Comment by gsf_emergency_6
1 month ago
In response to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidary_obligations
>Contractual solidary obligations are frequently created by insurance policies
(take on solidarity v love-- later..)
>The origin of solidarity can be traced to a Roman idea known as correality where a single thing was owed by more than one person [but only one person need ever be accountable for it]
In games where any given strategy is potentially exploitable, I guess the meta is (a) rapidly decide if you're playing against a fish, or if you are the fish; then (b) if against a fish, exploit their strat, or (c) if you are the fish, run a mixed strat, to at least avoid yours being exploitable.
Bottom box as primordial "third person" would go along with egolessness in various traditions (including 李小龙's "be water, my friend")? EDIT: https://ctext.org/dao-de-jing#n11598 ?
Note that solidarity from roman law was directly taken up by civil codes, but HN's home country is a common law jurisdiction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems...
("joint and several liability" seems to cover passive, but not active, solidarity?)
https://www.thenandnow.co/2023/06/24/adorno-and-horkheimer-d...
Not like water? Or just like water?
https://archive.ph/2025.12.29-103422/https://baike.baidu.com...
Could be explained by a dichotomy* between "intuition" and "deliberation" 刻意(尚行)? A sorta Buxton mechanism.. (intentionally avoiding "saddles" "minima" or whatnot :)
The former "turns enlightenment into myth" (cf again Horkheimer+Adorno)
*Gemini tells me that the best approx to "creative disruption" is [eu]kainotomia
老子, despite being generally contra, had the option of deliberation; intuition* ("having the proper action in cache") was the only timescale available to Lee.
* is it intuition, or is it following a geodesic on (your foliation of) the Lagrangian?
1 reply →
(If we replace fish by "unicellular organism", it might be easier to get to "what kind of (meta)game gets them to multicellularity"?)
Note that narcissism is what PH/Kohut is trying to breakup here. I struggle to put egolessness at its foundation, because that smells too much like nihilism. seem s increasingly less healthy to scale nihilistic therapy to a handful, 37 (~Dunbar), 1000s (POUM outer party?)
Why not an alternative life-force that could legitimise the "ri" in shu-ha-ri, "acting-out", "disruption" (so take it both personal and ... solidarital (-activism)?)
[Creative] disruption is after all the unspoken (meta?)ideology on HN*
Fully hypothetically, we shall then consider the behaviour of "(self-)therapists" in that scenario- "weaponized curiosity" bootstrapping into a full alarm ---as "we" model the minds running a "Bildungs"-institution (PH), the spiessig (aeb), HN mods (yours truly) :)
(I'd like to take it here to "self jokes or -tickling", but "too many knobs spoil the chat".. EDIT to circle back to civil vs common systems wrt fueling creative disruption soon enough)
*Seems like a step up from "Schumpeterian" "creative destruction"/will-to-power tbh
(fish in the poker sense, if that wasn't clear)
Right, I just think Kohut's third box (we are talking about the bottom one, right?) may be just as profitably looked at through the "egolessness" prism as through the "integrated" prism.
Looking through the shu-ha-ri prism, I could see the top two boxes as being symptomatic of the "ha" stage: breaking the rules with grandiose intentions usually leads to worthless results? In this model, there are two paths out: a retreat from frustration, back into "shu", or a tunnelling through frustration, onwards into "ri"?
(to what degree might tunnelling relate to LLM "double descent"?)
Speaking of "weaponized curiosity", I once ran across a recommendation for determining which puppies to bother attempting to train as hunting dogs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41488445
7 replies →
now that I've skimmed a bit of Kohut (and struggled with the Freudian terminology), it's probably worth pointing out that I was using "egolessness" in the ordinary sense above, not in Freud's tripartite technical sense.
1 reply →