The word choice is as dense as it is precise in the best way. I have only read a little under half of it so far but the clarity with which you are communicating these ideas is exceptional. My perspective is aligned so precisely with your own it feels as though I'm reading a better written explanation of my own internal sense of things.
I will complete the rest when I have more time, but thank you for sharing this with me and for writing it in the first place. I do disagree with the conclusion you seem to be arriving at. I believe you are indicating that we are in a state of collapse- currently. As in within the next century things will be worse (?) than they are now.
I agree completely that all systems we can identify tend towards an eventual perspectival disordering (entropic collapse). But the scale and speed of the entropic effects feels very immediate in the language you use up to at least before 'What has happened here?'. In my view this collapse of our global and state institutions is inevitable- but not immediately in front of us or at the scale you appear to be positing.
In line with that disagreement, there is a narrative you are creating that seems focused primarily on the negative feelings we get when we think about our inevitable dissipation. Yet throughout the section I read there are many statements about the eventual vanishing of all narratives, framings, and tools. So then if we both accept that our framing and narrative is going to vanish and is not objective- is it not then our choice as to whether we frame it with anguish or delight or not much at all?
There is also a framing throughout that it is 'bad' that systems will eventually reach a peak in whatever intended objective we can describe them as having and after that peak will begin to deteriorate until they vanish. But in my view this is 'bad' only because one has decided to value an uninterrupted experience as the thing they will feel good about if they obtain or bad about if they do not. No matter what, anyone with that value is going to feel bad for as long as they know the temporary reality of their entropic substrate.
Then why not value that which will not make you feel bad? There is no reason for acting towards one value or the other- not one we can say with certainty at least I am sure you agree. So then we need no reason to look in any particular direction.
So my question is: why do you look with such anguish at the vanishing of any system- or your own?
Also at the end of the day one's determination of whether society and global human interaction is going to progress or deteriorate is an incredibly complex question that probably requires several lifetimes of data collection and analysis to predict with any reasonable amount of certainty- no?
If I misunderstood or misrepresented any of your points please correct me! Some of the ideas you talked about have been treaded many times in my own head so it might be difficult for me to immediately pick up the places you illuminated but I haven't yet been.
I look forward to reading the rest of this tomorrow or this weekend!
PS:
"Thus, even flexible epistemology is just an attempt to optimise compression relative to available computational resources."
Here is my current optimization strategy for compression, would love for you to tear it apart!
Thank you for reading! This is exactly the kind of hands-on engagement I envisioned.
On the certainty of collapse: Entropy, of course, will eradicate all distinguishability in the long term. Emergent dissipative processes will ensure this. My diagnosis of imminent collapse is contingent on:
- the lack of suitable replacement for fossil fuels, which we are rapidly running out of.
- the dependence on fossil fuels of the Haber-Bosch process, which currently feeds at least half of the global population.
- the ineluctable trend of global warming. The recent gain in Antarctic ice that climate change deniers have fixated on is barely even a slight pullback in the downtrend; it is the nature of trends that they always pull back, chaotic perturbations.
- the nuclear waste ponds, for which we have still not found a suitable storage solution. This appears to be the most catastrophic one, as I don't see how mammalian life could survive total biosphere irradiation.
I am particularly concerned by the state of the global economy, but that is an issue for another essay.
On value: It is extremely common for those in a Dark Night, once they have realised the total fluidity of ego-superego narratives, that they attempt to pacify or suppress the id by rigidifying an ego-dominant value system. Sometimes, this even leads to a schizoid state. However, grief is baked into our hardware. It is baked into our hardware to feel most alive when we are compassionate, but to feel compassion requires grief, a perpetual sense of loss. Loss at all that could have been, never could be. There is an ancient part of the id that always knows when you are trying to deceive yourself.
So do I want collapse? No. But I don't want civilisation to continue, either. My grief is at the dilemma we find ourselves in. And it is tempered by the observation that we are but a small speck of suffering creatures, and once we are gone, the universe will return to a purer state without torture, rape, genocide.
On your strategy: I've read your strategy, and it appears roughly to be: cogito ergo sum->relativism/idealism->anattā->functionalism->spatiotemporal solipsism, Humean scepticism->pragmatic virtue ethics. The way you lay it out reminds me somewhat of earlier neurotic spirals I have once had—very left-hemispheric, Tractatus-esque. Prophetically, Wittgenstein later retracted Tractatus. This neuroticism appears to be a rite of passage for all those interested in truth.
The only thing I have to say about this is roughly what I would have said to myself (and honestly, still would): why go through all this trouble when the answer, very roughly, is just "seek truth and vibe" anyway? And moreover, these hyperdense logical chains do not embed themselves as easily in our intuition as the non-linear generalities that I have proposed in my own essay. In daily life, you end up trying to open up these recursive black-box chains, an ego trying to cling to the elusive self.
Thanks for your engaging response, and I look forward to hearing what you think of the rest!
Jake. Your next 50 essays (at least) could be sub-sections or deep dives of your magnum opus here. I’m not sure I’ve seen anybody cover so much ground in a single essay. I personally would love to see a deep dive on your thoughts about the relationship between Epistemology and Teleology with a narrower focus. You see meta-patterns with exceptional clarity; many readers may struggle to keep up with you at this pace. A series, or even a series of series, might be clarifying for both you and your readers. I for one would read this with great interest.
I'm elated at your praise! As I've elaborated in my essay, meta-patterns are my shtick. And yes, I have like 10 skeleton drafts already lined up for continuation. Thank you so much!
