4 ms·

One trouble with following this line of reasoning to its limits is simply that one doesn't have an endless supply of mental energy. It is not merely easier to m

One trouble with following this line of reasoning to its limits is simply that one doesn't have an endless supply of mental energy. It is not merely easier to mark something about yourself as known and solid, and move on; it also frees cycles for other things. One simply can't go about life questioning every action in terms of its relationship to values which you are supposed to figure out. It's too hard. So, perhaps it might be best to say "keep your identity as small as possible, but no smaller."

gruseom 18y ago
I don't see how it consumes mental energy to be less judgmental and make fewer identifications. If anything, the opposite is the case. Carrying a heavy identity takes a lot of energy: you have to defend yourself against anyone criticizing any piece of it. As for "following this line of reasoning to its limits", there are very few people who have. I came to the conclusion it was better not to try, as such; you're most likely to end up in self-deception if you do.
- DaniFong 18y ago
  Well, certainly in the case of the devout religious, there is a firm set of rules and values to which one is supposed to adhere. It may demand effort from you, but not so much of introspection and self-examination, which is often frightening and tiring. And to avoid identification resists the following of role models, to a large extent one must walk their paths alone. Lastly, one is then impeded in finding those of like mind and affinity. We meet here not at Hacking News, but Hacker News, presumed by and for Hackers.
- GHFigs 18y ago
  In the case of religion and politics, it seems more difficult to maintain a lack of strongly-held opinion, as attempting to do so puts you at odds with most people who have one. Inevitably, someone will try to argue that your faithlessness or lack of political conviction is itself a faith or conviction, and it may very well become one if you get pulled into that. Meanwhile, the even the most free-thinking of the faithful in anything come equipped with dogma, which requires little mental energy to invoke. This partially explains why arguments tend to be the same over and over again--they've been reduced to dogma vs. dogma.
keefe 17y ago
The only thing I feel I can truly lock down is this : I don't know. Nothing can truly be trusted from whether there is any "me" to survive death all the way down to the accuracy of memory and the individual perceptions of my senses. Some more fundamental assumptions are more solid than others - such as the assumption that what I perceive through my senses reflects an objective reality that you also perceive through your senses. I only want to lock down a particular assumption in the context of solving a particular problem and only so far as empirical evidence supports. I want to mark down the appropriate set of assumptions (with perhaps a common base that is "identity") as known and solid then attempt to solve my problem and move on or revisit assumptions as required. So, my actions and values are in a constant state of doubt and while certain of my base beliefs seem very solid now - so did rejected beliefs of yesterday. This is my only core belief, that it is best to keep an empty mind, a mind free of preconceptions making minimal operational assumptions based only on empirical evidence (as time allows). I tend to think identification is overcompensation - people really NEED their religion to be correct because of the fear of the great unknown, death.

gruseom 18y ago

I don't see how it consumes mental energy to be less judgmental and make fewer identifications. If anything, the opposite is the case. Carrying a heavy identity takes a lot of energy: you have to defend yourself against anyone criticizing any piece of it. As for "following this line of reasoning to its limits", there are very few people who have. I came to the conclusion it was better not to try, as such; you're most likely to end up in self-deception if you do.

DaniFong 18y ago
Well, certainly in the case of the devout religious, there is a firm set of rules and values to which one is supposed to adhere. It may demand effort from you, but not so much of introspection and self-examination, which is often frightening and tiring. And to avoid identification resists the following of role models, to a large extent one must walk their paths alone. Lastly, one is then impeded in finding those of like mind and affinity. We meet here not at Hacking News, but Hacker News, presumed by and for Hackers.
GHFigs 18y ago
In the case of religion and politics, it seems more difficult to maintain a lack of strongly-held opinion, as attempting to do so puts you at odds with most people who have one. Inevitably, someone will try to argue that your faithlessness or lack of political conviction is itself a faith or conviction, and it may very well become one if you get pulled into that. Meanwhile, the even the most free-thinking of the faithful in anything come equipped with dogma, which requires little mental energy to invoke. This partially explains why arguments tend to be the same over and over again--they've been reduced to dogma vs. dogma.

keefe 17y ago

The only thing I feel I can truly lock down is this : I don't know. Nothing can truly be trusted from whether there is any "me" to survive death all the way down to the accuracy of memory and the individual perceptions of my senses. Some more fundamental assumptions are more solid than others - such as the assumption that what I perceive through my senses reflects an objective reality that you also perceive through your senses. I only want to lock down a particular assumption in the context of solving a particular problem and only so far as empirical evidence supports. I want to mark down the appropriate set of assumptions (with perhaps a common base that is "identity") as known and solid then attempt to solve my problem and move on or revisit assumptions as required. So, my actions and values are in a constant state of doubt and while certain of my base beliefs seem very solid now - so did rejected beliefs of yesterday. This is my only core belief, that it is best to keep an empty mind, a mind free of preconceptions making minimal operational assumptions based only on empirical evidence (as time allows). I tend to think identification is overcompensation - people really NEED their religion to be correct because of the fear of the great unknown, death.