michael-dean-k/

Something about hyper-logging (capturing your mind in prose) feels desacralized when I see it as the grown-up development/extension of my AIM bio, or my original Facebook bio (which had a whole series of categories, like favorite movies, books, etc.). Why keep an extremely detailed and public log of my self and thoughts? I guess I see it like a change log of my evolving identity. That was sort of Montaigne's whole thing (perpetually in transit). I imagine the norm is to burrow into your shell of self for as long as possible, to avoid the confusion of drift, but I try to harbor a non-static self. I feel a cringe in sharing this self-congratulations. There's the tension.

I think I'm doing an irregular thing by obsessively documenting thoughts, and from my own perspective it does feel like I'm continuously evolving, but an outer perspective might see this as nothing more than a frivolous blog. It's likely that my whole arc is illegible. Some degree of it comes to surface, like my ever-shifting "career," but most of how any of us feel, think, and change is illegible to each other, except in extreme rare cases of friendship, and so the more idiosyncratic your path, the less anyone can understand you.

I suppose my logs could function as a private journal, but it would lose an important quality. While, there are some consequences of writing in public (a subtle self-censorship), there's something more important you gain: the stakes of knowing that your work could be read in the future, if not by a friend or stranger, then at least a future version of yourself. Whoever it is, if they care to spend the time to read, they would understand you more than probably anyone in your life. That slight pressure snaps me into a mode where I try to be coherent, articulate, and sometimes expressive. When I look back at my old chicken scratch journals, I almost always skim and skip and hate it. But when there's a slight care in crafting the language of my thoughts, it becomes something that outlives the moment.

And so if public writing comes with self-censorship, and private writing comes with a lack of stakes, then the way to go is semi-public publishing. It gives you both freedom and stakes. You won't grow your audience this way, but I think you will forge a sense of self and voice that you can bring with you when you try to build an audience, but that's really secondary. It's the self and voice that matters.

I've always thought 'writing shows you what you think and editing helps you change your mind'—and maybe that’s a decent heuristic—but it’s more complicated than that. I think it’s possible for writing to do the opposite of what we hope, to lead to self-deception. A few thoughts on how:

1. Premature convergence: When you start drafting, you unlock a new stream of thoughts, but once you find a new center of gravity (a potential thesis), it’s common for all further thoughts to reinforce the thing you happened to stumble on, regardless of its substance. Beyond a point, writing can ossify & lock you into a frame.

2. Aesthetic attachment: Once you’re trying to make a ‘good’ essay around your thesis, it’s easy to become enamored by phrases, sentences, images, and sources. Expression (vibes/voice) is an entirely different thing than thinking. You can dress up a static/wrong thought to be beautiful/persuasive.

3. The sunk cost fallacy: after you spend hours on an essay and share it, it’s likely that you’ll continue to believe it. If you’re wrong, you’ll have ‘wasted’ that time. If you change your mind, your readers will have an outdated model of you (OFC, views evolve over time, but I wonder if publishing leads to short-term friction in your evolution).

One possible way around this is to, as soon as you think you found your thesis, to rigorously consider and explore the antithesis (not as a rhetorical strawman, but to really, earnestly, consider the opposite). It means a given draft will be scatter-brained and contradictory, but it’s how you find a synthesis, a more refined thesis. And once you find that, you start over, and repeat, until you end up somewhere that is far more nuanced, interesting, and weird than where you started.

The thing I’m grasping at is that thinking & expression are often at odds, and before you commit to an idea worth expressing, you need to go through rounds of unglamorous self-interrogation. There is probably a mode where thinking _is_expression, but the risk is not wanting to shed something that is elegantly said. One way through this it to get meta and explicitly express your doubt and your evolving POV; I think this is what separates essays from articles and propaganda, and it stops you from brainwashing yourself.

