My only experience with metta was in a 1-dollar store.
Looking around at all the different useful things I could buy having to spend very little, the thoughtfulness with which it was all laid, organic but not messy, everything easily discoverable out for scatterbrained people like me.
The gentleness of the implied "here's the thing you need, and also two other little things that you didn't know about, but make life a little easier in those hard times".
I was thinking about the global supply chains, the factories, the stores, the organization of it, the people that make it all possible.
And I was overcome with love for the great venture of capitalism, our shared, collective undertaking to overcome scarcity and suffering and make this world nice!Actually just remembering it, brings tears to my eyes.
Yeah, that used to bother me too, when I learned about multi agent theory and pondering it, I of course pointed my attention inwardly, trying to observe it.
Then agents arose and started talking with each other, arguing about the fact that they can't tell if they're actually representatives of underlying structures and coalitions of the neural substrate or just one fanciful part, that's engaged in puppet phantasy play. Or what the boundaries between those two even are.
Or if their apparent existence is valid evidence for multi-agent theories being any good. Well, I suppose I wasn't bothered, they were bothered :) I/They just really badly wanted a real-time brain scan to get context for my perceptions.
Eventually, I embraced the triplethink of operational certainty [minimizes internal conflict, preserves scarce neurotransmitters], meta doubt, and meta-meta awareness, that propositions that can be expressed in conscious language can't capture the complexity of the neural substrate, anyway.
All models are wrong, yet modeling is essential.
Well ADHD is comorbid/associated with stuff like that. Makes sense, ADHD is a specific kind of brain damage in five specific regions. Effects of brain damage can be diverse and random. [in addition to the more common predictable ADHD effects]
As to why? Nature is lazy and your brain is "good enough" to exist as is, even if the internal wiring is a mess.[there is probably a better answer in the linked wiki article though]
Very rarely I feel what you feel, and what I believe to some kind of underlying sensory processing disorder. When I didn't get enough sleep, noises can become overwhelming and music at the gym is so distressing all of a sudden, that I leave immediately. Normally I just avoid loud environments and can't concentrate with laptop fan noise (if the frequency is too high or it's too loud). And I just dislike music (but can tolerate) music from Bluetooth speakers.
Probably being semi-deaf whilst a toddler made something not calibrate right.But instead, I just live with constant songs stuck in my head, constant running mental dialog or daydreams. With the inability to really filter, parts of my brain adapted by trying to be louder than the noise. [these days much it's less bad, with stimulants for the ADHD and loads of meditation over the years]
But I would like to add, that criticism can be constructive and affirming."Yes and" is also criticism, but it extends. "Yes but" affirms some of it. "Actually yes, but it's more subtle than that....." is also constructive, if the subtlety is explained.Affirmation of "this is great!" isn't actually all that rewarding.After all, you as the author already knew that. Also beware of wrong assuming as negativity what is actually blablabla nurture culture vs combat culture and so forth....
Let's talk about enthusiasm, though:Enthusiasm for any idea is fleeting.You might be enthusiastic about an idea when it just occurs to you and maybe you can tell the person who's next to you at that moment and infect them with your enthusiasm, too.But thru the process of writing an idea down, you must put it into words. By creating an external representation, you get a clearer picture of it.Perhaps now you can see hidden flaws and subtleties.
Even if all that reflection doesn't change your understanding, you habituated yourself to the idea, so it will lose its grip over your dopamine system. Or from a different perspective, you lose the ability to find it beautiful.Do you really own your idea, when you're still enthusiastic about it, or does it own you?Wrong question, because you're in playful exploration mode, where this is not a useful frame.But writing things down when you're still exploring it, is premature.Writing is best for when you're sure about an idea and know its nuances, strengths, and weaknesses very well.An idea matures if you sleep over it. Ponder it. Reflect on it.Only then you can skillfully shape its presentation.This is a problem of course. When you are most enthusiastic about something, you want to share it.
But..... I have written things, that I was enthusiastic about writing, but then later they weren't well-written or well-argued. Sometimes you come back to your writing and it's simply too verbose and in that spir
"It’s easy to push the harm we do, or that we risk, outside of our zone of awareness; to live with, or to strive for, a false sense of purity, propped up by attention only to what can be readily seen, or to what registers, by the standards of everyday conscientiousness and social reproach, as “intentional.” "
Small-animal deaths matter as much to me as whether I have an odd or uneven number of hairs on my head.Certainly, something I could pay attention to as an intellectual exercise, but it's not something that naturally registers as being related to right or wrong action.
