commercialization and distribution

From twitter:

  • (0a) I’m having a low-key, exploratory, commercialization networking call, with respect to my stuff, and it inspired me to try to make some bullet points with respect to context and key, counterintuitive constraints.
  • (0b) Note! I ran out of time to edit this, so there’s super-compressed and maybe cramped and cryptic tweets jammed into this thread, but I figured better to get it out the door.
  • (1) Key insight: The mind is more malleable than contemporary psychology and, arguably, even contemporary contemplative/meditation communities of practice currently believe. I like to say the mind is 99% software, 1% hardware.
  • (2a) The space of this malleability is large and multidimensional, but it’s not arbitrary; it has directionality. That directionality, taken to its conclusion, in the “positive” direction, yields something like (a) wellbeing and (b) “creative, proactive, fit-to-context.”
  • (3) Some features of “creative, proactive, fit-to-context” can be “outside view guessed,” and planned for, but also must be “individually found, from the inside.” This is sometimes a demanding, fraught, counterintuitive process.
  • (4) It’s also a lengthy process, say on the order of 10,000 hours. My suspicion is that this cannot be shortened without very large advances in neurobiology. The speed limit is simply the speed limit of “learning,” involving protein synthesis, downtime, sleep, etc.
  • (5) Good things happen during that 10,000 hours, but one can’t count on any particular good thing on any particular timeline or ever. That is, part of the process is NOT “having NO goals” but self-alignedly releasing the need for most any PARTICULAR (object-level) goal.
  • (6) “No particular (object-level) goal” is fundamental to the process, because bodymind change is “path constrained.” It can only proceed by gaining “slack,” through finding increases in optionality, through “releasing particularities,” little by little.
  • (7a) (It’s important to emphasize “non-arbitrariness,” as “no particular goal” might seem nihilist, on face. Actually, though, while not “particularly” constrained, the system is “abstractly constrained,” by one’s self-sovereign determination of “what’s good.” It’s complicated.)
  • (8a) Somewhat more incidentally, not only are goals “non-particular” (and dynamic), or “fluid but not arbitrary,” but so is ultimately ALL perceptual/representational/behavioral ontology. The system (un-)commits to “no particular thing, anywhere.”
  • (8b) Yet, simultaneously, the system is somehow (aconceptually? preconceptually?) *radically concrete and particular*.)
  • (9a) Because of this sort of “global lack of particularity,” a value proposition might be: [see next tweet]
  • (9b)
    This process, in some sense, will cost you everything (all things) and give you nothing (no things).
    But, to be a bit paradoxical or contradictory, you will get general wellbeing and wisdom. The ongoing tax on that is being fully open to everyday pain and even suffering.
  • (9c) (Wellbeing, wisdom, pain, suffering, etc., how all that works, is outside the scope of this tweet thread.)
  • (10) Regarding commercialization, the process is so hard and so personal, even though there are near-universal, highest-level features. It’s hard to generalize and streamline a 10,000-hour personal journey.
  • (11) Of course, so far, I *have* tried to generalize and streamline (though not commercialize!) the process, with my writing, most recently as ongoing work on a 100,000-plus-word “meditation protocol document,” which people are putting to use.
  • (12) So far, I’ve mostly punted on money/commercialization, with an open-access promise, because there’s a way in which meditative progress is, in my current understanding, complexly facilitated or retarded in a “full-stack, culture-complete” sort of way.
  • (13) One aspect of “full-stack, culture-complete” are the “dynamics of exclusionary stratification”: [see next tweet]
  • (14) I find people get really sensitive about commercialization, though not in the way you might think. (note: I’m not subtweeting anyone or referencing particular private conversations, here).
  • (15) There are maybe sentiments of how else could modern distribution-at-scale work but through commercialization or stratified monetary gatekeeping, that I’m actually limiting net access & adoption by not (yet) somehow having a high-status, ambitious, exponential business model.
  • (16) There are maybe sentiments that I’m playing too low-status, that I must insufficiently ambitious, and so on.
  • (17) But, my ambition is, in fact, global and multigenerational. It’s just that, memetic fidelity, antifragility, and multigenerational adaptability (without memetic perversion? memetic corruption?) is hard.
  • (18) And, we’re still learning, what the thing is that we, hopefully non-rigidly, don’t want corrupted in the first place.
    And/but, I/we could be wrong about risks and rewards, which I why I’m engaging with critique and feedback and suggestions, at an accelerating rate.
  • (19) I think the (maybe) grumbling is a really good sign. It means people perceive value and want to participate in network effects with respect to that value.
  • (20/20) Anyway, more and more, I’m looking to what’s next, with this work and more generally. I’m also interested in governance, DeFi, AI, and much, much more. So this is all swirling around, all together, in a good way.
  • *
  • (*) No particular fixed goal(s), no fixed ontologies (perception, representation, behavior), structural fluidity, might sound kind of chaotic and tangly, and it can be like that, at first, in a waxing and waning pattern.
  • (*) Eventually, across thousands of hours, things become generally quiet, still, and settled, while remaining proactively, creatively sensitive and responsive, as the world turns and true, limit-case unknown unknowns present themselves.
  • (*) It’s sort of the best of both worlds–on the one hand, relatively settled stability, perfectly suitable for pursuing adaptive, stable, very-long-term goals, contingent on the state and path of the world and everything, and, on the other hand, a capacity for continual growth and change, the pursuit of novelty and knowledge, adaptability to misfortune, and the passion and engagement and equanimity and appetite for all of it, whether quiet intimacy, the scope of the whole world, or both, or something else entirely.

epistemic-aesthetic rigor for postrats and metarats (stub post)

[full title: epistemic-aesthetic rigor and systematicity and coordination for meditators, postrats, and metarats]

(There’s some extremely important ideas, here, pointed at without a lot of context and barely glued together. It’s a very first pass at a thing!)

