Two separate comments here:
If users knew more about what the mods were or were not doing, there would be less to bring up in my original comment.
Unclear about why you shared your confusion. What are your motives and in having those motives from a mod-power position, how does that shape the culture around here?
That’s not fair.
I don’t believe you as a moderator, who can see who’s voted, should ever have the right to make the comment that solicits a user to justify their voting behaviour in the way you’ve done.
Let alone on your own short form feed. Seems a bit selfish, with asymmetric information here.
What’s it like for you to be very confused? How’s that for you? How did the (confusion) comment add to the discussion?
I am surprised that this got as many upvotes but zero discussion. I am wondering if I currently publish true and useful things that don’t generate conversation? Should I adapt to try to publish posts that generate conversation over useful posts?
My purpose here was to generate a list of possible tags for a sub-forum system. There being no discussion I am guessing this won’t be taken seriously. I wish I could see how many people have read this and better understand if it’s a generally agreed sentiment or generally disagreed sentiment.
Not only was this not commented on, it was never referenced in relevant archipelago posts, or commented on in those posts. does that mean I’m shadow posting and in my alternative universe I am doing nothing helpful, or does it mean that this post was obviously accepted as cannon and so obvious that it was not commented on.
The word “state” might be more helpful than the word “trance” for researching relevant information and resources.