You should not claim that people are this way because they strive for a sense of "false purity", though.This "sense of purity" (or a feeling desire for it, or feeling a lack of it) is simply not a universal human experience.
The Stoic case is in contradiction of the idea of Aristotle's idea of the "golden mean".The passions are in contradiction to virtue, because in order to act reasonably, your judgement must not be clouded by emotion. Virtuous anger is thus a contradiction.Their advice would be to excise it immediately as it impairs the soundness of mind required for rational action.Seneca's "On Anger" makes this case citing examples from his times, nuances of anger, possible counterarguments and why they're wrong, why Aristotle is wrong.....
[tried to write the same argument using Friston's free energy principle, and mood as computational context supplying priors, but I got bored with it....]
Robinson's example is off:Ok, a tenant lives in a unit.City A demolishes the old 30-unit building, builds a high-rise 100-unit building instead.30 old unit tenants get evicted, since their original 30 units need to get demolished. 20 new rich families move from their old units to new units from within the city.Their 20 former units in the city will then be on the market again, available for someone else.So far, the new building has caused -10 new available units to city-dwellers so far.30 more people move into the city, but wouldn't have moved there, if this new building did not exist.So we might say: they are not adding more unit-space for the poor local residents.And in our little model it does not.We are still at -10 units supply impact of this new development.However, those 30 other tenants must have come from somewhere, let's call it city B.City B will now have 30 more units on the market.So the problem is now a prisoner's dilemma.If city A does not impose any restrictions on doing the 30->100 switch and city B does not do it, then it'll all average out to +20 new units on the market, for each city.
Now for those remaining 50 units owned by people, who don't live in them.....uhm..... yeah I dunno. The issue is framed as rich people creating an externality for financial gain.But how could owning a unit, that is not lived in and not rented out to other tenants be profitable, if building supply in general is not restricted?This sounds like the issue is only caused by restrictions like this in the first place.Even if not, those same 50 rich people would presumably have a need for fifty units in city A.So unless there is a law that prevents them from buying in units in city A, not building the 100 unit high-rise would still be worse, since they'd presumably just buy 50 already existing units instead which would be empty.
Yeah, fair enough. Probably was typical-minding.I just want my actions to result in excellent things quickly.And the frustration and demotivation when that is not working out, is something I can relate to.But that's not perfectionism?
I personally don't experience all those things you mentioned, though.Sounds downright alien, this guilt thing and all this obsession with shoulds and musts.Or worrying about meeting expectations from boss/God/parents/whatever.It sounds rather exhausting.Btw, that penultimate line: "Use @byronkaties The Work to explore." seems out of place. Is that a Twitter-thing?
"Perfectionism as a stubborn, sentimental and arrogant attachment to ones own high standards" is not my explanation for when I get stuck with spending excessive amounts of time trying to force marginal returns.But a simple reframe is not a solution, because high standards are not the problem.I think marginal returns being sub-optimal is obvious enough when it happens and "opportunity cost" is a cool word that humans probably understand instinctually, so I don't know if this is a plausible explanation of the root cause.
Marginal returns for effort become quickly obvious to me, yet I cannot stop myself from expending it, anyway, which adds to the frustration!I think this issue has nothing to do with something abstract like guilt or values, but from logistical issues at a lower level of the stack. I flinch away from updating my plans when hitting marginal returns, because I am instinctively afraid of the sheer complexity of the inherent uncertainties of planning. Broadening the scope of my awareness again, reincluding original assumptions, actions and schedules decided on, comparing it with what just happened and how it is evidence for/against for modified or entirely new relevant assumptions and having to define new actions and schedules..... going back to that level of uncertainty, that's extremely difficult, when you are semi-comfortable with the certainty of executing one thing after another and doing only minimal, adaptive course changes.I do not think that you are really attached to the planned outcomes, in as much you are attached to the flow of "knowing what to do".And mode switches like that are cognitively expensive.Worse yet, the actual cost is mostly opaque to you, since you can't see dopamine concentration and other neurotransmitter levels in real time [even if you could perfectly interpret them], and under uncertainty you're more risk-avoidant. The risk being, that you get derailed entirely and neither plan for nor act on and in fact, completely forget your original intention.[my argument makes too many inferential leaps, I noticed, this is a summary of something that I would need more time to write; though I'm happy to elaborate on specific points]