There’s a kind of extensive double crux that I want a name for. It was inspired by Sarah’s Naming the Nameless post, where she mentions Double Cruxxing on aesthetics. You might call it “aesthetic double crux” but I think that might lead to miscommunication.
The idea is to resolve deep disagreements that underlie your entire framing (of the sort Duncan touches on in this post on Punch Buggy. That post is also a reasonable stab at an essay-form version of the thing I’m talking about).
There are a few things that are relevant here, not quite the same thing but clustered together:
what counts as evidence?
what counts as good?
what counts as beautiful?
Each of them suggest a different name (epistemic double crux, values double crux, aesthetic double crux). Maybe a good common name is “Deep Double Crux” or “Framing Double Crux”
The main point is that when you hunker down for a deep double crux, you’re expecting to spend a long while, and to try to tease some real subtle shit.
I liked the phrase Aesthetic Double Crux, suggested in the Naming the Nameless post,since it pointed at entire ways of thinking that had multiple facets, but seemed to orient most around what felt elegant and right. But the people who followed up on that focused most on the art interpretation, so it seemed ripe for misinterpretation.
(In the course of writing this I think I basically decided I liked Deep Double Crux best, but decided to leave the post up as a demonstration of thought process.)
The main point is that when you hunker down for a deep double crux, you’re expecting to spend a long while, and to try to tease some real subtle shit.
Yes! I feel like a lot of the time, the expectation of putting such sustained will attention is not there. Not to say that you should always be ready to hunker down at the drop of a hat. It seems like the default norm is closer to, “Giving up if it gets too hard.”
Jargon Quest:
There’s a kind of extensive double crux that I want a name for. It was inspired by Sarah’s Naming the Nameless post, where she mentions Double Cruxxing on aesthetics. You might call it “aesthetic double crux” but I think that might lead to miscommunication.
The idea is to resolve deep disagreements that underlie your entire framing (of the sort Duncan touches on in this post on Punch Buggy. That post is also a reasonable stab at an essay-form version of the thing I’m talking about).
There are a few things that are relevant here, not quite the same thing but clustered together:
what counts as evidence?
what counts as good?
what counts as beautiful?
Each of them suggest a different name (epistemic double crux, values double crux, aesthetic double crux). Maybe a good common name is “Deep Double Crux” or “Framing Double Crux”
The main point is that when you hunker down for a deep double crux, you’re expecting to spend a long while, and to try to tease some real subtle shit.
I liked the phrase Aesthetic Double Crux, suggested in the Naming the Nameless post, since it pointed at entire ways of thinking that had multiple facets, but seemed to orient most around what felt elegant and right. But the people who followed up on that focused most on the art interpretation, so it seemed ripe for misinterpretation.
(In the course of writing this I think I basically decided I liked Deep Double Crux best, but decided to leave the post up as a demonstration of thought process.)
Yes! I feel like a lot of the time, the expectation of putting such sustained will attention is not there. Not to say that you should always be ready to hunker down at the drop of a hat. It seems like the default norm is closer to, “Giving up if it gets too hard.”