Kahlil, how do you distinguish between “spirits”? How do you differentiate between serving the muse and serving God when it comes to creating something of value for others?
Kent, here's how I think about this. Our ability to do creative work, and all work, is a gift. Like all good things, it can become an idol. It is idolatrous when it leads to sin. I've written something on this :) https://kahlilcorazo.gumroad.com/l/work
Great post! I agree that this is an upgrade, especially for those of us with the epistemology of truth that sometimes are confused when dealing with people in the other corners. Although everyone probably has the capacity for all three modes, one is often more prominent. Is it a virtue to be able to switch modes easily?
Makes sense! That virtue would be under Temperantia in the 4 Cardinal Virtues model. I'm curious how much of your default epistemology is nature vs nurture. Chapter 2 of Brian Klaas's Corruptible compiles and distills some studies in area. I'm planning to cross that over with the history of the 3 epistemologies in Part I of Triangulations.
I look forward to reading more. I try to maintain a balance between nature/nurture or mind/body models. I tend to think the pendulum has swung a little too far in the direction of "mind" (i.e., people believe they have an individualized soul/identity that they want to then force on their body with extreme measures). Although perhaps people also underestimate the extent to which their identity is based on "nurture" (i.e., they think their identity comes from inside when it is, in fact, largely mimetic). One way I view my own body and soul are two aspects of a repository of wisdom from my ancestors. To "be" is to experience an active model of the world. To tinker with that model is a sacred responsibility but must be done with care.
I will be following you more closely moving forward and would like to get more of your thoughts about the sacred. Viewing the sacred as a means to create/participate in an egregore is useful. The group mind is critical for overcoming coordination problems that allow civilization to advance (e.g., the body of christ and other language implies that the spirit of God is an egregore).
However, as Girard teaches us it can also be a violent mob/satan. I like the view that King/power epistemology is largely about individuals trying to manipulate the egregore. One of the main coordination problems for humans is to kill unrighteous kings, so kings are rightfull afraid of group minds (even if they are also the basis for controlling the population).
It is becoming widely understood that new infotech is creating new egregores that will ultimately be very dangerous for existing power structures. Dangerous times.
Definitely. Just as literacy created new powerful egregores (eg, Nationalism cf Benedict Anderson), the internet will surely create new ones. The EA vs e/acc egregore fight is just the beginning. Nick Land's superintelligence from the future creating itself through capitalism and tech is an interesting view on this.
I'm really curious about the king x egregore collaboration. The power players who rose to the pinnacles of 20th century nations were instrumental in the growth of these egregores, and they were rewarded with untold money and power for their roles. Girard will help us not turn a blind eye to the sacrificial scapegoats that built their bloody pyramids.
Post-Christ, there must be good kings. If egregores are collective mental representations of entities less real than humans, then the "spirit of God" might be a representation of a person more real than humans. Yet, Christians believe in the real presence of Christ among us. So perhaps this spirit is more than just a representation.
Kahlil, how do you distinguish between “spirits”? How do you differentiate between serving the muse and serving God when it comes to creating something of value for others?
Kent, here's how I think about this. Our ability to do creative work, and all work, is a gift. Like all good things, it can become an idol. It is idolatrous when it leads to sin. I've written something on this :) https://kahlilcorazo.gumroad.com/l/work
Excellent!
I like your diagram so much I borrowed it to make some additional comparisons: https://open.substack.com/pub/barbarosa/p/more-triangulation?r=f8i9q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I love the connections between corners
Great post! I agree that this is an upgrade, especially for those of us with the epistemology of truth that sometimes are confused when dealing with people in the other corners. Although everyone probably has the capacity for all three modes, one is often more prominent. Is it a virtue to be able to switch modes easily?
Makes sense! That virtue would be under Temperantia in the 4 Cardinal Virtues model. I'm curious how much of your default epistemology is nature vs nurture. Chapter 2 of Brian Klaas's Corruptible compiles and distills some studies in area. I'm planning to cross that over with the history of the 3 epistemologies in Part I of Triangulations.
I look forward to reading more. I try to maintain a balance between nature/nurture or mind/body models. I tend to think the pendulum has swung a little too far in the direction of "mind" (i.e., people believe they have an individualized soul/identity that they want to then force on their body with extreme measures). Although perhaps people also underestimate the extent to which their identity is based on "nurture" (i.e., they think their identity comes from inside when it is, in fact, largely mimetic). One way I view my own body and soul are two aspects of a repository of wisdom from my ancestors. To "be" is to experience an active model of the world. To tinker with that model is a sacred responsibility but must be done with care.
I will be following you more closely moving forward and would like to get more of your thoughts about the sacred. Viewing the sacred as a means to create/participate in an egregore is useful. The group mind is critical for overcoming coordination problems that allow civilization to advance (e.g., the body of christ and other language implies that the spirit of God is an egregore).
However, as Girard teaches us it can also be a violent mob/satan. I like the view that King/power epistemology is largely about individuals trying to manipulate the egregore. One of the main coordination problems for humans is to kill unrighteous kings, so kings are rightfull afraid of group minds (even if they are also the basis for controlling the population).
It is becoming widely understood that new infotech is creating new egregores that will ultimately be very dangerous for existing power structures. Dangerous times.
Definitely. Just as literacy created new powerful egregores (eg, Nationalism cf Benedict Anderson), the internet will surely create new ones. The EA vs e/acc egregore fight is just the beginning. Nick Land's superintelligence from the future creating itself through capitalism and tech is an interesting view on this.
I'm really curious about the king x egregore collaboration. The power players who rose to the pinnacles of 20th century nations were instrumental in the growth of these egregores, and they were rewarded with untold money and power for their roles. Girard will help us not turn a blind eye to the sacrificial scapegoats that built their bloody pyramids.
Post-Christ, there must be good kings. If egregores are collective mental representations of entities less real than humans, then the "spirit of God" might be a representation of a person more real than humans. Yet, Christians believe in the real presence of Christ among us. So perhaps this spirit is more than just a representation.