The map is to the territory as the corporate media complex is to the Truth.
Why should I believe a level 4 simulacrum of the election results when all the superweapons are both at stake and in play?
Let's get our ontology correct. She used philosophical tools to approach philosophical problems, and wrote essays on the results in philosophical terminology. That makes her a philosopher. If her results were incorrect, at worst she's an incorrect philosopher like so many others throughout history who moved philosophy into "less wrong" territory.
The same is true of Buddhism, and Christianity too: in addition to being religions, they're philosophies, making ontological and ethical statements and explaining how those were reached. And atheism, while a philosophical viewpoint, also has had religious social structures built around it, such as taboos against self-coding as religious.
Exploring the philosophical "realm" and "mining" new seams of gold ore (or fools' gold) is what makes one a philosopher, whether one comes in with a pickaxe and mule like the '49'ers or a bulldozer and dynamite like the industrial strip-miners.
Agreed on tech change. We now expect a new generation of video game consoles every five years, a new version of Microsoft Office every three (but did NOT expect the name change to "Microsoft 365," an increasingly ominous claim of ubiquity), and new phones every other year.
The only real technological surprise I've had in a good long while was yesterday when I suddenly realized Notepad.exe now has a "New Window" menu option, which simply spawns another instance of Notepad. To me, this is cause for celebration, and I find myself wondering why there wasn't more fanfare for this superb productivity hack.
Yes, and still a young-Earth creationist too. On here I'd probably clarify my concept of omnipotency as "axiomatic ultra-ability", more similar to a programmer of a simulation than a lightning-tosser in a cloud-chariot in the sky.
As a geek-for-life and dedicated devourer of SF, I compare and contrast the details of what I believe with all the god-fictions out there, from Aslan and Eru Ilúvatar to Star Trek's Q and The Prophets, to the God and Satan of Heinlein's Job, to the Anu/Padomay duality at the core of Elder Scrolls lore and the consequent universe literally built out of politics and necromancy. Recently, reading the SSC classic blog post "Meditations on Moloch" helped me coalesce an idea that had been bouncing around my head for twenty years about the "weakling, uncaring opposite of God, waiting with an open mouth at the bottom of the slide."
I just wanted to find a community of experimental theologists who were as willing as I am to ask these questions and posit potentially heretical theories during the process of trying to better model God in our words and minds. Apparently I'm missing an absurdity heuristic that keeps more people from being like me.
The COVID Procrastathon claims another good mind.
I had to push through something similar in July. What finally broke my dam of pent-up work was one sudden realization regarding an incident I've long suspected was behind my procrastination:
The very first time I procrastinated hard, and lost something because of it, was the first time my parents said they'd take away something if my homework wasn't complete. I panicked and was in tears for two hours, pleading, but they were steadfast in their abandonment of me to my dark fate. I asked my mom to watch me do the first problem on the worksheet, just the first problem; "to prove I can do this" my mind screamed, not realizing that my mind itself was that entity to which I wanted to prove it. She refused. I didn't get to watch that night's episode of my favorite TV show.
Here's the realization: that was the first time my mother had treated me transactionally instead of personally.
That's it. That's the big realization that allowed me to start working really hard again. I don't know if it'll help you, or anyone else reading this, but that unexpected switch of mode was the secret abandonment behind the yawning pit of "why am I not working right now?" behaviors.
It makes me think a republic is the best form of governance possible among humans, as long as the real smarties are running the show and they have good priors. Real smarties with bad priors may be worse than average successful achievers with good priors.
I remember the late 90's, when I first gained access to the Internet. Here were my people, people who enjoy thinking, minds communicating at a bare-metal level about interesting and smart things.
It was around that time I ran across the concept of a "free-thinker" and started mulling over that label in my mind. It sounded like a compliment, something I'd like if people started calling me that. After all, I don't think the way other people do (thanks, autism!), and I had always felt like a mind trapped in a body. But the first time I brought up being a free-thinker was in a discussion about religion with an Internet Atheist. I was promptly and patronizingly informed that I couldn't possibly be a free-thinker because I believe in God.
Free-thinker = atheist, apparently. A one-to-one correspondence, a synonym, and a hope for esteem from my peers crushed.
Never mind that I treat the Bible and young-Earth creationism as seriously and geekily as I treat the canons of the various Star Trek series. Never mind that I try to get past the rah-rah-our-team side of religion to follow Jesus' commands to love each other with radical, boundary-breaking see-from-their-eyes empathy. Never mind that I'd been hurt by church hypocrisy as any former-Catholic or raised-Baptist Internet Atheist among my circle of friends.
No, this badge of uniqueness was not for me. I was too unique for it.
