Organisations of thought
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2024 11:33 pm
I've been bouncing this back and forth with @watermoon as part of a sort of emergent manifesto[1] I've had vis-a-vis social thoughtspace — that is, do different patterns of discourse cultivate different patterns of thinking, even in our private lives?
Consequently, does that have a "moral" guideline? If we know something is "better for us," intellectually, are we then knowingly partaking in junk food at other times?
We talked about some related topics back in the IPB days like what our external brains are. I've been open to revisiting my approach, because I don't generally keep notes anywhere; I keep a journal that has high variance in terms of my capacity for self-insight, and it seems to be downstream of other life changes, as opposed to a consequence of keeping the damn thing. Like, maybe I do need this memex thing. Maybe I do need this Obsidian thing. Maybe I need to rethink just throwing essay outlines and book citations into a flat notebook. So, here's a thread asking for your general philosophy regarding how you organise your thoughts.
Two related thoughts:
- I remember around 2019, when I first started making any money at all, I felt like living my life with some clothes, a computer and an iPad made it so that my internal life stayed inside me. That I had no way of reifying what I thought. I had a friend that was fixated on enactivism and felt like I couldn't progress beyond these vague ideas if I didn't make what I thought real, if I didn't have totems of those periods of my life about me. If I didn't make myself external to me. Now it's 2024 and I own so much stuff and I can't tell if I was right.
- I have been traditionally averse to any of these topics — making a memex or whatever at all — because I was overdosed on well-to-do creative technologist Zettelkastens for years. People would make a notebook and throw it straight onto the web as their personal website. What I would find is that people would fetishise the tools, architect the aesthetics by which they might become a type of guy, and then never produce anything. This is the opposite of having higher cognition as a result of changing your patterns or environment; it's becoming the equivalent of thought slime. I felt like if you publish your notes, you're not publishing thoughts. It's like throwing ingredients on a plate as you find them, instead of cooking them into something selectively. Some guys can get away with this. Most of us are not Nietzsche.
[1]: I feel like things that "feel true" to me, actual deeply held values, come as a result of vaguely intuiting my way towards the truth over a very long period of time. As I got more Christian I developed a very solid theory around avoiding the instrumentalisation of others. I saw technology as the method by which we abstract human lives into interfaces and information. I saw the manipulation of information streams through these interfaces — flattening something into a literal reality, intermediated by technology — as the anti-Christ we have, if compassion or charity is our highest calling in life (charity being the literalisation of emptying oneself for God, becoming the force of love itself).
My emergent belief now is basically applied McLuhan: if the patterns in the way we interact with technology and each other then structure our minds, then we have to embrace that any pattern is valid and take action, rewriting ourselves. We can create new patterns, new places, and stay there. I didn't used to understand why boomers stuck to IRC. I do now. It isn't that one is accustomed to a technology, or that one is nostalgic for an era; it's that the values of an era or of a culture beget their technologies and spaces, and structure the world outward from there. Every pattern is a tree branch in soil; and treating the network effects of the incumbent as some indication of futile effort is a matter of bad faith. If you want a world — even a world within yourself — to be born, make the seeds of that world. This is what I try to do (I guess I say this in my introduction post?). So, thank you for being here with me.
Consequently, does that have a "moral" guideline? If we know something is "better for us," intellectually, are we then knowingly partaking in junk food at other times?
We talked about some related topics back in the IPB days like what our external brains are. I've been open to revisiting my approach, because I don't generally keep notes anywhere; I keep a journal that has high variance in terms of my capacity for self-insight, and it seems to be downstream of other life changes, as opposed to a consequence of keeping the damn thing. Like, maybe I do need this memex thing. Maybe I do need this Obsidian thing. Maybe I need to rethink just throwing essay outlines and book citations into a flat notebook. So, here's a thread asking for your general philosophy regarding how you organise your thoughts.
Two related thoughts:
- I remember around 2019, when I first started making any money at all, I felt like living my life with some clothes, a computer and an iPad made it so that my internal life stayed inside me. That I had no way of reifying what I thought. I had a friend that was fixated on enactivism and felt like I couldn't progress beyond these vague ideas if I didn't make what I thought real, if I didn't have totems of those periods of my life about me. If I didn't make myself external to me. Now it's 2024 and I own so much stuff and I can't tell if I was right.
- I have been traditionally averse to any of these topics — making a memex or whatever at all — because I was overdosed on well-to-do creative technologist Zettelkastens for years. People would make a notebook and throw it straight onto the web as their personal website. What I would find is that people would fetishise the tools, architect the aesthetics by which they might become a type of guy, and then never produce anything. This is the opposite of having higher cognition as a result of changing your patterns or environment; it's becoming the equivalent of thought slime. I felt like if you publish your notes, you're not publishing thoughts. It's like throwing ingredients on a plate as you find them, instead of cooking them into something selectively. Some guys can get away with this. Most of us are not Nietzsche.
[1]: I feel like things that "feel true" to me, actual deeply held values, come as a result of vaguely intuiting my way towards the truth over a very long period of time. As I got more Christian I developed a very solid theory around avoiding the instrumentalisation of others. I saw technology as the method by which we abstract human lives into interfaces and information. I saw the manipulation of information streams through these interfaces — flattening something into a literal reality, intermediated by technology — as the anti-Christ we have, if compassion or charity is our highest calling in life (charity being the literalisation of emptying oneself for God, becoming the force of love itself).
My emergent belief now is basically applied McLuhan: if the patterns in the way we interact with technology and each other then structure our minds, then we have to embrace that any pattern is valid and take action, rewriting ourselves. We can create new patterns, new places, and stay there. I didn't used to understand why boomers stuck to IRC. I do now. It isn't that one is accustomed to a technology, or that one is nostalgic for an era; it's that the values of an era or of a culture beget their technologies and spaces, and structure the world outward from there. Every pattern is a tree branch in soil; and treating the network effects of the incumbent as some indication of futile effort is a matter of bad faith. If you want a world — even a world within yourself — to be born, make the seeds of that world. This is what I try to do (I guess I say this in my introduction post?). So, thank you for being here with me.