Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I am nothing

paulbuchheit.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 134 posts

Re: I am nothing

#81

Post by seri »

gbog wrote: post #77
seri wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And IMO isn't nearly as good as the earlier one. "I Am Nothing" has a self-help tone that puts me off, and the number of sentences per substance is too low for my liking. Paul Graham did end up with a similar conclusion, but on the process of leading to it, he kept exploring possibilities. What social behaviors could be objectively explained by the excess of identity? Although he did end up telling his readers what t…

> But it all comes down to a matter of taste Sorry, but here you just klll in the egg your interesting point above. If you think pg's article is better than pb's, why hide your opinion, which I happen to share, behind this pudic relativist curtain? It's like doing a solid dissertation on why Python is more x and x and x than, say, Java, and then, in the conclusion, retract every statement behind a shy "matter of tast…

You caught me. In the past, I used to express my opinions, which are often strong and controversial, aggressively, but over time, I learnt that it's in my interest to make a consolation point toward people with opposite opinions in public places. "So this is my opinion and that is yours. We differ a bit but we are still friends, right?" I don't do that in my own writings, however.

Re: I am nothing

#82

Post by dhs »

dkurth wrote: post #16

On the one hand, he says, "if we aren't changing for the better, then we are just slowly decaying," suggesting that there is such a thing as "better." On the other hand, he talks about "returning to zero expectations" and being "nothing." I conclude that Paul wants to be a better nothing. Or possibly that he is slowly decaying. I'm not sure you can be nothing and also have a standard for getting better.

I adopted the metaphor which works for me here from Ken Wilber, though I'm sure that the idea appears in the works of other writers, and much earlier: hierarchies of growth vs hierarchies of domination. The former (your "one hand") are nested hierarchies (inclusive); the latter (your "other hand") are conventional hierarchies (exclusive). The way I understand this is that "I am nothing" puts the "I" - whatever it is - at a leaf node if the reference is an exclusive hierarchy (a "hierarchy of domination"), whereas if the reference is an inclusive hierarchy (a "hierarchy of growth"), "I am nothing" appears at the root node.

Edit: typos.

Re: I am nothing

#83

Post by dan-k »

These lines of thinking that involve rejecting an entire set of propositions about something always end up devolving into something like Russell's paradox if you take them to their natural conclusion. In this case, being in a state of true nothingness would preclude the possibility of considering nothingness an ideal state to be in, as that is in itself an individuating characteristic. It's the same problem that arises with pure moral relativism, which is itself an absolute moral position.

I'd be willing to bet that human nature is as complicated as the system of natural numbers; perhaps we keep butting our heads into walls like this because we're trying to find answers that would violate Godel's incompleteness theorems...

Re: I am nothing

#84

Post by davidhollander »

Neodudeman wrote: post #72
davidhollander wrote: post #61

Premise: we are what we think about. Being nothing requires one to think about nothing. It's actually quite a lot of work to think about nothing! The brain is constantly solving problems while awake and while asleep, building up momentum. Proposal: Instead of expending massive amounts of energy bringing an object of such high inertia to rest, why not just change the inputs you are feeding it to gradually alter its di…

Being nothing is not the goal here. By being nothing, with no thoughts or motion, we would be dead! The point here is Understanding that we are nothing, to make it easier to let go of the material world, or to let go of any pains that befall us. In this way we have calmness, and gain wisdom. As for your analogy, that our thoughts and selves are an object in motion, which we must curb to reach a desirable point in spa…

>As for your analogy, that our thoughts and selves are an object in motion, which we must curb to reach a desirable point in space: the reality is, there is no object.

Ah, how convenient, a single objective reality where nonexistence is possible :)

To more precisely define my analogy and convey my understanding: current thought is a recurrence relation with previous thoughts. Inertia is the strength of the recurrence relation, the degree by which previous thoughts determine present thought. This is measurable as neural adaptation and learning. Ego or self is an observed distribution of thoughts occurring during a certain duration. As with statistical distributions, we tend to construct parameter estimators to make sense of the data[1].

Now, as with statistics, whether these generated parameters contain information and are useful in describing the distribution is up for debate and dependent on the question the investigator seeks to answer. But simply stating 'there is no object' is as sensical and productive as claiming 'there is no mean, there is no standard deviation'.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_moments_(statistics)

Re: I am nothing

#86

Post by sdfkdfdfjdfng »

So is this proof that money rots your brain? Because this guy is very smart, but he sounds...like a homeless guy in Berkeley. I would know, I've had conversations with them. I mean, I wouldn't want this guy on my board if I was crazy/stupid/motivated enough to ask him for money for a start-up, just on the basis of this slightly alarming essay.

Two things come to mind: PUA theory and having so much money that the boredom literally drives you nuts. So I'm thinking this guy may be headed for cautionary tale territory.

Anyway, rock on, faggots.

Re: I am nothing

#87

Post by zupatol »

Thirty or forty years ago, people apparently had much stronger identities, according to an old french psychologist I heard on the radio. People were much more inclined to think of themselves as 'a communist' or 'an artist'. It's true that these thoughts are prisons, but not having them sends people to the psychologist for other reasons. Unfortunately I don't remember what he said about these new problems.

I guess one problem with discarding your identity as a father is that you are also questioning responsibilities that are vital to your children. Another problem of going without identity is that having a sense of belonging to some community becomes more difficult. That's something I have been missing personally.

Re: I am nothing

#88

Post by hnhg »

coryl wrote: post #76

Study any martial art (preferably one where you can spar) and you'll forever understand the meaning of ego. You show up, do drills/padwork, think you're making progress and then spar someone who beats you up. You do the same thing the next day, and the next, and the next. Eventually you improve and make progress because you're training so hard. But there's always that one guy you can't beat, and that new kid whose fa…

I think this happens in any context where you're learning from talented people and you still have your mind open. I think it's just part of growing up and maturing.

Re: I am nothing

#89

Post by tns »

basic vedanta 101 - for all those familiar with Indic civilizational thought - PRINCIPAL KEY pursuit of life is the sublimation of the I - many upanishad ( sanskrit canons )texts - sources from 10000 years ago - nothing new here folks .. buddhism etc. are simpler formulations for a different age/context/motivation ..

Re: I am nothing

#90

Post by tns »

basic vedanta 101 - for all those familiar with Indic civilizational thought - PRINCIPAL KEY pursuit of life is the sublimation of the I - many upanishad ( sanskrit canons )texts - sources from 10000 years ago - nothing new here folks .. buddhism etc. are simpler formulations for a different age/context/motivation ..
Post reply on HN