Cȯsꭑọ ∴ ọꭑƨȯƆ @cosmiccitizen@schelling.pt
Humanist interested in the consequences of the machine on intellectual history.
Joined Dec 2022
@enkiv2 So let's say hypothetically that you know that *doing your taxes* is one of those areas where you can sense that something is a bit /off/ and you probably should do some "feeling your feelings" stuff. You know at some level that you're mad and upset about *doing your taxes,* but you don't know how exactly you're supposed to be "feeling your feelings" other than getting mad about taxes again.
In this scenario, you'd need to catch yourself feeling the anger inside your body at some point.
@enkiv2 Then you validate the handle by observing the body-feeling again and seeing if it's semi-coupled with the handle. Partial hits count, though you may need to "go fish" and search for different handles until one is suitably well validated by your body-feeling.
Sometimes this validation is sufficient to achieve the "body shift" or yum-like feeling to signal the end. Other times you need to actually do some introspection using the handle. Your introspection should be validated by body-shift
@enkiv2 In the second stage you basically use an relaxed and introspective state of mind to observe the body-feeling, see if you can voluntarily exacerbate it by a small margin, and then propose the following question to yourself: "What is so X about Y?" In this phrase, X should be the body-feeling and Y should be the explicit situation as you understand it.
Your subconscious should provide an image, word, memory, etc. in your imagination. This is your "handle."
@enkiv2 It's probably unfair of me to boil down the Gendlin approach, so check out the actual documentation on this for independent verification.
The "focusing" method basically moves in two stages: in the first stage you notice some body-feeling. It's best to think about a body-feeling as something that could appear in your awareness primarily as emotion, or primarily as a bodily ache or tension, but in the Gendlin line of thinking both are fundamentally connected.
@enkiv2 I'm probably brainrotten due to Gendlin's *Focusing*, but I totally buy into the view that the therapeutic benefits from "feeling your feelings" are derived from a simple process for interfacing with your body-mind using subconsciously-provided symbols, imagery, or "handles." There's a definite and distinctive release your body-mind can achieve at the end of the steps.
No need for mysterious Buddhist metaphysics in my humble opinion.
There's a Chinese flood narrative, too FWIW.
Cȯsꭑọ ∴ ọꭑƨȯƆ
boosted
You can do many things on computer.
Don't.
I use every opportunity to say "fingerspitzengefuhl."
Now I want to admit that I could be wrong about the internal coalitional politics of people fighting climate change. It may be that "bleeding hearts" are less influential than I believe. And it may be that the "mere climate" faction is going to lead the charge. I hope they do. But I sincerely doubt it.
The "mere climate" fraction of the coalition -- that is, those who are treating climate change as an emergency sufficient that they must forestall the social transformation -- are probably not going to persuasively prevail within their coalition because they do not have as many prescriptive references to deploy ("look at the suffering of X! don't you care?") and furthermore they are incredibly unlikely to succeed at the object level (actually fighting climate change) as a hyper-minority.
And furthermore this changes the value proposition for joining the coalition. Now if you're a person who *merely* wants to fight climate change, you face a two-sided front against people who want the status quo as well as people who want social transformation welded to climate change. This is not an attractive proposition in part because it is not likely to succeed. The people who make bigger demands have a lot of prescriptive force, especially among bleeding-hearts, and...
But the prescriptive part only has power if it brings together coalitions of people see the value in making it a reality. I think that more people see the value in fighting climate change than see the value in linking climate change to fixing society, and the mismatch between the two constituencies is going to divide the "fix climate change" coalition
So let's say that there's a *descriptive* account of climate change (here's how things are changing) and there's a *prescriptive* account of what we should do about it (fight it like it's an emergency, plus use this situation to fix society). The descriptive part has real predictive power. So far so good.
As for me I will place my trust in the weirdo freaks who jumped multiple quintiles in their standardized tests and those who derive growth from instability. Give me a moneyball team of high-variance space oddities and I'll make hay of the elites.
Here's a strange thing: most of the elites in the developed world have no liminal experiences with gatekeepers or gatekeeping institutions. They think in terms of binary sorting, sheep and goats. So they look at the most stable indicators rather than the most disruptive ones. It is actually an anti-progressive stance in the sense that we have gatekeepers distributing positional goods with very little expectation of growth, development, or the cultivation of surprise by those who they reward.
People are clinging harder than ever to the notion that identity is durable and material at exactly the instant that it has become more transient and ephemeral than ever. We all know this to some extent. We're all watching the machinery of the culture industry manufacture new selves, new subjectivities out of holograms. That much is to be expected. But what is most remarkable and dissonant is that there are masses who willingly agree that these phantasms speak to their innermost realities.
I accidentally found myself talking about Nick Land at work over lunch. WHOOPSIE FUCKIN POOPSIE
One of my absolute favorite things about people is when we want to know whether an opaque handheld container has any liquid in it, we give it a little shake.
Fluid is indicated by error in our interopceptive acceleration predictions.
Humanist interested in the consequences of the machine on intellectual history.
Joined Dec 2022