The book Four Thousand Weeks references the average lifespan (76.71 years). This is also 27,999.15 days, which almost exactly lines up with the 1,000 day cycle. A life is 28,000 days. I’m currently starting my 13k cycle. This means by 14k, early 2028, I will be statistically midlife. It is a potentially grueling realization, but something about the 1k cycle makes it seem like NBD. 1,000 days is a long time, especially if you are chase epic things. It is effectively a whole life, a distinct identity. Of course, there is part of you that persists through each molting cycle, but it helps to see each as a rebirth. To think I have 15 more molts ahead of me is to realize I have 15 lives left, more than I know what to do with.

The adult mind will frequently run into psychological dead-ends, points where no more evolution is possible within an existing frame, and so growth requires you to descend into chaos, to regress down the stack, in search of new directions forward, in hope of carrying some insights from old frames with you.

I don’t know if “growth” is the right word here, and “evolution” feels off to me, but it’s something like the advancement in harmony or complexity in your sense of identity, purpose, and responsibility. The moment that freezes, it’s as if you’re cut off from the core point of the human experience.

Whether you should take psychedelics, I think, is a matter if you can reliably dissolve frames on your own. If not, maybe you don’t quite need them; I imagine there is wonder, mystery, and value in the aesthetic phantasmagoria, and all sorts of things to learn from terrible trips of demons and such, but the main point might be the new directions they point you in.

Whether you descend abruptly or gently, assisted or natural, there is a natural fear of psychological death, and so to “descend into chaos” requires a trust that you’ll figure out how and where to swim.

It would be cliche and misleading to say today's park walk was "ego death," but surely it felt like a "pause" or a "lapse." It felt like a lucid dream, in that there was a remembered peace in irreality. Irreality, in this sense, I’d describe as a disassociation from the egoic frameworks that have had a strong hold over my walking life in recent weeks; instead, I felt an immersion in nature that felt mysterious. Like an animal, today, tomorrow, yesterday were fuzzy; all social and chronological constructions were, temporarily, erased. By saying it was “mysterious,” I think I mean that I felt the emotional power of a particular moment in a way that escaped classification, and so it has this effect of being suspended in outside the normal stream of the cradle-to-grave arc.

Focus less on solving actual problems, and more on the emotions that cause the problems to occur and reoccur. When something is not working, it’s rarely because we don’t have the ability or the right system to fix it, but it’s because unconscious feelings cause us to avoid, justify, and ignore things.

The mind moves in planes of thought, and these 2D planes exist at every rotation, and so your mind is like this 3D object that is shaped by the planes you’ve occupied. We learn to shift to specific planes to match a context, for better or work. When we read, or talk, or hang, we get exposed to new planes that we reject or integrate. It’s not enough to see a plane once; it will escape you if it’s not reinforced, and once it’s rigid, it’s hard to dismantle. The architecture of your mind is the meta-game: get this right, and you control your lens to reality, and it affects every area of life.

I hate the word “mental models” though. Idk why, it feels too commodified, too utilitarian, for the purposes of getting ahead in business. It’s weirder than that. There are planes of good and evil, of saintliness and horniness, of man and machine. To actually surf between planes, you need to let lose all assumptions and put yourself in waters that might drive others insane, with the trust that you can pull out and shift. This is shamanism, alchemy, psychic martial arts, I think.

You want plane plasticity. There are many methods—could be drugs, or grieving, or years of meditation—but you want to be method-agnostic. Tools show you new regions and principles, but you want to be able to get there on your own, to be able to do some secret hand signal to yourself that can activate a very specific plane.

A few months ago I sketched out a model of consciousness, and I think there are scales of free will that map to it. The model included:

• T1) an agent’s real-time perception of an arena (at ### frames per second);
• T2) their phenomenological degrees of freedom (their different options of cognition in any scenario, whether it be abstraction, projection, remembering, solving, ignoring, acting, etc.), and then;
• T3) a feedback loop, where their decision is logged to memory, affecting how they'll engage with the arena in the future.

