Using a fun-violating criterion is bad because it impairs the correction of inconsistencies between explicit and inexplicit ideas.
– https://twitter.com/daviddeutschoxf/status/949243539451531264
- internal-conflicts by what is most fun to do
- a strategies for accesssing complex-potential-states
Argument for that
- considering all(theories/ideas/knowings) that can happen in our experience
- ideas, theories, knowings taken all synonym
- no good word for these "things" has been found
- locations of knowing
- conscious
- implicit/tacit
- things that cannot easily me spoken with language
- e.g. playing a ballsport and having the theory that the ball will move into "that" direction
- explicit
- conflicts can be solved alone with logic and experiment
- always comes together with implicit/tacit knowing
- implicit/tacit
- unconscious
- not presently known
- might become immediatly known, say, if you asked yourself the right questions or if something happende in the evironment which brought one or more of them to mind
- conscious
- internal-conflicts arrise between all this "things"
- a mood points to an existing internal-conflicts
- Possible criterions to resolve conflicts(broad)
- disrecard all(irational, antirational)? but your explicit theories/ideas/knowings
- meaning leave out the feeling and solve the problem only with the mind
- top-down
- romantic stance
- explicit ideas are just conventional decorations
- not really human
- bottom-up
- don't mean anything
- what is really important are feelings
- you try to reach into your feelings and follow them
- its irational
- choosing between theories according to irrelevant criterion compulsivly
- it does not look on the content but only the type of theory(types are: emotion, feeling, though, physical sensation, etc.)
- e.g feeling > thought
- it therefore does not look at what the feeling is saying
- e.g feeling > thought
- its irational
- you actually cannot act on your feelings if you do not know what they are.
- you may be mistaken
- feeling something is wrong does not tell you what to do
- intuition without theory?
- you need knowledge to act on
- disrecard all(irational, antirational)? but your explicit theories/ideas/knowings
- to solve conflicts/problems you need conjecture, criticism, error correction
- for this you need to create new knowledge
- but you would need to do things with all the types and implicit theories and unconscious theories is very hard and for some impossible
- how to cross this difficulty to translate between the types
- all these "things" are evolution
- they evolved in some environment
- so the environment/organism and where you where in created these
- the environment mostly consists of other ideas
- ideas effect each other by evolution
- when things are going well the conjecture, criticism are working in a way where they are taking in account of what the others are doing or are
- idealy you get into a state of mind where they are all effecting each other
- meaning less fragmented and more being whole
- when all are effecting each other you are having fun