|
Expo70 posted:people often just see sentences they don't understand thoughtlessly and immediately complain demanding you reformat what you're saying nothing in here is false, but if I'm gonna gonna have to make an effort to decipher whatever I'm reading, then I might as well read Hegel or the Tao te Ching instead and know it has stood some sort of test of time. I have a backlog to get through and random people on the internet (that I don't even know) rank so lowly they are not even on it. But even if they were on the backlog, they'd definitely drop away if I then also learnt they're really hard to understand and/or take a long time to get through.* That any involvement with crypto or vicinity to its intellectual neighborhood auto-disqualifies them from being worth listening to should go without saying. In my view much of this stems from the fact that humans are by and large instrumental rationalists oriented towards (ideally reasonably immediate) results: They min-max the way they spend their time and energy on this earth in order to some sort of end or goal e.g. get to do the things they like to do (whatever that might be, like reading the forums from 8-to-5 on saturday while only eating paprika chips and chocolate (something something, rational means irrational ends)). Minimize effort**, maximize gain. So if you have this mindset*** and you have two texts in front of you and one gets you more info/stimulation/whatever for less time/effort, then it completely rational to choose the easier one. Funnily enough I have an argument in my head about Hegel along the lines of: one "benefit" of his texts being written so obscurely is it inherently makes you do more work just to grasp the content (i.e. the ideas) because you have to grapple with the actual words in ways you don't have to with other people. But note here that this again is in a sense born out of an absurdity: nothing stops you from grappling as hard on the words/ideas in normal texts and you'd probably get similar bang for your buck, it's just that in the view of our rationalistic mind it's not smart because "well duh, I could instead start reading a different book and get more out of that for my time and energy. Also I'm already tired from having read it once and I think I got the gist of it". I think much of what I'm trying to express is very well illustrated in this article: http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2021/06/what-zoom-removes.html I don't feel like summarizing well right now and couldn't do it justice, so just read it. Then: Is the answer to the article that we should get rid of central heating and Zoom? Presumably not, right? Well then, what should we do and what conception of humans/life do we base it on? I think it's a real conundrum. Also, I only read only like the first few lines of your particular post and then went off being busy with my own thoughts and typing them out. Merely skimmed the rest, barely remembering something about Buddhists. I think this is exemplary of what humans are mostly like: Preoccupied with themselves. In the sense that for a given individual, nobody in the entire world takes that individual as serious as it itself does, by probably like multiple orders of magnitude (exempting very close loved ones). anyway Truth Beam is stored in the Balls or whatever. * like this guy on youtube who is somehow surprised that people are not willing to watch a 4hr video of some loving rando (i.e. him) just sitting and rambling with some other loving rando over zoom. ** and activity is always effort, i.e. bad. *** and I claim it's required to adopt it at least partially/temporarily to survive in modern society Ocean of Milk fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Dec 28, 2023 |
#
¿
Dec 28, 2023 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:47 |
|