,
55 tweets,
16 min read
Read on Twitter
.@Meaningness has been working on this for yrs, across a few blogs:
meaningness.com
buddhism-for-vampires.com
vividness.live
Below are passages & paraphrasings from his blog-as-book, Meaningness.com, edited for Twitter consumption.
Read the whole thing!
meaningness.com
buddhism-for-vampires.com
vividness.live
Below are passages & paraphrasings from his blog-as-book, Meaningness.com, edited for Twitter consumption.
Read the whole thing!
@Meaningness Although people actually think about meaningness in terms of stances, mostly they think they think about meaningness in terms of “systems.”
Systems include religions, philosophies, ideologies, spiritual and psychological frameworks, and so forth.
Systems include religions, philosophies, ideologies, spiritual and psychological frameworks, and so forth.
Because people are mostly not aware of stances, it is somewhat unusual to commit to a stance directly.
Instead, people commit to systems, which in turn demand certain stances.
[meaningness.com/stances-are-un…]
Instead, people commit to systems, which in turn demand certain stances.
[meaningness.com/stances-are-un…]
Here are 7 confused stances:
ETERNALISM: Everything has a fixed purpose, given by some sort of fundamental ordering principle of the universe. (e.g. God, Fate, etc)
If you just follow the eternal law, everything will come out right.
ETERNALISM: Everything has a fixed purpose, given by some sort of fundamental ordering principle of the universe. (e.g. God, Fate, etc)
If you just follow the eternal law, everything will come out right.
NIHILISM: Nothing has any purpose.
Life is meaningless.
Any purposes you imagine you have are illusions, errors, or lies.
Life is meaningless.
Any purposes you imagine you have are illusions, errors, or lies.
EXISTENTIALISM: Since the universe does not supply us with purposes, they are human creations.
Mostly people mindlessly adopt purposes that are handed to them.
You need to throw those off, and choose your own purposes, as an act of creative will.
Mostly people mindlessly adopt purposes that are handed to them.
You need to throw those off, and choose your own purposes, as an act of creative will.
MISSION: After you are dead, it is meaningless how many toys you had.
What matters is the impact you made for others.
You have unique capabilities to improve the world, and it’s your responsibility to find and act on your personal gift.
What matters is the impact you made for others.
You have unique capabilities to improve the world, and it’s your responsibility to find and act on your personal gift.
MATERIALISM: The supposed cosmic purposes are doubtful at best, but obviously, people do have goals.
There are human purposes no one can seriously doubt: survival, health, sex, romance, fame, power, enjoyable experiences, children, beautiful things.
There are human purposes no one can seriously doubt: survival, health, sex, romance, fame, power, enjoyable experiences, children, beautiful things.
MONISM:
Monism, the idea that “all is One,” is based on the accurate insight that we are not isolated individuals, that there is no hard boundary between self and other, and that things are connected in innumerable ways, many of which we cannot know.
Monism, the idea that “all is One,” is based on the accurate insight that we are not isolated individuals, that there is no hard boundary between self and other, and that things are connected in innumerable ways, many of which we cannot know.
DUALISM is the reverse of Monism.
Monism is the stance that fixates sameness and connections, and denies differences and boundaries.
Dualism is just the other way around: it denies sameness and connections, and fixates differences and boundaries.
Monism is the stance that fixates sameness and connections, and denies differences and boundaries.
Dualism is just the other way around: it denies sameness and connections, and fixates differences and boundaries.
These have the same roots
Eternalize says there's meaning elsewhere
Nihilism says there's meaning nowhere
Existentialism says meaning is in your head
Mission: mundane is meaningless, mission meaningful
Materialism: the opposite
Monism: we’re all one
Dualism: the opposite
Eternalize says there's meaning elsewhere
Nihilism says there's meaning nowhere
Existentialism says meaning is in your head
Mission: mundane is meaningless, mission meaningful
Materialism: the opposite
Monism: we’re all one
Dualism: the opposite
STANCES UNSTABLE: The confused stances constantly collide with reality.
It is impossible not to see this, and impossible not to suffer the consequences
This makes it impossible to remain consistently in a confused stance; they are always unstable
It is impossible not to see this, and impossible not to suffer the consequences
This makes it impossible to remain consistently in a confused stance; they are always unstable
Dualist eternalism: everything is given a definite meaning by something separate from you.
Monist eternalism: you, God, and the universe are a single thing, which is definitely meaningful.
Dualist nihilism: we are isolated individuals, wandering in a meaningless universe.
Monist eternalism: you, God, and the universe are a single thing, which is definitely meaningful.
Dualist nihilism: we are isolated individuals, wandering in a meaningless universe.
HOW ALL THESE STANCES BREAK DOWN:
WHY DO THEY ALL STANCES BREAK DOWN? THEY DENY NEBULOSITY
Confused stances are half right, otherwise we wouldn’t fall for them.
In order to combat the confused stances, we need to adopt the complete stance:
Meaning is real (and cannot be denied), but is fluid (so it cannot be fixed).