"Degrees of freedom" (T2) is about your free will in any given moment. Can you control how you react to situations? This is the most basic level, the thing any human can prove to have. Then, the "feedback loop" (T3) is about understanding your feedback loop over longer time horizons, designing your psychological scripts so that you have more affordances in the future. This is much harder. This taps into transcendentalism, cybernetics, self-development, all revolving around being able to control your own evolution. Then the hardest level of free well is being able to manipulate your arena (T1) according to your preferences. This is less about using force to get what you want, but more so bending the world towards your intentions. This reminds me of Dune 2, or the Rick and Morty episode, where someone has mystical foresight to say and do the exact things to unlock the world around them. This last mode is ethically ambiguous, because the question arises of what manipulation is; does your gain have to be at the peril of others, or can there be win-win outcomes?

What's interesting is how every tier comes back to free will, and so maybe the simplest answer of the fuzziest phenomenological concept (consciousness) is the fuzzy philosophical concept (free will). Consciousness is freedom. I don't think this is an original claim, but it certainly isn't a common one.

As you move from T2>T3>T1, you upshift a dimension. T2 is about free will within a particular moment; T3 is about free will across time; T1 is about leveraging free will into a shared space.

My core value is contradiction, for there’s no other trait that leads to freer-thinking. If you are so stable in your beliefs, you run on auto-pilot. But if you are a Christian atheist, a Luddite technologist, a scrappy perfectionist, or any other kind of walking-paradox, a legless man, then you really have some explaining to do. In resolving the conditions between the two true but opposite things you harbor in one body, you think to make sense, and write to speak truth. This is where you find the work that matters. 

Why am I so inspired by the reckless and irresponsible Neal Cassady? It will take me years to find that out, if ever, but in that pursuit I invent some value system that is uniquely my own. This sort of embrace is, by the way, brand suicide. Your consumers are slow to update their mental model of you, and in the high-speed pizza counters of the Internet there is only small talk and one identity per person. To write for a niche, to stay on brand, to hit the same message, to do the things required for you to dominate the soul-gutting mediasphere is to mistake banal desperation for your alien soul. Do not trade oneiromancy for efficiency. Do not have one mind across all essays, let alone in one essay.

If something is out of your control, all you can do is change how you react. But if it’s in your control, you can change how you act. Sounds simple, but I wonder how much distress comes from not applying this simple rule (a conditional heuristic). It’s common to (a) accept your initial reaction without realizing you can change it, (b) get worked up over things you can’t change, (c) justify a reaction to avoid taking action, because of fear, and (d) take delusional action towards something that is entirely unrealistic. This saying solves all four.

Another way to think about it: people don’t act on this because of mislabeling, avoidance, or incompetence. They either can’t measure their agency (they mislabel if they can control it ), don’t want to accept the conclusion (they want to avoid helplessness or meaninglessness), or don’t know the techniques of habit change or mindset change.

How to explain awe? How can I even know the emotional peaks and ebbs that anyone else experiences, other than relative to my own?

I first had and heard about Maslow’s peak experiences when I was in my freshman year of college. The first time is a shock, but an “actualized” person then rounds this out into their default mode of consciousness. This means they don’t even notice it. Is awe a deviation from the baseline, or an absolute state? Is an idiot's accidental fall into a minute of enlightenment more awe-some than the monk who always lives there?

Maybe there is wisdom in calmness. Or maybe that's boring. Maybe stability and indifference is a kind of aloofness, a blindness to the edges of experience.

This all ties into the question of being unable to know if I’m an emotional person or not. I could either be the least or most emotional person ever. I think being expressive (emotive) and being emotional are entirely different things. Maybe the thing that’s normal to me is extraordinary to another; if they saw the way I see they’d weep from the aeshetic/emotional engine I’ve crafted over the years of my life. And maybe the inverse. Maybe I have the shell that needs to be cracked. Or maybe any shift from one head to another—if head shifting were a literal thing—would produce awe just from the state change, with no real sense of hierarchy on "better" states of consciousness.