Or is it something more like, LW’s approach appreciates “we create objects in order to think” on an intellectual level but not on a practical level?
That one.
Though to be clear, I’m not trying to talk specifically about the “there are no objects” thing exactly. I was using that as an example of something seen via Looking that I imagine sounds kind of crazy or nonsensical.
But I do mean that LW culture occurs to me as being subject to its ontology, and to the extent that there’s discussion of this, that discussion is pretty reliably done within that ontology. This gives the illusion of it being justified (when that’s actually just a consistency check) and makes the ontology’s blindspots incredibly difficult to point out.
That one.
Though to be clear, I’m not trying to talk specifically about the “there are no objects” thing exactly. I was using that as an example of something seen via Looking that I imagine sounds kind of crazy or nonsensical.
But I do mean that LW culture occurs to me as being subject to its ontology, and to the extent that there’s discussion of this, that discussion is pretty reliably done within that ontology. This gives the illusion of it being justified (when that’s actually just a consistency check) and makes the ontology’s blindspots incredibly difficult to point out.