It is neither objective (given by God) nor subjective (chosen by individuals).
Meaning is real (and cannot be denied), but is fluid (so it cannot be fixed).
It is neither objective (given by God) nor subjective (chosen by individuals).
Meaningness is a quality, not a thing.
Meaningness is always nebulous: indefinite, uncertain, ambiguous.
THIS COMPLETE STANCE recognizes the inseparability between nebulosity and pattern.
Meaningness is always nebulous: indefinite, uncertain, ambiguous.
THIS COMPLETE STANCE recognizes the inseparability between nebulosity and pattern.
MEANING IS NEITHER OBJECTIVE NOR SUBJECTIVE, BUT INTERACTIVE.
Like a rainbow:
Like a rainbow:
Zooming out, let’s give a brief history of how meaning has evolved over time.
We started in Choiceless mode, aka living in tribes
This is the most natural one.
Nearly all humans who have ever lived have only experienced meaning in the choiceless mode.
We started in Choiceless mode, aka living in tribes
This is the most natural one.
Nearly all humans who have ever lived have only experienced meaning in the choiceless mode.
We moved on to systematic mode.
A systematic culture answers “why” Q’s w/ “becauses”
“Why” questions, the logic goes, eventually reaches an ultimate, eternal Truth.
This Truth is the foundation of the system.
A systematic culture answers “why” Q’s w/ “becauses”
“Why” questions, the logic goes, eventually reaches an ultimate, eternal Truth.
This Truth is the foundation of the system.
Rationalist eternalism is the confused stance that there is a pattern to everything, that all patterns can be discovered by reasoning, and that they give everything meaning
Rationality is good—but an incomplete way of understanding the world.
Rationality is good—but an incomplete way of understanding the world.
Why is rationality often not sufficient on its own?
*It universalizes when things are often context specific.*
Generally, knowledge of a specific object does not count as “rational” unless it applies to every other object in some class.
*It universalizes when things are often context specific.*
Generally, knowledge of a specific object does not count as “rational” unless it applies to every other object in some class.
Rationality failed us because it tried to prove too much.
It doesn’t appreciate that reality is nebulous, so it commits inaccuracies against perception.
It doesn’t appreciate that reality is nebulous, so it commits inaccuracies against perception.
Zooming out, more historical context on rationality/systemacity:
A history of how meaning fell apart
The first half of the twentieth century was awful—in every way.
The glorious accomplishments of the systematic era could not hold civilization together, and seemed likely to be lost entirely in a global conflagration.
The first half of the twentieth century was awful—in every way.
The glorious accomplishments of the systematic era could not hold civilization together, and seemed likely to be lost entirely in a global conflagration.
Countercultures emerged as a result of these failures.
Both the hippie movements and the moral majority movement.
The hippie movement was monist — emphasizing that all are one and blurring the boundary between private/public.
Both the hippie movements and the moral majority movement.
The hippie movement was monist — emphasizing that all are one and blurring the boundary between private/public.
In contrast, the dualist moral majority promoted:
- man’s dominion over nature
- submission to the Creator
- and to legitimate secular authority
- nationalism
- racial segregation
- distinct gender roles
- the sanctity of marriage versus the sinfulness of non-marital sex
- man’s dominion over nature
- submission to the Creator
- and to legitimate secular authority
- nationalism
- racial segregation
- distinct gender roles
- the sanctity of marriage versus the sinfulness of non-marital sex
The dualist counterculture also claimed to want to restore “traditional values.” It was never clear which era it proposed to return to.
In fact, it wanted to “restore” a romanticized, mythical past in which the systematic mode actually worked.
Sound Familiar?
In fact, it wanted to “restore” a romanticized, mythical past in which the systematic mode actually worked.
Sound Familiar?
Both Countercultures had more in common than you might think
The countercultures failed. Why?
Rejecting rationality was the central conceptual move of both countercultures.
But this was an error.
Rationality was never the problem with the systematic mode.
The Problem with systematic mode was ETERNALISM.
Rejecting rationality was the central conceptual move of both countercultures.
But this was an error.
Rationality was never the problem with the systematic mode.
The Problem with systematic mode was ETERNALISM.
Another problem of Countercultures was universalism.
No single system of meaning can work for everyone—or even most people.
Both countercultural visions were unable to encompass diversity of views on meaningness found within societies after collapse of the systematic mode.
No single system of meaning can work for everyone—or even most people.
Both countercultural visions were unable to encompass diversity of views on meaningness found within societies after collapse of the systematic mode.
Some positive things emerged from the countercultures that set the tone for what was to come next.
The subcultural mode marked a new approach to meaningness
Subculture mode abandoned universalism—the delusion that meanings must be the same for everyone everywhere
It recognized that different people are actually different, and need different cultures.
Subculture mode abandoned universalism—the delusion that meanings must be the same for everyone everywhere
It recognized that different people are actually different, and need different cultures.
The atomized mode, following subcultures, simply dropped the subculture and subsociety boundaries.