Ok, so, say you’re on board with meaning/truth/etc. being some or all of multischematic, interschematizable, embodied, enacted, felt, intuitive, indexical, ostensive, intensional, hyperintensional, language game-y, innumerable, nonnumeric, gestural, vibe-y.

(Note: I also think math, logic, and computation are excellent and I use them like every day.)

Ok/so/but given original list above, sort of, what’s the gradient? Where’s the directionality? What is quality, here?

Sure, it’s/those are nebulous. But we can, sort of, sometimes, if we want, kind of gesture vaguely in the direction of having good “beliefs” in some sense, or “good science,” or “good writing,” in some sense—usefulness, insightfulness, depth, intricacy, elegance, transformativeness…

How might we generally tack towards that and how might we tack towards that tacking towards that?

Like, what’s the messy, living, breathing interface between sort of someone as they are, someone as they’re becoming, and like writing stuff down?

What if you want to vibe, and you don’t want to mess up your vibing, and you don’t want to sacrifice rigor in some deep sense, even if you don’t alway go “full reason,” and you want your rigor, or your shitposting, to be infused with your vibe?

What might unlock that, very loosely speaking?

A toy hierarchical ontology:

  • Say there’s normal propositions and special propositions.
  • Say normal propositions are built out of
    • normal concepts and
    • special concepts called relations.
  • Say special propositions are built out of
    • normal propositions and
    • special concepts called reason relations.
  • Say reason relations are
    • implication [… implies…; if… then…; …because…],
    • cause […causes…; if… then…],
    • mixed/nebulous [if… then…; …because…], and finally
    • means/end/purpose/for-ness […is for…; …]
  • Finally, say arguments and explanations are built out of normal propositions and special propositions.

Heuristic/gestural elegance, parsimony, simplicity, and more, in argument and explanation:

(I’m still fiddling with these ideas; there could be something really off, here.)


    • without loss of essential detail, roughly MINIMIZE counts/number of
      • axioms/premises
      • other normal propositions
      • kinds/types/classes/abstractions (i.e. normal concepts)
      • anomalies, counterexamples, “unexplainable” phenomena
      • reason relations (path-length/lemmas/inferential-or-causal-depth-to-conclusion)
    • roughly MAXIMIZE counts/number/density of
      • conclusions
      • fan-out / multifinality (with respect to reason relations)
      • fan-in / equifinality (with respect to reason relations)
      • instances/instantiations/tokens/concrets/particulars/specifics (that fall under the kinds/types/classes/etc above)


Now, flirt with the problematic, problematically eternalist ideal of “nonequivocation.”

Equivocation is using the same word for different things, including slightly different things. This can also be just poetic, gestural, normal speech.

Nonequivocation, quotations incoming, would be when you use the “same” word or phrase to “refer” to the “same” “concept” which “refers/applies” to the “same” “referent” in the “same way” “each time.” Or, when the “same”-ish sentence “refers” to the same “proposition,” wherever it’s written multiple times in the same scope/namespace, whether it’s a premise, lemma, conclusion, subproposition, antecedent, or consequent.

Phenomena and noumena:

Maybe flirt with the problematic, problematically eternalist ideas of noumena as distinguished from phenomena, where noumena could be taken as a “limit case concept,” “nearly empty,” and so forth.


Now, then, you can ask, is this more or less true? More or less wrong? A more or less good expression? A more or less bad expression?

So given all that, all that being said, how does one engage with all that? In my opinion, it’s often better, methodologically and wellbeing-wise, to engage with such forms indirectly and obliquely, generally through meditation and global wayfinding. (This is super cryptic, maybe; sorry.)


Further reading:

types of “physical” pain scratch list

I use an ontology sort of like this when decided how to engage with “physical” pain—keep going, stop, wait, do it differently, do something different first, and so on.

(constructed in part with an anonymous collaborator)

  • burning/tearing feeling – micro heterogeneity in muscle tone (partial pulling/tone, contingent “weakness”) leading to subtle tearing during normal usage
  • joint grinding – unbalanced or both-sided too-much muscle tension in oppositional muscle pairs (“too much pressure or unbalanced pressure on the joint”)
  • joint pulling apart – lack of muscle tone, only ligaments are “protecting”
  • nervy/referred (stinging?) – nerve compression at nerve root in spine or somewhere further downstream causing distal pain, burning, or numbness
  • joint “inflamed feeling” – (joint is “waking up”, under-lubricated but becomes lubricated — usually goes away by next day) – “have care, but ‘fine’”
  • normal muscle soreness/DOMs – “fine”
  • grab bag:
    • tendinous pain (tendons/tendinitis) – ???
    • ?deep ache – ???lactic acid buldup? / ketosis catabolism?
    • ?ache – nonlocalized deep, all encompassing
    • tender to touch