community-memory

General Posture Towards Putting Thought on the Internet

In writing a series of essays I'm hoping to have to you shortly I came up with a list of caveats and qualifications as a kind of introduction to how I'm approaching thinking in public.

I acknowledge that this whole list of disclaimers is simply because I’m nervous about putting my thoughts on the internet because of how many times I see other people getting called stupid or wrong for putting their thoughts on the internet. 

Anyways... here it goes:

I concede that none of my writing can perfectly represent my thinking, or truth itself

I don’t think that what I’m writing about is the most important thing, or the only way to do things, it’s just what I happened to think about often enough to write about.

Similarly, I make no claims to perfectly grasp the subject at hand, or to be able to perfectly educate the reader, and I have made peace with that.

I concede that there are many resources/smart people I haven’t had the time or chance to be exposed to yet, including ones that may cause me to update or change my opinions. I welcome those resources and ask that we all acknowledge each others limits in knowledge & experience.

Because of this, I view these ideas less as static and objective truth, and more a participation in a conversation with many other wonderful people.

When I speak generally, I am making a generalization. Generalizations can be harmful or helpful. I think that we both bear some responsibility in the interpretation of the generalizations I make.

I admit it is difficult to not put a caveat or clarification after every statement when I write because I imagine objections to every thought. As a general rule for reading anyone else's work, I suggest you suspend some level of disbelief or skepticism when following my reading.

My recent ideas came together over more than 4 years of processing the ideas—maybe it is better that ideas progress in conversation with regular checkpoints of incomplete thought rather than in writing that is intended to be full formed and stand on its own for years to come.

“Panaceas are dysfunctional” -Elinor Ostrom

Technology can't fix everything, but it can help some things

Traditionalism can't fix everything, but it can help some things

You can’t fix everything, but you can help some things

If it feels like Im just repeating other peoples ideas, I’m ok with that. There are a lot of ideas in the world & the easiest way for new people to hear old ideas is for new people to talk about them. These things take time, repetition & contemplation just like a mantra or creed

Sometimes simplification is beneficial but sometimes ideas need room to breathe and roll around in our minds. In these cases, simplification is counterproductive.

I don't need to be useful to all people. To some people what I’m writing will be intolerably cliche and to others it will be indigestibly opaque, but I hope someone out there will find it valuable.

Links are sometimes giving credit for a specific reference but more often than that, are a broad gesture intended to get you thinking or simply be playful.

I find there are two kinds of dialogue: explicit and suggestive. Both give space to respond—the first in its divisiveness, the second in the space it creates. I often err towards explicitness but claim no correctness. Instead, I'm simply hoping to start a conversation.

Thank you to the 2 people who read all of those! Hoping to have a front-end up for my essays soon!

Pessimism is more often less useful than optimism.