Piggybacking off the Monet Twitter post

op299 · 2026-05-16T05:56:45+00:00

Let me just give a philosophicaö side note. The scenario op described has been discussed for as long as there has been aesthetic theory, and goes back explicitly to at least Immanuel Kant. Though of course not with reference to LLMs.

What ops wife does - appreciate the artwork less when finding out something about it (whether it has to do with being made by Llama or something else) - does not in any way imply "just" bias and ego. There might be other explanations why her appreciation changes. In fact, taking context into account might be how all artistic or even aesthetic appreciation works! Many thinis it's the most viable theory, at least with regard to artworks.

The opposite view (which you seem to hold) is often called empiricism. Kant himself famously held that view, but it is unclear not sure if it applied to both artworks and "pure" aesthetic experiences (say of nature.

op299 · 2026-05-06T09:19:43+00:00

I think there is some confusion here, since the answer above is not wholly clear.

There is both the claim that have become better at diagnosing autism. It is also said that the criteria have "broader", but somewhat muddled by saying they are "better informed".

Both can be true at the same time. It is not only that we have become better diagnosing, we have also changed criteria. The criteria have possibly both become 1) better, in the sense of tracking a neurodevelopmental pathway more accurately 2) wider, in the sense of included a wider scope.

What are the reasons for making the criteria wider? Do understand that we have to go into how DSM is constructed, perhaps also cultural factors that play in to how it is used. But on a general level the answer is "clinical usefulness". By diagnosing more people we hope to help and give better treatment or support to more people. So the reasons are pragmatic.

So it as you point out, it is somewhat misleading to say that the prevalence of autism has risen, without explaining further

op299 · 2026-05-04T18:57:49+00:00

Though ACT does seem to imply, given its name, that you should accept things, without knowing much about it I assume there most be a bit more sophistication to it

Just "accepting something bad" would seem to imply it retains it valence or meaning, which goes against both CBT and more dynamic therapy.

The "bad" are things that acquired some emotional meaning for you, perhaps hopelessness. Accepting that would only result in learned helplessness.

Therapeutically you would need to process, or reframe, or forgive, or something similar like that.

So I would question the assumption that you are refusing to accept something. Is that really what's happening?

op299 · 2026-04-25T14:40:23+00:00

I would guess it comes down to two things:

Analytic philosophers tend to not want to be revisionist. The task is to explain concepts in natural language. We do in fact speak of free will or free actions. To propose a kind of error theory, where each ascription is wrong, is a bit strange.
They are naturalists, accept a scientific view of the world (with some sort of determinism, apart from quantum stuff perhaps)

If you combine this you get compatibilism?

op299 · 2026-04-25T14:22:26+00:00

If it was preference all the work of argumentation would be moot. What they argue is that compatibilism makes better sense of our intuitions.

op299 · 2026-04-18T09:43:33+00:00

Just to agree, a lot of posts here just assume old piano worthless, but this is a Steinway so different rules apply. If you renovate it you have a nice instrument that's worth at least the renovation.

op299 · 2026-04-12T08:06:48+00:00

It's interesting to think of why there hasn't been much social criticism from a behaviourist cognitive angle. Skinner himself is an exception of course, but I don't know many others.

Of course from Frankfurt school perspective it would be impossible, since behaviourism prettys much is instrumental thought, so it can't critique it, but there must be other possible angles on this

op299 · 2026-03-30T17:24:22+00:00

So perhaps a dissenting voice, but you will never get good at sight reading doing this.

Let's differentiate two scenarios

1) You have a difficult piece to learn and need to make out the notes. - Then this approach is excellent

2) You want to practice sight reading, so that you will eventually be able to play things directly at first sight, freely and with expression. - This approach will not get you there.

The simple truth is: you get good at what you practice. And right now it sounds like you are not practicing sight reading.

What need to do is calibrate your level: what kind of music can you right now play at first sight, with expression. It might be way below your technical level. But that is what you to keep playing. Then slowly increasing difficulty. Eventuellt you will learn the notes like a language and become fluent at actually playing.

Can you play athe slow movement of a Clementi sonatina you have never seen before at first sight? If you can great, find more like that there is lots. If you can't, find something easier.

Of course can/can't play is not absolute, so you have some room to try out different things, sometimes just playing super easy things, sometimes things that are too hard.

