It seems that "third-person first" encapsulates the ALARM theory perfectly..
(Shannon's game "antibootstraps": if the machine loses twice in a row, it acts to prevent the human from learning its own strat. The "insurance[1]-dual" ? :)
>Contractual solidary obligations are frequently created by insurance policies
(take on solidarity v love-- later..)
>The origin of solidarity can be traced to a Roman idea known as correality where a single thing was owed by more than one person [but only one person need ever be accountable for it]
In games where any given strategy is potentially exploitable, I guess the meta is (a) rapidly decide if you're playing against a fish, or if you are the fish; then (b) if against a fish, exploit their strat, or (c) if you are the fish, run a mixed strat, to at least avoid yours being exploitable.
Bottom box as primordial "third person" would go along with egolessness in various traditions (including 李小龙's "be water, my friend")? EDIT: https://ctext.org/dao-de-jing#n11598 ?
Could be explained by a
dichotomy* between "intuition" and "deliberation" 刻意(尚行)? A sorta Buxton mechanism.. (intentionally avoiding "saddles" "minima" or whatnot :)
The former "turns enlightenment into myth" (cf again Horkheimer+Adorno)
*Gemini tells me that the best approx to "creative disruption" is [eu]kainotomia
老子, despite being generally contra, had the option of deliberation; intuition* ("having the proper action in cache") was the only timescale available to Lee.
* is it intuition, or is it following a geodesic on (your foliation of) the Lagrangian?
(If we replace fish by "unicellular organism", it might be easier to get to "what kind of (meta)game gets them to multicellularity"?)
Note that narcissism is what PH/Kohut is trying to breakup here. I struggle to put egolessness at its foundation, because that smells too much like nihilism. seem s increasingly less healthy to scale nihilistic therapy to a handful, 37 (~Dunbar), 1000s (POUM outer party?)
Why not an alternative life-force that could legitimise the "ri" in shu-ha-ri, "acting-out", "disruption" (so take it both personal and ... solidarital (-activism)?)
[Creative] disruption is after all the unspoken (meta?)ideology on HN*
Fully hypothetically, we shall then consider the behaviour of "(self-)therapists" in that scenario- "weaponized curiosity" bootstrapping into a full alarm ---as "we" model the minds running a "Bildungs"-institution (PH), the spiessig (aeb), HN mods (yours truly) :)
(I'd like to take it here to "self jokes or -tickling", but "too many knobs spoil the chat".. EDIT to circle back to civil vs common systems wrt fueling creative disruption soon enough)
*Seems like a step up from "Schumpeterian" "creative destruction"/will-to-power tbh
Right, I just think Kohut's third box (we are talking about the bottom one, right?) may be just as profitably looked at through the "egolessness" prism as through the "integrated" prism.
Looking through the shu-ha-ri prism, I could see the top two boxes as being symptomatic of the "ha" stage: breaking the rules with grandiose intentions usually leads to worthless results? In this model, there are two paths out: a retreat from frustration, back into "shu", or a tunnelling through frustration, onwards into "ri"?
(to what degree might tunnelling relate to LLM "double descent"?)
Speaking of "weaponized curiosity", I once ran across a recommendation for determining which puppies to bother attempting to train as hunting dogs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41488445
If we look at "twice made dips", we say two times as there is first a dip, then a peak (rise and dip), and then the next dip. This is like when one hops the band gap: there is first a free wave, then one that looks like it dies out, but if it is still a bit big by the end of the gap, then it goes on to the next free wave.
No, not so fancy (do they arise from interference from the internal reflections?).
In standard tunnelling, one starts with a normal oscillation, goes to evanescence in the "tunnelling" regime, and then continues with oscillation again once on the low side of the potential; in double descent the test error goes way up (like the potential earlier) in the "tunnelling" regime, and then on the far side comes back down and then continues descending.
now that I've skimmed a bit of Kohut (and struggled with the Freudian terminology), it's probably worth pointing out that I was using "egolessness" in the ordinary sense above, not in Freud's tripartite technical sense.
>There are two possible and perhaps concurrent reasons why the three hares may have found popularity as a symbol within the church. Firstly, it was believed that the hare was hermaphrodite and could reproduce without loss of virginity.[26] This led to an association with the Virgin Mary, with hares sometimes occurring in illuminated manuscripts and Northern European paintings of the Virgin and Christ Child.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46008332
Are these guys losers,clueless, or born psychopaths?
I hope for another category :)