… those ones that mother gives you that don’t do anything at all!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23475069
It seems that "third-person first" encapsulates the ALARM theory perfectly..
(Shannon's game "antibootstraps": if the machine loses twice in a row, it acts to prevent the human from learning its own strat. The "insurance[1]-dual" ? :)
In https://mastodon.social/@UP8/113189883152005058
The bottom box is labelled "emptiness, void, etc". its archaic nature would suggest it's that primordial "third person"?
[1] as usual, a shorthand for Morelly's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...
Which also points 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]
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?)
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
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
In standard tunnelling, one starts with a normal oscillation, goes to evanescence in the "tunnelling" regime, and then continues with oscillation again once on the low side of the potential; in double descent the test error goes way up (like the potential earlier) in the "tunnelling" regime, and then on the far side comes back down and then continues descending.
Have I explicated my model?
So test-error is sampling a (thermodynamic) potential?
None of "confinement", "energy", or "level" work in my take on "ELI5"; that is why :)
(when I have more time should I try an eight part 文 in words like this?)
Will merge these streams into a more recent stub--
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
* is it intuition, or is it following a geodesic on (your foliation of) the Lagrangian?
https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E4%B8%89%E5%85%94%E5%9B%BE/107...
I'm still trying to internalize+merge the other sense of Lagrangian (as in "L submanifold")
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45955649
(By way of an "explanation" of the "3 boxes")
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_hares
>There are two possible and perhaps concurrent reasons why the three hares may have found popularity as a symbol within the church. Firstly, it was believed that the hare was hermaphrodite and could reproduce without loss of virginity.[26] This led to an association with the Virgin Mary, with hares sometimes occurring in illuminated manuscripts and Northern European paintings of the Virgin and Christ Child.