🧵 View Thread
🧵 Thread (7 tweets)
quick thread on ways using legible systems in the search for meaning can destroy what you're looking for (if I link this enough, will you read it?) https://t.co/atXd8PnROQ
u can legibly captures shards of the real, but you can't get all of it legible frames tend to insist that you either pretend uncapturables don't exist (there's no such thing as LOVE!) or insist that the meager shards ARE the thing (ah yes, evo psyche, ape boning)
if you persist in using legible frames in your search for meaning, you will either feverntly deny meaning as a thing that exists or matters (and suffer from its absence) or insist you have it (and suffer from its absence)
btw, MAD respect for the general aim of trying to name the Tao if no one was trying to make the world legible, no computers and no tweeting but the CRUX of the legible mindset is FORGETTING THE LIMITATIONS OF THE LEGIBLE
i don't even need to claim "meaning CAN'T be captured in principle" i just need to claim that you can't do it in a reasonable amount of time you've got a short life. you need to experience meaning NOW not in 4020 AD when genetically engineered super philosphers crack the code