What Are the Limits of This Perspective?

• I think I want to express something like "these are great concepts, and they're also fraught! but, please make use of this concept!"
• something something this needs to be extended to be like, "I'm gonna build up to critiques of this more, but for now i'm just saying, yes this is a purposefuly narrow perspective to make some technical distinctions. this is its correct use
• I'm not even mainly prioritizing what's wrong, I actually think this is great, please be familiar! and also, there's some problems
• Ordinarily, most of the time, we experience a separation between our beliefs about the world, and the world "itself."
  • this phrasing sucks but w/e, point is, I want to talk about like, ok there's hyperstition, etc etc, there's various contexts where this distinction isn't so flat
• what about fake it till you make it? what about, juicing yourself up? when is it generative to be miscalibrated?
• how do we update on gnosis? fucking who knows
• re limitations of rationality, we don't have really an account of hyperstition? Like, we do talk about this, so this is like" dark arts ", but we don't really have a way of dealing with this, we're just like dark arts, I don't know, seems questionable?
• Limitations of rationality: ppl do talk about moral uncertainty, and to some extent they talk about normative ethics but they don't really talk about transformative practice re all of this, and they don't talk about introspection re moral investigation

[ Some people end up reifying this sense of rationality, to end up saying that the only perspective or mental quality worth entertaining or embodying is one that results in accurate predictions. This is indeed fraught as a perspective and not what I'm saying. What we want to say here is that in regimes where the territory is completely or almost completely causally disconnected from one's perceptions and experience [ maybe just want to say, "when the map is quite separate from the territory" ], it's very useful to track models in terms of being highly predictive]

[ and indeed I don't want to use the word "true" or even the word "rational" in an abusive sense. "Reality" and "science" are so often used to browbeat people, as one way of constructing and wielding power. ] [ the use of science as a way of seeing that's exclusive of all others--this is not what I mean, and this is not the way that I make use of epistemic rationality as a concept.] [ link to ways of seeing post once I get there] [ but also, any set of goals is going to construct a way of seeing, you don't get a view-from-nowhere[prolly link that post?]]

There's a separate problem, and this is a large part of the relevance of spiritual practice: in human minds, and perhaps in principle, there is a feedback loop between priors, perception, [ and what updates one makes.] Existing priors [ determine how we categorize and update on incoming data anyway ] [ bounded rationality, etc, it's too expensive to keep recomputing your ontology, it's too expensive ] [you use the existing phenomenal construction to make contact with the territory, and you end up with, at best, a catalog, so to speak, of observations of the interface of the existing representations (priors) and the territory. a lot of what spiritual practice is made to be about, is escaping feedback loops of specific perceptions, beliefs, affective structures, etc. ] [otoh ppl can overupdate in the direction of hyperstition, which is often harmful and to me pretty squicky. wrong practice, etc etc, the system wants to make good updates!]

• also here is like, what the heck is this reality thing? we don't actually directly encounter it, and what we think or perceive it to be is about what we already think and perceive it to be...