Thread by @EpistemicHope

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).

https://twitter.com/EpistemicHope/status/1418481663768551425?s=20

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.

Which meant that I had less mental rigidness? I was in less of a defensive stance? Less needing to hold tight to something lest I lose track of it?

(I've written before about how it sometimes feels sort of like the world is trying to gaslight me about I want here.

https://twitter.com/EpistemicHope/status/1351475283979694083?s=20

Hmmm...

If that's on point, it suggests that something like Core Transformation is more important than I would have guessed.

Maybe, for some problems, it is easier to do conceptual / strategic work from the state of the problem being solved.

@RomeoStevens76

Of course, I have an immune response / objections to feeling into the state of the problem being solved when the problem isn't actually solved, because "OBVIOUSLY don't delude yourself about if important problems are solved or not!!!"

So I'll have to tinker with it to find a way of embodying solution-states which is congruent with the point of that immune response.

https://twitter.com/EpistemicHope/status/1331045843583987712?s=20

Oh! I also think that this insight was downstream of doing this calculation.

https://twitter.com/EpistemicHope/status/1416928111657058306?s=20