Supposing I know how to Look, when and where do I Look, and what might I see? For my own purposes, I want to get a better idea of what my own role Looks like, see where I can move within the slack that I have, and see where tension in the web is coming from so that I can create more slack if needed.
But if you can: try Looking in the present moment at your own sense of not-knowing, notice that the same thing is alive in others, and watch as the story arises and plays out across all of you.
You’re watching for the way that stories arise and play out, how people are falling into characters, the way that justifications arise in you, etc.
And… you’re noticing the gap that’s between all of them. The sort of canvas on which it’s all written.
This can’t be analytical, since that’s within the character part of you. You have to watch your character and the whole scene from the transcendental not-knowing space that can never be tangled up in the web.
After a while, I claim, you can sort of “get” what the underlying patterns are, and how to act on them from outside your character. And how to lean into your character in order to produce the right effects on the web strands around you. And where you, the player, have room to reach for and tug on a different role for yourself. And what the consequences are for the web as a whole.
But in the meantime, you’re just Looking at how the scene plays out, in detail, from the not-knowing.
I found this essay insightful, but I am still confused by the concept of “Looking” (in the sense that, not only I don’t understand the concept, which would be okay, I don’t even understand the type signature of the concept). When you say “This can’t be analytical… You have to watch… from the transcendental not-knowing space”, do you mean that Looking is a mental motion that relies on mechanisms other than analytical thought (for example, on intuition), but which still happens within your biological brain, governed by the usual rules of cell membrane electrochemistry, and which in particular can theoretically be simulated by a computer program designed according to perfectly “analytical” principles, or, do you mean something which happens outside the laws of physics as we currently (“analytically”) understand them?
Ah, I remember having the distinct impression of drawing a blank when reading that sentence. Your further description helps, but it’s feeling a little vague. I think I can kind of see it in my memory of past interactions, but I don’t think I have enough of a handle on it that it seems like I could have done much differently. The referent of “not-knowing,” and what it is not-knowing of is fuzzy/not so clear to me (though as I am writing all of this, it is becoming clearer and clearer). Is it not-knowing of how the scene will unfold? Of what the scene is? Of the roles we are playing? All of the above?
This does give me something that I can pay attention for in future social situations though and I’m pretty sure I can discover how to look at these things now, especially to see if I can achieve any of this:
After a while, I claim, you can sort of “get” what the underlying patterns are, and how to act on them from outside your character. And how to lean into your character in order to produce the right effects on the web strands around you. And where you, the player, have room to reach for and tug on a different role for yourself. And what the consequences are for the web as a whole.
Ah, I remember having the distinct impression of drawing a blank when reading that sentence. Your further description helps, but it’s feeling a little vague. I think I can kind of see it in my memory of past interactions, but I don’t think I have enough of a handle on it that it seems like I could have done much differently. The referent of “not-knowing,” and what it is not-knowing of is fuzzy/not so clear to me (though as I am writing all of this, it is becoming clearer and clearer). Is it not-knowing of how the scene will unfold? Of what the scene is? Of the roles we are playing? All of the above?
I find myself wanting to do the annoying zen thing of answering “mu”. I think that’s the most accurate answer.
I’ll try saying more words, though, to offer an illusion of it being more satisfying:
You’re trying really hard to understand what it is that you’re not knowing. Or rather, your character is trying really hard at this. Whether it succeeds by its own standards or not is totally irrelevant.
If you Look, honestly, at what it is that you do not know, you’ll See what I mean. I claim.
Supposing I know how to Look, when and where do I Look, and what might I see? For my own purposes, I want to get a better idea of what my own role Looks like, see where I can move within the slack that I have, and see where tension in the web is coming from so that I can create more slack if needed.
Yep. From the OP:
You’re watching for the way that stories arise and play out, how people are falling into characters, the way that justifications arise in you, etc.
And… you’re noticing the gap that’s between all of them. The sort of canvas on which it’s all written.
This can’t be analytical, since that’s within the character part of you. You have to watch your character and the whole scene from the transcendental not-knowing space that can never be tangled up in the web.
After a while, I claim, you can sort of “get” what the underlying patterns are, and how to act on them from outside your character. And how to lean into your character in order to produce the right effects on the web strands around you. And where you, the player, have room to reach for and tug on a different role for yourself. And what the consequences are for the web as a whole.
But in the meantime, you’re just Looking at how the scene plays out, in detail, from the not-knowing.
Does that help?
I found this essay insightful, but I am still confused by the concept of “Looking” (in the sense that, not only I don’t understand the concept, which would be okay, I don’t even understand the type signature of the concept). When you say “This can’t be analytical… You have to watch… from the transcendental not-knowing space”, do you mean that Looking is a mental motion that relies on mechanisms other than analytical thought (for example, on intuition), but which still happens within your biological brain, governed by the usual rules of cell membrane electrochemistry, and which in particular can theoretically be simulated by a computer program designed according to perfectly “analytical” principles, or, do you mean something which happens outside the laws of physics as we currently (“analytically”) understand them?
The former.
Yep.
Ah, I remember having the distinct impression of drawing a blank when reading that sentence. Your further description helps, but it’s feeling a little vague. I think I can kind of see it in my memory of past interactions, but I don’t think I have enough of a handle on it that it seems like I could have done much differently. The referent of “not-knowing,” and what it is not-knowing of is fuzzy/not so clear to me (though as I am writing all of this, it is becoming clearer and clearer). Is it not-knowing of how the scene will unfold? Of what the scene is? Of the roles we are playing? All of the above?
This does give me something that I can pay attention for in future social situations though and I’m pretty sure I can discover how to look at these things now, especially to see if I can achieve any of this:
Pretty sure I have a handle on it now.
I find myself wanting to do the annoying zen thing of answering “mu”. I think that’s the most accurate answer.
I’ll try saying more words, though, to offer an illusion of it being more satisfying:
You’re trying really hard to understand what it is that you’re not knowing. Or rather, your character is trying really hard at this. Whether it succeeds by its own standards or not is totally irrelevant.
If you Look, honestly, at what it is that you do not know, you’ll See what I mean. I claim.