(Ugh, I think I ended up borderline-incoherent myself. I might revisit and clean it up later.)
I think it’s worth keeping in mind that “common social reality” is itself sometimes one of these unstable/ungrounded top-heavy many-epicycles self-reinforcing collapses-when-reality-hits structures.
I am beyond-sick of the fights about whether something is “erroneous personal reality vs social reality” or “personal reality vs erroneous social reality,” so I’m going to leave simulating that out as an exercise for the reader.
loud sigh
Jumping meta, and skipping to the end.
Almost every elaborate worldview is built on at least some fragile low-level components, and might also have a few robustly-grounded builds in there, if you’re lucky.
“Some generalizable truth can be extracted” is more likely to occur, if there were incentives and pressure to generate robust builds.*
* (...God, I got a sudden wave of sympathy for anyone who views Capitalists and Rationalists as some form of creepy scavengers. There is a hint of truth in that lens. I hope we’re more like vultures than dogs; vultures have a way better “nutrition to parasite” ratio.)
By pure evolutionary logic: whichever thing adhered closer to common properties of base-reality, and/or was better-trained to generalize or self-update, will usually hold up better when some of its circumstances change. This tends to be part of what boils up when worldview conflicts and cataclysms play out.
I do see “better survival of a worldview across a range of circumstances” as somewhat predictive of attributes that I consider good-to-have in a worldview.
I also think surviving worldviews aren’t always the ones that make people the happiest, or allow people to thrive? Sometimes that sucks.
(If anyone wants to get into “everything is all equally-ungrounded social reality?” No. That doesn’t actually follow, even from the true statement that “everything you perceive goes through a lens.” I threw some quick commentary on that side-branch here, but I mostly think it’s off-topic.)
I don’t know, a lot of this is from discussion of Kuhn, new paradigms/worldviews are not necessarily incentivized to say new things or make sense of new things, even though they do, they just frame them in a particular way. And when something doesn’t fit a paradigm, it’s ignored. This is good and inevitable for theorizing on human level, and doesn’t inform usefulness or correctness of what’s going on, as these things live inside the paradigm.
Now to actually comment...
(Ugh, I think I ended up borderline-incoherent myself. I might revisit and clean it up later.)
I think it’s worth keeping in mind that “common social reality” is itself sometimes one of these unstable/ungrounded top-heavy many-epicycles self-reinforcing collapses-when-reality-hits structures.
I am beyond-sick of the fights about whether something is “erroneous personal reality vs social reality” or “personal reality vs erroneous social reality,” so I’m going to leave simulating that out as an exercise for the reader.
loud sigh
Jumping meta, and skipping to the end.
Almost every elaborate worldview is built on at least some fragile low-level components, and might also have a few robustly-grounded builds in there, if you’re lucky.
“Some generalizable truth can be extracted” is more likely to occur, if there were incentives and pressure to generate robust builds.*
* (...God, I got a sudden wave of sympathy for anyone who views Capitalists and Rationalists as some form of creepy scavengers. There is a hint of truth in that lens. I hope we’re more like vultures than dogs; vultures have a way better “nutrition to parasite” ratio.)
By pure evolutionary logic: whichever thing adhered closer to common properties of base-reality, and/or was better-trained to generalize or self-update, will usually hold up better when some of its circumstances change. This tends to be part of what boils up when worldview conflicts and cataclysms play out.
I do see “better survival of a worldview across a range of circumstances” as somewhat predictive of attributes that I consider good-to-have in a worldview.
I also think surviving worldviews aren’t always the ones that make people the happiest, or allow people to thrive? Sometimes that sucks.
(If anyone wants to get into “everything is all equally-ungrounded social reality?” No. That doesn’t actually follow, even from the true statement that “everything you perceive goes through a lens.” I threw some quick commentary on that side-branch here, but I mostly think it’s off-topic.)
I don’t know, a lot of this is from discussion of Kuhn, new paradigms/worldviews are not necessarily incentivized to say new things or make sense of new things, even though they do, they just frame them in a particular way. And when something doesn’t fit a paradigm, it’s ignored. This is good and inevitable for theorizing on human level, and doesn’t inform usefulness or correctness of what’s going on, as these things live inside the paradigm.