My own experience with my mental mountains has led me to what I call the "One, Two, Many" model of emotion formation and annihilation.
1: There is an initial event which causes a sensory memory of the experience to get stuck in my mind, usually a visual/tactile memory with an associated specific type of feeling bad, or more rarely, feeling good.
2: There is a reinforcing event, which has a specific similar characteristic that makes my mind go, "these are the same type of thing," like having a hard time remembering the names of both Al Pacino and Robert De Niro at the same time. (Seriously, I had to google a De Niro role just to be able to type his name right now!)
Many: Every subsequent event that shares that characteristic gets lumped into the sea of "it always happens" or "it never happens" barring further conscious examination, but I can only remember the current or most recent such occurrence no matter how often or rarely such events actually occurred in my past.
For me, the "TNT" that can usually blast through this mental mountain is to identify the similar characteristic by tracing the memory of that specific type of feeling bad. I trace it back to the pair of self-reinforcing memories, and they disintegrate, turning from sense memories into simple narrative of something that happened to me, usually with a sense of relieved tension mingled with the feeling of being miffed that I had been tripped up by my own mind's processing artifacts.
I perform my process using the "fourth step" tools developed for Twelve Step programs, which I now believe function on UtEB-style self reflection. The "fourth step" tools work because they focus on the interaction between a resentment emotion which drives behaviors, the person and specific action which caused that resentment, and one's updated (sober) understanding of the world.
I wouldn't be surprised if UtEB-style reconsolidation underlies the success many have reported with Twelve Step programs, and I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people who drop out of Twelve Step programs do so before they experience a mental mountain's disappearance from their minds.
Stability's value is as a loss-prevention or expense-prevention resource: a status of being predictable or being resistant to immediate entropy in some way. It's such a broadly applicable concept that its benefits are practically ubiquitous, and it adds all the types of value to various circumstances.
Stability of a situation, as in the expectation of not having to anticipate much change, allows you to conserve resources you might otherwise need to devote toward anticipation of contingencies; you can also thus experience the opposite of anxiety.
A medical patient who is stable is in less danger of dying; this kind of stability is a resource both to the patient's continued existence (agency, experience, utility to society as a resource) and to their medical team who don't need to expend resources to immediately and actively maintain the patient's life medically.
Being seen as a stable person by the standards of a given group grants you esteem from that group, because you're predictable and will not cost them sudden, unexpected loss of things of value such as their group's esteem in the eyes of whichever society they esteem. A person being perceived by police as mentally stable and/or morally stable (in the sense of being unlikely to commit assault or other crimes) grants the police a sense that you're predictable and thus not an immediate danger that needs to be violently subdued. In other words, you have the esteem due a member of the law-abiding community.
Stability of government gains a country more opportunities for international trade (resources) and gains its citizenry and businesses a credit rating (which is a resource based on how much one is esteemed as a reliable payer of debts by lenders).
Stable isotopes, which are not radioactive, are radiologically safe to touch or handle. However, this doesn't mean it's entirely safe! Lead is not safe to touch because even though it's stable enough to be used for radioactive shielding, it has neurotoxic chemical effects. For low-energy purposes such as home-building, stable chemicals and elements are more valuable resources; for high-energy purposes, such as weapons or manufacturing, unstable chemicals or elements are more valuable resources.
That was a lovely example, thank you!
I've been working on something similar myself. I've identified four qualitatively different categories of "things of value" that we humans seem geared toward:
All products and services on the market can be described as a mix of these, or in terms of avoiding their loss. Economics is the study of human motivation toward things of value and away from their loss, either for one's self, one's ingroup, or for hire.
More concretely, "wants" are emotions inclining the feeler toward things of value and "needs" are emotions inclining the feeler away from their loss. It's a simple binary, and we can construct the "forest" of economics by zooming out from our focus on individual "trees".
Example: I want to eat, to gain the experience, and I need to eat, to avoid hunger and eventual harm from lack of food (starvation). Eating at a fast food restaurant alleviates the need for me to cook in order to eat. I perceive myself purchasing convenience, which is at once a resource (savings of time and energy in cooking and cleaning up after cooking), a measure of esteem (I pay a group of servants to cook my meal), an experience (I sit in my car waiting and listening to the radio and don't have to experience the moment-to-moment vagaries of cooking for myself), and a measure of agency (I am able to do all of the above, free to make this decision which affects my future in the short and long term, as long as I can pay to do so). Therefore, when hungry or craving, I see fast food as a net positive thing of value.
Grieving, consequently, is the process of processing and limiting the loss (in the present, potential future, or remembered past) of things of value. Grieving occurs when needs aren't met.