Another way to think of it, is that the instrumentalists write only for the accidental "concrete internet residue" of writing (i.e. engagement, influence, money, prizes). Put differently, if all that residue were to disappear, so would the instrumentalists. They do not _care_ about writing. They do not care about writing, because they do not care about themselves (let alone others).
The metamorphists (apologies for the clumsy neologism) write for the same reason that some people meditate in solitude. The meditation is a way to transform your state of mind (if I understand correctly, I myself do not meditate).
The instrumentalists and metamorphists think they are pursuing the same thing -- progress and forward motion -- but they have each internalized different _symbols_ of progress (the instrumentalists prefer shallow universal symbols like dollars, followers, likes, etc, while the metamorphists prefer profound particular symbols like resonance, reflection, insightfulness, novel experience, etc).
The instrumentalists are trying to take something from the class of people that is looking for answers and possibly solutions, while the metamorphists are trying to give something.
A similar tension exists between open source software (or at least genuine open source software common in the 90s and 00s), and proprietary software -- the former exists to solve problems, while the latter exists to solve a problem, but only to the extent that it allows capture of the economic surplus generated by that solution. This is part of why commercializing open source _usually_ ends in failure (either the business must fail, or the open source community must be betrayed).
Who believes that a sage can be a merchant, or a merchant a sage?
NOTE: by universal I mean immediately accessible to most people, and by particular I mean that up-front work and preparation has to be done to access the meaning (i.e. plain english vs mathematics). Reflection in particular is not instantaneous, and it takes time for the reflection to yield insight.
as of 11:11pm this is sitting with 34 likes but no comments, a new record for anti-engagement? Leaders and icons don’t have time for this one, and strivers are too seen by it to admit reading it if they had enough masochism to get through. As an aspiring (striving?) seeker I’ll fess up - nailed it. Really kind piece to write. I don’t normally think of “metamorphism” as an entity seeking to replicate itself, but the effort that went into this is as close as it gets.
Another way to think of it, is that the instrumentalists write only for the accidental "concrete internet residue" of writing (i.e. engagement, influence, money, prizes). Put differently, if all that residue were to disappear, so would the instrumentalists. They do not _care_ about writing. They do not care about writing, because they do not care about themselves (let alone others).
The metamorphists (apologies for the clumsy neologism) write for the same reason that some people meditate in solitude. The meditation is a way to transform your state of mind (if I understand correctly, I myself do not meditate).
The instrumentalists and metamorphists think they are pursuing the same thing -- progress and forward motion -- but they have each internalized different _symbols_ of progress (the instrumentalists prefer shallow universal symbols like dollars, followers, likes, etc, while the metamorphists prefer profound particular symbols like resonance, reflection, insightfulness, novel experience, etc).
The instrumentalists are trying to take something from the class of people that is looking for answers and possibly solutions, while the metamorphists are trying to give something.
A similar tension exists between open source software (or at least genuine open source software common in the 90s and 00s), and proprietary software -- the former exists to solve problems, while the latter exists to solve a problem, but only to the extent that it allows capture of the economic surplus generated by that solution. This is part of why commercializing open source _usually_ ends in failure (either the business must fail, or the open source community must be betrayed).
Who believes that a sage can be a merchant, or a merchant a sage?
NOTE: by universal I mean immediately accessible to most people, and by particular I mean that up-front work and preparation has to be done to access the meaning (i.e. plain english vs mathematics). Reflection in particular is not instantaneous, and it takes time for the reflection to yield insight.
as of 11:11pm this is sitting with 34 likes but no comments, a new record for anti-engagement? Leaders and icons don’t have time for this one, and strivers are too seen by it to admit reading it if they had enough masochism to get through. As an aspiring (striving?) seeker I’ll fess up - nailed it. Really kind piece to write. I don’t normally think of “metamorphism” as an entity seeking to replicate itself, but the effort that went into this is as close as it gets.
There’s some minor notes quote restack action. But yeah not expecting a lot of discussion on this one. Played it pretty straight.