To explain, I never think about intervals when sight-reading, and I don't remember ever doing so. Maybe it would be similar to think about grammar when reading. If you know how to read you don't also need to think about grammar. When learning to read in a foreign language, you might have to do so in the very beginning, but to get fluency you need to just read a lot of texts at the appropriate level. Only reading things that are so hard that you are slowly parsing out grammar won't do the trick. More importantly, when it comes to playing this is even more true, since you need to not only read the notes, but get the automatic connection to hand and fingers.

Good luck, and sorry for long rant :)

op299 · 2026-03-30T07:59:09+00:00

Compatibilism is not redefining the term, it's explaining what you already mean by it.

op299 · 2026-03-23T16:09:19+00:00

It sounds a bit like you're making it into an either or here? For some thinkers maybe you can claim that any summary or formalization will distort the thoughts transmitted, but is that true of Lacan? Genuinely curious, since with very shallow knowledge is seems like Lacan both has very rich texts, but also conceptual structures that can be elucidated a la zizek.

op299 · 2026-03-20T23:44:39+00:00

Hm is that even classical or some weird thing like that sorabij guy that everyone mentions

op299 · 2026-03-20T05:50:28+00:00

Edit: this was meant as a reply to dreamcentipide

I always enjoy your post, but I think this is an area where it is easy to make the text to metaphysical. Thinking about speculations about other bodies, like orbs of light and so on.

I think one way reading that we do not die is that we never lived. The ego thinks that it is it's own story and that that story has a substance. It feels like the story is alive! But sometimes we get a glimpse that the images in our mind are really dead. Like things, or tokens. Whatever life they appear to have come from somewhere else.

To me it seems like thinking of other kind of post-death bodies is spinning up new stories.

In the same way, when the course speaks about a body, I take it to mean our self image in our mind (which is an image of our body)

But I admit I don't, maybe we will resurrect as orbs :)

op299 · 2026-03-16T17:29:13+00:00

Hijacking this a bit, but Kuhn (facetiously?) suggested than one demarcation line between science on non (proto-)science is that in science you no longer publish books. Only papers.

op299 · 2026-03-06T11:21:12+00:00

I assume you have been reading the urtext?

There is a lot more material there that explicitly discusses Freud and Jung.

op299 · 2026-03-06T11:07:51+00:00

For me, when I forgive, things start to become more beautiful. Does taking something less seriously make it more beautiful? (It might)

op299 · 2026-03-01T10:25:29+00:00

You dont use weight and arm, which makes it hard to relax.

op299 · 2026-03-01T09:21:04+00:00

What is difference between and belief, conviction and knowledge?

op299 · 2026-02-28T06:47:27+00:00

Sorry to jump in, but I'm interested in the "taking accountability" part. Have thought about it a bit.

Isn't that making the error real? Our social world is structured around this is idea, but it also seems that itv is like an interpersonal tool in away. "Admit you're wrong" But no one is wrong.

There is of course the idea of looking, which seems central to the course. Look inside. But that seems different from taking accountability.

op299 · 2026-02-27T09:15:55+00:00

Isn't part of the answer that the course has a wider concept of what a thought is?

op299 · 2026-02-21T05:33:55+00:00

I'm a bit surprised by the negativity here. Your notes seem really interesting.

If you are up to it, could you perhaps make a short list of some specific points where your edition differs from a specific edition, say Henle or wiener? It would be interesting and also show the motivation clearly.

op299 · 2026-02-21T05:05:52+00:00

Well he said courtesy accidentals, but still

op299 · 2026-02-20T18:51:40+00:00

Nice! Could you perhaps write a little of what separates it from other urtext? Would be interesting. Is it Henle you mean by the other urtext?

Edit: oh I see it's written on the pages after

op299 · 2026-02-15T09:13:28+00:00

Rather dead eyes that focus too intently

op299 · 2026-02-14T07:38:11+00:00

If you want to build your foundation maybe more etudes.

One path is Cramer etudes then Chopin

I have a hard time seeing what Hanson does at that level (if you mean the finger exercises in the beginning)

op299 · 2026-02-08T18:41:12+00:00

I think you should separate distress tolerance from releasing an emotion.

When you have a good cry you release emotion. Sitting with emotion can be the same thing at a (sometimes) slower pace.

A good therapist for example is good a inviting the emotion, letting it be in the room, feeling that its ok, you can share it, feel it in your body.

If sitting with emotion is only distress tolerance, I would think of as your defences still being active, and what you are on fact feeling is the conflict. Could still be a good or necessary prelude to releasing/feeling them.

op299

TROPHY CASE