When Alexander the Great led his armies into Persia, he burned his ships, destroying their only point of retreat. The message was clear: we win, or we die. Guess what, they won. Modern sensibilities tend to reject this attitude towards success. It’s not just about the goal, it’s about how we achieve the goal, and how it fits in with everything else. Let’s lean into this and take a look at our first theory: plot and life.
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.
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.
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)?