6/27/23
Regarding The Will as it Exists on Various Levels of Scale
Preventing The Will from Standing in Its Own Way
Doing as Means to What Thou Wilt
If the rule that you followed brought you here, of what use was the rule?
This question applies in a broad sense; the rule being what your core driving motivation is, but lately I’ve been applying it on a smaller scale. As above so below and all that. It’s a useful introspective tool. I use this to check myself. I find it a useful thing to remind myself of when I am trying to assess my behavioral patterns, especially with regards to aspects of myself I want to change.
We all follow rules to guide us to our end. In a literal sense: morals and guiding principals and things of that nature. Sure we may violate our own rules and morals but the decision to do that is itself calculated on some level by a different set of rules. Our actions stem from will which is guided by a number of factors, one of which being the rules we abide. Our ability to seemingly act not in accordance with our will stems from our actions on one level of scale not yielding the result on bigger levels of scale that we expected. If your model is inaccurate, then what you build based on that model will not behave as expected. Our rules are like the axioms of our model. They inform how we expect things to behave at scale, and that aspects of the project at large. As above so below.
It’s Like Rocket Science
Axioms <-> Formulae <-> Model <-> Blueprint
I’ve been making an effort to pay attention to where my models fall short. I hope to get different results at scale by changing up the axioms of my model. I think I appreciate the value of having a journal within chaos magic as a form of data analysis, and much like data analysis in other places it’s employed, its a super useful tool for improving results.
In the model metaphor, one level of scale larger, or in other words, that which arises out of the axioms are our formulae. If our axioms are inaccurate relative to the reality they model, then the formulae will be inaccurate as well. And thus the thing we are modeling will not behave as anticipated in the real world
This is a useful framework to use when thinking about how our actions seemingly don’t align with our will. For example, when there is some behavior that we think we should change, want to change, and are capable of changing, we still may fail when we endeavor to enact that change. Not because some external barrier prevented us, but from some internal failing. That which motivates you to act against your own goals is the same as what is driving you to that goal in the first place. It is the will getting in its own way. If you’re building a rocket ship and you build it exactly to spec and it fails to behave as intended, it is because it did not interact with the world accurate to how your model predicted. This could be because some axiom or fundamental aspect of your model is wrong. Something as small as the value of a single constant being off. Or the error could lie in the formulae based on those axioms, or it could be your model as a whole, or it could even be in the blueprints you create based on that model.
In this analogy, the aforementioned “rules” are small scale, the axioms of our model. And also exist a step above that as the formulae of our model, and above that is that which we create using this model, and a step above that is whatever motivated us to create this thing in the first place.
(You can keep going up and say that above that is the project the thing being created is for, and above that is whatever motivates the entity behind the project, etc, but I digress)
01001111 01100010 01101100 01101001 01100111 01100001 01110100 01101111 01110010 01111001 00100000 01000011 01101111 01101101 01110000 01110101 01110100 01100101 01110010 00100000 01000001 01101110 01100001 01101100 01101111 01100111 01111001
Hardware <-> Machine Language <-> Assembly Language <-> High Level Language
This is already getting long but I need to do this analogy because its computer themed, but I’ll be quick. If you’re building a computer program to do a specific thing, and it doesn’t work, the fault might be caused by the components or parts of the program not interacting the way they were intended. But, even if the pieces at that scale do fit together as intended, if the error lies in the code of those constituent parts, it won’t work.
(Like before you can keep zooming out forever. Above the program is the will of the project the program is for or that of the person using it, above that is whatever end they’re using that program as means to. It goes in the other direction as well. Below the lines of code comprising functions of the program are the rules governing how those lines of code are interpreted, below that another layer of interpretation by the computer, below that are the processes of the computer that govern that interpretation and below that are the components that facilitate those processes. As above so below applies forever. [Also I guess like, shifting frameworks is like shifting between programming languages? Different ones are better and worse for different things and being able to switch between them easily and having several in your arsenal as well as the ability to adopt new ones if so needed is a huge benefit!])
Do As Thou Wilt, Not as Thou Wants
I see the phrase “do as thou wilt” not as an invitation to do whatever you want, but as urging to endeavor to make one’s actions line up in accordance with their aims.
Imagine you are trying to fire a gun to hit a target. If you fail to hit the target you either missed, or the gun didn’t fire; either due to you failing to pull the trigger, or through malfunction of the gun, although the latter is
However, if you do fire, and you still failed to hit the target, you missed. Shooting with bad form or blindly from the hip is worse than firing with good form, and being able to use the sights further increases your chances, and using a different optic to aim can further help. Even if you don’t aim with the sights and fire from the hip you’re still basing where you fire off something, even if just by looking at the target. Optics are the frameworks which can help us aim our actions, the bullets, which help us achieve our goal, hitting the target.
Even if your crosshair is lined up properly you still may miss. The lines of the crosshair are your axioms, and if they are off then the actions taken utilizing them will also be off. There’s an acceptable margin of error within that, however, and if you’re close enough to the target it may matter less how accurate your scope (your model) is. However, at larger distances the effects of this inaccuracy are magnified. Also, it may not be possible to have a framework that’s accurate at all scales, just like can’t have an optic that’s zeroed to work at any distance. This is why it’s important to consider metaphorical distance when planning actions, much like you zero a scope for your intended distance before firing.
Frameworks are like optics. They are how we aim the bullets that are our actions. How we facilitate those actions also matters much like how we fire the gun matters. Habits and behavioral patterns are like good shooting practices and good form. Knowledge and practice make us better because they improve this aspect. How we fire and how we aim are equally important when it comes to hitting our target.
Changes in one’s optics cause changes in the aspect of aim. One way to improve aim is to use an optic well suited to one’s situation. Some optics are quick and easy to use; some are useful for their versatility, being useful in a variety of situations; some are specialized and are very good for a more specific set of cases. For this reason, its useful to have a wide variety of optics at one’s disposal, as well as the ability to easily switch them out. And yea, same deal with frameworks.
Finally, even if all these internal factors are considered, external factors may still prevent you from hitting your mark. Wind or other outside factors may make you miss. If the target is moving or if something impedes vision it will be harder to aim. Bulletproof glass doesn’t obstruct vision but may physically prevent you from hitting it.
I guess my thesis here is that “do as thou wilt” should be applied at every level. Sure shoot what you want to shoot, but if you want to maximize your chances of hitting it, you should optimize the internal factors you can control. By firing with good form and aiming true one, one can’t guarantee that they’ll hit the target with 100% certainty, but they ensure that the they themself will not be the cause of failure.
But much like how weapon instruction is just one aspect of a soldier’s training, this isn’t the whole picture. The domain of external factors as impediments is akin to tactics, and the battles one choses to engage in and strategy at that level are one’s bigger picture goals.
Still though. Strategy and tactics are important, but if you wanna win a war you gotta win some battles, and if you want to win some battles you probably want your soldiers to be able to shoot straight.
Comments
Post a Comment