I think it might not be a bad idea to try to finish part 4 as a single dense blob, and hope to write out the software and other case studies later. This is both more finishable and fixes the concern that you might seem to be writing a book on software architecture when your goal is far broader than that. Such a book will be challenging to understand, but I donโt see that as a strict barrier; people have to work to understand new things and itโs especially doable when the author is always posting video chats about his ideas.
I've been reading your work for a while David, and it has contributed enormously to the way I see the world - I'd say it's been a formative experience for me. All of your work is fantastic, and I think your work with Meaningness is incredibly important. But I think of all the things you've written, an explication of metarationality is perhaps the most important, precisely because you are basically doing the first real work on a topic that is so slippery yet so vitally important.
Something that helps me figure out what's in scope or out of scope for a piece of writing is to pretend that I'm writing it for a past version of myself. That is very grounding because I know what my past version did or didn't know at the time. And there are likely other people in the world right now that are in a similar state as my past version. This helps protect me against the combinatorial explosion of wanting to be "complete".
I think part of my problem is that I am old, which means I know too much random stuff that's semi-connected; and also that I can't remember what it was like not to know all that stuff.
Or to add - the reason most of my projects end up being unfinished is that they seem to overwhelming precisely because of that combinatorial explosion.
So if you're attempting to write something that no one has written before I'm not sure why you think your initial attempts will be a neat and simple affair. You might be putting too much pressure on yourself to deliver a polished product for what is exploratory work. I think it's easy to get this expectation because you understand the earlier parts more so you might expect the latter parts to require the same level of effort or you want to deliver a similar level of polish and those parts might simply be a lot more difficult.
That said I enjoy whatever you write and encourage you to go follow your instincts
Write a shorter version of Part Four that is as understandable as a shorter version can be. There will always be more to say, but that can go in subsequent books. Every topic in the universe is connected to every other topic, which can cause any book of finite length to be nihilized as inadequate. Use ontological remodeling to declare a book-length piece to count as a finished book, then write follow-up books later.
> Alternatively, if the short version was mostly concrete examples, I doubt readers could extrapolate from them to the more general lessons that could be applied in their own work. It would just be a collection of interesting anecdotes.
Try us! You could call it a taster, distillation, case study folder or something else, doesn't need to be the be-all-and-end-all, but lead with it, and I bet people will extrapolate more than you think
I would love to see the meta-rationality book finished. Regarding length, have you ever considered working with an actual editor? Judging from the acknowledgements sections of most books I read, they seem to be very helpful.
I think it might not be a bad idea to try to finish part 4 as a single dense blob, and hope to write out the software and other case studies later. This is both more finishable and fixes the concern that you might seem to be writing a book on software architecture when your goal is far broader than that. Such a book will be challenging to understand, but I donโt see that as a strict barrier; people have to work to understand new things and itโs especially doable when the author is always posting video chats about his ideas.
I've been reading your work for a while David, and it has contributed enormously to the way I see the world - I'd say it's been a formative experience for me. All of your work is fantastic, and I think your work with Meaningness is incredibly important. But I think of all the things you've written, an explication of metarationality is perhaps the most important, precisely because you are basically doing the first real work on a topic that is so slippery yet so vitally important.
Thank you! This is helpful feedback! (Also, thank you for the appreciation; I'm glad you like the other stuff too.)
I feel 100% the same
Something that helps me figure out what's in scope or out of scope for a piece of writing is to pretend that I'm writing it for a past version of myself. That is very grounding because I know what my past version did or didn't know at the time. And there are likely other people in the world right now that are in a similar state as my past version. This helps protect me against the combinatorial explosion of wanting to be "complete".
Thanks!
I think part of my problem is that I am old, which means I know too much random stuff that's semi-connected; and also that I can't remember what it was like not to know all that stuff.
Interesting! Maybe that means you need to do some Q&A sessions with some young people that don't know all that stuff.
Coming up in two weeks! Here's a chance: https://meaningness.substack.com/i/149606831/substack-live-video-ama
Oh I didn't realize that you're also okay with folks asking questions about meta-rationality during the Vajrayana Q&A!
Different one! The Substack Q&A is for any and all questions, whereas the evolving ground one is just Vajrayana (I guess)
Or to add - the reason most of my projects end up being unfinished is that they seem to overwhelming precisely because of that combinatorial explosion.
So if you're attempting to write something that no one has written before I'm not sure why you think your initial attempts will be a neat and simple affair. You might be putting too much pressure on yourself to deliver a polished product for what is exploratory work. I think it's easy to get this expectation because you understand the earlier parts more so you might expect the latter parts to require the same level of effort or you want to deliver a similar level of polish and those parts might simply be a lot more difficult.
That said I enjoy whatever you write and encourage you to go follow your instincts
Write a shorter version of Part Four that is as understandable as a shorter version can be. There will always be more to say, but that can go in subsequent books. Every topic in the universe is connected to every other topic, which can cause any book of finite length to be nihilized as inadequate. Use ontological remodeling to declare a book-length piece to count as a finished book, then write follow-up books later.
> Alternatively, if the short version was mostly concrete examples, I doubt readers could extrapolate from them to the more general lessons that could be applied in their own work. It would just be a collection of interesting anecdotes.
Try us! You could call it a taster, distillation, case study folder or something else, doesn't need to be the be-all-and-end-all, but lead with it, and I bet people will extrapolate more than you think
I would love to see the meta-rationality book finished. Regarding length, have you ever considered working with an actual editor? Judging from the acknowledgements sections of most books I read, they seem to be very helpful.