The word choice is as dense as it is precise in the best way. I have only read a little under half of it so far but the clarity with which you are communicating these ideas is exceptional. My perspective is aligned so precisely with your own it feels as though I'm reading a better written explanation of my own internal sense of things.
I will complete the rest when I have more time, but thank you for sharing this with me and for writing it in the first place. I do disagree with the conclusion you seem to be arriving at. I believe you are indicating that we are in a state of collapse- currently. As in within the next century things will be worse (?) than they are now.
I agree completely that all systems we can identify tend towards an eventual perspectival disordering (entropic collapse). But the scale and speed of the entropic effects feels very immediate in the language you use up to at least before 'What has happened here?'. In my view this collapse of our global and state institutions is inevitable- but not immediately in front of us or at the scale you appear to be positing.
In line with that disagreement, there is a narrative you are creating that seems focused primarily on the negative feelings we get when we think about our inevitable dissipation. Yet throughout the section I read there are many statements about the eventual vanishing of all narratives, framings, and tools. So then if we both accept that our framing and narrative is going to vanish and is not objective- is it not then our choice as to whether we frame it with anguish or delight or not much at all?
There is also a framing throughout that it is 'bad' that systems will eventually reach a peak in whatever intended objective we can describe them as having and after that peak will begin to deteriorate until they vanish. But in my view this is 'bad' only because one has decided to value an uninterrupted experience as the thing they will feel good about if they obtain or bad about if they do not. No matter what, anyone with that value is going to feel bad for as long as they know the temporary reality of their entropic substrate.
Then why not value that which will not make you feel bad? There is no reason for acting towards one value or the other- not one we can say with certainty at least I am sure you agree. So then we need no reason to look in any particular direction.
So my question is: why do you look with such anguish at the vanishing of any system- or your own?
Also at the end of the day one's determination of whether society and global human interaction is going to progress or deteriorate is an incredibly complex question that probably requires several lifetimes of data collection and analysis to predict with any reasonable amount of certainty- no?
If I misunderstood or misrepresented any of your points please correct me! Some of the ideas you talked about have been treaded many times in my own head so it might be difficult for me to immediately pick up the places you illuminated but I haven't yet been.
I look forward to reading the rest of this tomorrow or this weekend!
PS:
"Thus, even flexible epistemology is just an attempt to optimise compression relative to available computational resources."
Here is my current optimization strategy for compression, would love for you to tear it apart!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Wge23KnnFfpZ8FWOqa2fvNNkXBIEwGHbr4eM288ZETE/edit?usp=sharing
Thank you for reading! This is exactly the kind of hands-on engagement I envisioned.
On the certainty of collapse: Entropy, of course, will eradicate all distinguishability in the long term. Emergent dissipative processes will ensure this. My diagnosis of imminent collapse is contingent on:
- the lack of suitable replacement for fossil fuels, which we are rapidly running out of.
- the dependence on fossil fuels of the Haber-Bosch process, which currently feeds at least half of the global population.
- the ineluctable trend of global warming. The recent gain in Antarctic ice that climate change deniers have fixated on is barely even a slight pullback in the downtrend; it is the nature of trends that they always pull back, chaotic perturbations.
- the nuclear waste ponds, for which we have still not found a suitable storage solution. This appears to be the most catastrophic one, as I don't see how mammalian life could survive total biosphere irradiation.
I am particularly concerned by the state of the global economy, but that is an issue for another essay.
On value: It is extremely common for those in a Dark Night, once they have realised the total fluidity of ego-superego narratives, that they attempt to pacify or suppress the id by rigidifying an ego-dominant value system. Sometimes, this even leads to a schizoid state. However, grief is baked into our hardware. It is baked into our hardware to feel most alive when we are compassionate, but to feel compassion requires grief, a perpetual sense of loss. Loss at all that could have been, never could be. There is an ancient part of the id that always knows when you are trying to deceive yourself.
So do I want collapse? No. But I don't want civilisation to continue, either. My grief is at the dilemma we find ourselves in. And it is tempered by the observation that we are but a small speck of suffering creatures, and once we are gone, the universe will return to a purer state without torture, rape, genocide.
On your strategy: I've read your strategy, and it appears roughly to be: cogito ergo sum->relativism/idealism->anattā->functionalism->spatiotemporal solipsism, Humean scepticism->pragmatic virtue ethics. The way you lay it out reminds me somewhat of earlier neurotic spirals I have once had—very left-hemispheric, Tractatus-esque. Prophetically, Wittgenstein later retracted Tractatus. This neuroticism appears to be a rite of passage for all those interested in truth.
The only thing I have to say about this is roughly what I would have said to myself (and honestly, still would): why go through all this trouble when the answer, very roughly, is just "seek truth and vibe" anyway? And moreover, these hyperdense logical chains do not embed themselves as easily in our intuition as the non-linear generalities that I have proposed in my own essay. In daily life, you end up trying to open up these recursive black-box chains, an ego trying to cling to the elusive self.
Thanks for your engaging response, and I look forward to hearing what you think of the rest!
Jake. Your next 50 essays (at least) could be sub-sections or deep dives of your magnum opus here. I’m not sure I’ve seen anybody cover so much ground in a single essay. I personally would love to see a deep dive on your thoughts about the relationship between Epistemology and Teleology with a narrower focus. You see meta-patterns with exceptional clarity; many readers may struggle to keep up with you at this pace. A series, or even a series of series, might be clarifying for both you and your readers. I for one would read this with great interest.
I'm elated at your praise! As I've elaborated in my essay, meta-patterns are my shtick. And yes, I have like 10 skeleton drafts already lined up for continuation. Thank you so much!