There might be something like an efficiency-resiliency tradeoff at play here, where we take efficiency to mean intentionally solidifying one (presumably highly relevant) frame/orientation/action protocol and take resiliency to mean intentionally contextualizing, ie simultaneously holding various frames/etc. The former being in service of sharp well-defined scoping that affords clear thinking and effective intent-outcome alignment, the latter in service of preserving relevance and meaning along the way. (There's a dope alignment with/orientation towards the notions of correspondence vs lived truth with these too, which you hit on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1SLQC7IoUg)
Words; the interesting bit being that, at least where I ran into the efficiency-resiliency tradeoff grammar - AFTMC - they were framed as poles that a system dynamically moves between in exploit-explore fashion. Dynamic entailing notions like right relationship and attunement, rather than a global policy.
Great points! Digging the link to efficiency/resiliency, that encapsulates the tension quite well. I'd say that the Plot/Life theory has an additional function along the lines of creating+destroying metaframes (rather than just being preservational). I think this is what justifies nesting the one in the other.
The Jordan Hall video was interesting- trying to understand the analogy. Is the idea that with the "Burning the ships" strategy we're using a correspondence theory of success, where it maps onto the societally conventional, whereas with the other theory we're designing success in a bespoke way?
Bringing in explore/exploit is also cool, seems dead-on. I've thought about this a bit in terms of simulated annealing, like how as I get older it makes more sense to dial in on specific goals and explore less, but there's also an argument for a cyclic, punctuated equilibrium kinda thing. Part of the idea is to follow aliveness and see what emerges, but for me it also feels important to remain conscious about what kind of pattern is forming. I'd be curious how you navigate the explore/exploit polarity, what right relationship with it looks like you to?
Yeah I think burning the ships is a correspondence theory driven strategy: if conviction (or at least potentiality) in a direction/frame/etc is high, exploiting it with a carefree/yolo zeal might be called for. The position of correspondence truth being something like basis for the conviction: there sure ought to be a strong alignment between beliefs shaping action and what's out in reality if we're about to burn the ships!
You hit on my strategy for navigating explore/exploit with the "aliveness" mention. I can't say honestly that there's any well-defined meta-strategy I actually witness myself using for navigation at this level except the compass of whole-system senses like aliveness, vitality. It'd be great to explore and cultivate some intentional nuance here, but with patterns this long-arc it's hard to convince myself that my sensemakes are more than confabulations that I'm weaving together into a nice safe propositional nest, while really out there I'm just daring to follow my heart... or something :)
Great point about burning the ships being rooted in a correspondence theory of truth... I guess it better be!
Your comment makes me think of King, Warrior, Magician, Lover. It seems to me that someone "Magician-y" by temperament would do well with a lover-based "follow the heart" strategy, while someone more "lover-like" would need more of the other archetypes to reign in strong heart impulses which risk becoming too chaotic.
Could it be that Theory 1 fits in with the Infinite Game, i.e. the goal is to keep on playing, and Theory 2 is the Finite Game (goal is to win at all costs)?
Great read! Some things that came up:
There might be something like an efficiency-resiliency tradeoff at play here, where we take efficiency to mean intentionally solidifying one (presumably highly relevant) frame/orientation/action protocol and take resiliency to mean intentionally contextualizing, ie simultaneously holding various frames/etc. The former being in service of sharp well-defined scoping that affords clear thinking and effective intent-outcome alignment, the latter in service of preserving relevance and meaning along the way. (There's a dope alignment with/orientation towards the notions of correspondence vs lived truth with these too, which you hit on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1SLQC7IoUg)
Words; the interesting bit being that, at least where I ran into the efficiency-resiliency tradeoff grammar - AFTMC - they were framed as poles that a system dynamically moves between in exploit-explore fashion. Dynamic entailing notions like right relationship and attunement, rather than a global policy.
Great points! Digging the link to efficiency/resiliency, that encapsulates the tension quite well. I'd say that the Plot/Life theory has an additional function along the lines of creating+destroying metaframes (rather than just being preservational). I think this is what justifies nesting the one in the other.
The Jordan Hall video was interesting- trying to understand the analogy. Is the idea that with the "Burning the ships" strategy we're using a correspondence theory of success, where it maps onto the societally conventional, whereas with the other theory we're designing success in a bespoke way?
Bringing in explore/exploit is also cool, seems dead-on. I've thought about this a bit in terms of simulated annealing, like how as I get older it makes more sense to dial in on specific goals and explore less, but there's also an argument for a cyclic, punctuated equilibrium kinda thing. Part of the idea is to follow aliveness and see what emerges, but for me it also feels important to remain conscious about what kind of pattern is forming. I'd be curious how you navigate the explore/exploit polarity, what right relationship with it looks like you to?
Yeah I think burning the ships is a correspondence theory driven strategy: if conviction (or at least potentiality) in a direction/frame/etc is high, exploiting it with a carefree/yolo zeal might be called for. The position of correspondence truth being something like basis for the conviction: there sure ought to be a strong alignment between beliefs shaping action and what's out in reality if we're about to burn the ships!
You hit on my strategy for navigating explore/exploit with the "aliveness" mention. I can't say honestly that there's any well-defined meta-strategy I actually witness myself using for navigation at this level except the compass of whole-system senses like aliveness, vitality. It'd be great to explore and cultivate some intentional nuance here, but with patterns this long-arc it's hard to convince myself that my sensemakes are more than confabulations that I'm weaving together into a nice safe propositional nest, while really out there I'm just daring to follow my heart... or something :)
Great point about burning the ships being rooted in a correspondence theory of truth... I guess it better be!
Your comment makes me think of King, Warrior, Magician, Lover. It seems to me that someone "Magician-y" by temperament would do well with a lover-based "follow the heart" strategy, while someone more "lover-like" would need more of the other archetypes to reign in strong heart impulses which risk becoming too chaotic.
Could it be that Theory 1 fits in with the Infinite Game, i.e. the goal is to keep on playing, and Theory 2 is the Finite Game (goal is to win at all costs)?
Yes!! I actually started reading Finite and Infinite Games partway through writing this, and considered tying it in. Definitely some major parallels!