Now everyone could access all culture, globally, through the internet
You didn’t have to be a member of a tribe to listen to a particular kind of music.
Now everyone could access all culture, globally, through the internet
You didn’t have to be a member of a tribe to listen to a particular kind of music.
The atomized kaleidoscopic mode is furthest over toward nihilism
However, nihilism denies all meaning; whereas the problem in the atomized mode is that there is too much meaning
It has just lost the coherence of pattern, and so becomes senseless and overwhelming.
However, nihilism denies all meaning; whereas the problem in the atomized mode is that there is too much meaning
It has just lost the coherence of pattern, and so becomes senseless and overwhelming.
We are in a post-systems era.
The problem is, mostly the only model we have for scarily smart people to express insights is to build conceptual systems
But those don’t work any more
The way we understand the world is up for grabs
Hence the Culture War
The problem is, mostly the only model we have for scarily smart people to express insights is to build conceptual systems
But those don’t work any more
The way we understand the world is up for grabs
Hence the Culture War
How to complete the counter cultures, or solve for tribalism?
The shifts in how we view meaning have also correlated with a shift in how we view the concept of a “self” and the powers or lack thereof a “self” contains.
A brief history:
A brief history:
In the systematic mode, you create a rational, systematic self.
A systematic self has a clear boundary, so it is not flooded by the emotions and expectations of others.
More on the evolution of self:
A systematic self has a clear boundary, so it is not flooded by the emotions and expectations of others.
More on the evolution of self:
Systematic self, although far more sophisticated than a choiceness one, unfortunately is unnatural.
Living as one sometimes exposes contradictions between systematicity and human nature.
In other words, Systematic Self didn’t work!
Living as one sometimes exposes contradictions between systematicity and human nature.
In other words, Systematic Self didn’t work!
Here is the proposal for the Fluid Self
Fluidity, by the way, is @meaningness’s solution to the problems
AKA metasystemacity
It is the attitude that systems of meaning are of great value (because meaning is patterned), but none can be complete or fully correct (because meaning is nebulous)
AKA metasystemacity
It is the attitude that systems of meaning are of great value (because meaning is patterned), but none can be complete or fully correct (because meaning is nebulous)
Fluid mode should
- Simulate choiceness community
- Relativize systems
- Enjoy mass culture creativity
- Rework subscoiety boundaries
- Embrace atomization
- Simulate choiceness community
- Relativize systems
- Enjoy mass culture creativity
- Rework subscoiety boundaries
- Embrace atomization
While comprehensive rationality has conclusively failed in some respects, anti-rationality in the form of has also conclusively failed.
Instead, meta-rationalism may deliver all the benefits of rationality, without rationalist errors.
Instead, meta-rationalism may deliver all the benefits of rationality, without rationalist errors.
We spoke above about the failures of comprehensive rationality.
The solution? Meta Rationality & Take reasonableness seriously
The solution? Meta Rationality & Take reasonableness seriously
Meta Systemacity in the workplace — applied meta rationality.
Some Principles of Fluidity in personal life
- Participation
- Intermittenly continuing
- Enjoyable usefulness
- Ethical responsiveness
- Participation
- Intermittenly continuing
- Enjoyable usefulness
- Ethical responsiveness
The fluid mode goes meta on other modes.
It recognizes problems that the previous modes tried to solve, synthesizes what was right, and abandons what was wrong in each.
It recognizes problems that the previous modes tried to solve, synthesizes what was right, and abandons what was wrong in each.
Goals of Fluid Mode in a developmental society:
- Belonging
- Material abundance
- Simulate choicelessness without sacrifice systemacity.
- Belonging
- Material abundance
- Simulate choicelessness without sacrifice systemacity.
Systems can be unjust, inhumane, rigid, dysfunctional, or outright inimical to human survival.
Unfortunately, we still don’t know how to live without them.
The choiceless mode feels right but it can’t feed a world of billions of people
Unfortunately, we still don’t know how to live without them.
The choiceless mode feels right but it can’t feed a world of billions of people
Replacing artificial systematic requirements with natural ones remains a popular goal.
It’s a decent impulse, but unfortunately there is currently no alternative to artificial social systems capable of supporting a global population of billions.
It’s a decent impulse, but unfortunately there is currently no alternative to artificial social systems capable of supporting a global population of billions.
The future, fluid mode must find ways to simulate natural (choiceless) roles while keeping artificial systems running.
This is the great challenge of our time. Benefitting from growth systematic mode brings while also benefiting from the happiness choiceness mode brings.
This is the great challenge of our time. Benefitting from growth systematic mode brings while also benefiting from the happiness choiceness mode brings.
Fluidity and social Reform
An immediate transition to abundance might result in a catastrophic crisis of meaning: what would everyone do all day?
An immediate transition to abundance might result in a catastrophic crisis of meaning: what would everyone do all day?
Robert Keegan wrote that people’s ethical understanding passes through a predictable series of stages.
He assigned them to six stages of moral development.
He assigned them to six stages of moral development.
