One thing thing that I clarified for myself today, in doing "romantic-goal strategy", is the difference between delineating what kind of _partner_ I want vs. what kind of _partnership_ I want.
Focusing on the kind of partnership I want feels healthier.
It's probably more effective, in that I can lay out the target and then let the other person figure out if they want to aim for it, and if so, HOW they want to do that.
I want to be clear about the goal, and not lose track of what I want and care about, but I don't want to be rigid in my assumptions about the form that a solution has to take.
But also, I think that focusing on the kind of partnership is more spiritually sound?
I think thinking in terms of the kind of partner that I want was doing slight abrasive damage to my soul. Part of me now feels more relaxed and open.
I'm not entirely sure what cognitive sequence lead me to that distinction, but I think it might have been (in part) downstream of editing my current date-me page (elityre.com/date.html).
This section felt kind of grammatically weird to me. And I think it was because I was sort of switching back and forth between talking about the the kind of relationship and the kind of person.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm not entirely sure what cognitive sequence lead me to that distinction, but I think it might have been (in part) downstream of editing my current date-me page (elityre.com/date.html).
This section felt kind of grammatically weird to me. And I think it was because I was sort of switching back and forth between talking about the the kind of relationship and the kind of person.
Looking at it now, it doesn't feel as awkward, though. So dunno.
I think part of it was that I was a little bit more tapped into the STATE of what I want, instead of working with abstracted descriptors.
Folks who do psychological parts work (Focusing, IFS, etc.),
Will the science of the future find that parts / subagents are neurologically "real"? (eg we'll be able isolate a neural structure that instantiates a given part)
Or are they merely helpful metaphors?
Another (maybe better?) way of operationalizing this:
Are parts distinct and persistent entities that exist when you're NOT doing parts work?
Or are they more like the handles for doing perspective taking, spun up for change work, but which don't persistently exist?
In that second hypothesis, parts have the same ontological status as _query responses_.
Real frontiers, places were something new is happening are always filled with scams.
This is true of crypto, as it was of the internet bubble at the turn of the century, and it was probably also true of various gold rushes and oil-prospecting and land speculation schemes.
Basically, if there's something new and important, a wealth-creating engine, there's an opportunity to invest in that new thing, and reap big financial gains.
People are greedy, and so they want to get some of those gains for themselves.
This creates an opportunity for scammers and swindlers:
In _Diplomacy_, Kissinger points out that balance-of-power systems are rare in human geopolitics. A much more common international organizing principle is empire.
This leaves me with the impression that there are roughly two kinds of geopolitical orders:
1) Equilibrium / balance-of-power / or multi-state scenarios: in which there are many nations, no single one of which is powerful enough to dominate the others, and if any try the others gang up on it in self defense.
My eyes have been weird for like a month now: I’m not sure if they are having trouble focusing or what, but I can’t seem to look at screens without getting a sort of slight “cross-eyed” / eye strain feeling.
Maybe I’m getting near-sighted?
Anyway, this is making doing most of thing things that matter just slightly aversive, and I think I should see an eye doctor.