For all the anxiety it seems the simplest of answers is to play with the tool in your workspace, asks a few questions, and understand the threat. Judgement, Evaluation and Curiosity can pull most humans out of any mind funk. Sitting with Amy G Dala as a bedfellow is why big pharma looms.
I advocate for this, too. People often fear the unknown. It’s better to get an idea of what you’re up against and try to figure out how it might integrate with your profession. A popular theory that I’ve seen repeated is: “If it can be automated, it will be automated.”
That said, there’s a risk of cognitive decline from offloading your thinking to AI. To use AI effectively requires critical thinking skills, and the workforce is largely unprepared for that.
The Barnes section is what makes this valuable for me. Most treatments of Paul stop at the epistemic point and leave you standing there. The three conditions for rational refusal are the parts a person can actually hold on to.
I want to offer a case your framing does not quite reach, because I am sitting in it.
My transformation was not elected. I lost a job, spent a year trying to replace it, and then stopped trying. The person who came out would not be recognized by the one who went in. I used to have opinions about parking spaces and how well the bread was toasted. The list of things I care about is much shorter now, and I am fairly ruthless about what gets on it.
Here is the part that bends your framework. I have since been offered part-time work more than once and turned it down. So I do have Carol's clarity, but I got it the wrong way round. Barnes tells us when refusing an unlived experience is rational. I am refusing the return, and I can only do that because I know what going back would cost.
Which puts me on your June distinction. That decision was intrinsically valuable thinking, and what made it unoutsourceable is simply that I am the one who has to live in the answer. Six months to prove it or flail.
Does Paul have anything to say about the view from the far side?
I’m so happy to hear that you found value in the post. That is really heartening to hear. Job loss is hard but your description here of how it transformed you is a real service to many others much earlier in that same journey. Thanks so much for sharing it.
As to your question, sadly no. Her theory is outstanding for framing an experience at the threshold, but once you’ve passed through the door, she goes quiet. Mostly because what she is highlighting is a lack of information but as you now know, you have that information — there’s no missing piece.
This is fascinating, Louise. I don't know of LA Paul or her work but I'm definitely going to look her up.
I want to ask about "becoming someone else" - is that her term or your gloss? It seems to presuppose a self solid enough to be swapped out - I tend to prefer the notion of the self in constant flux, carrying its past forward into whatever it meets as part of a process of perpetual becoming. Interested to know your thoughts here
So glad you enjoyed it, Mark. It’s definitely me playing a bit fast and loose, but only a bit. Paul’s idea of personally transformative experiences is about something that changes your core values, preferences — the “what it’s like to be you” element. She doesn’t talk about becoming somone else, but I’d argue it’s not far off.
That’s a lovely description of the self. My metaphor tends to be more the Ship of Theseus, changing out planks as we go but always remaining the ship. Either way, Paul would be fine. She doesn’t need a constant self for her philosophy to work.
Thanks for the great comment and question. Thoroughly enjoyed thinking about it :)
I love the Ship of Theseus idea - though in the UK we often refer to it as Trigger's Broom - even in university courses, I believe. It comes from a 1980s sitcom called Only Fools and Horses which was massively popular. Here's the clip: https://youtu.be/56yN2zHtofM?si=x6zNYfKpMAOly3jm
Can't claim credit for 'perpetual becoming', I'm afraid. It comes from Alfred North Whitehead - though I have to confess I'm not sure if he used it or if it came from a commentary - I ought to look it up!
For all the anxiety it seems the simplest of answers is to play with the tool in your workspace, asks a few questions, and understand the threat. Judgement, Evaluation and Curiosity can pull most humans out of any mind funk. Sitting with Amy G Dala as a bedfellow is why big pharma looms.
No question, that curiosity, creativity and the willingness to dive in are key. Took me a moment, though, to get the Amy G Dala bit :)
It was how I learned to spell it and then became a person, so to speak. She also has a title: Bouncer at Club Brain
I advocate for this, too. People often fear the unknown. It’s better to get an idea of what you’re up against and try to figure out how it might integrate with your profession. A popular theory that I’ve seen repeated is: “If it can be automated, it will be automated.”
That said, there’s a risk of cognitive decline from offloading your thinking to AI. To use AI effectively requires critical thinking skills, and the workforce is largely unprepared for that.
All good points, Uncle Skully.
The Barnes section is what makes this valuable for me. Most treatments of Paul stop at the epistemic point and leave you standing there. The three conditions for rational refusal are the parts a person can actually hold on to.
I want to offer a case your framing does not quite reach, because I am sitting in it.
My transformation was not elected. I lost a job, spent a year trying to replace it, and then stopped trying. The person who came out would not be recognized by the one who went in. I used to have opinions about parking spaces and how well the bread was toasted. The list of things I care about is much shorter now, and I am fairly ruthless about what gets on it.
Here is the part that bends your framework. I have since been offered part-time work more than once and turned it down. So I do have Carol's clarity, but I got it the wrong way round. Barnes tells us when refusing an unlived experience is rational. I am refusing the return, and I can only do that because I know what going back would cost.
Which puts me on your June distinction. That decision was intrinsically valuable thinking, and what made it unoutsourceable is simply that I am the one who has to live in the answer. Six months to prove it or flail.
Does Paul have anything to say about the view from the far side?
I’m so happy to hear that you found value in the post. That is really heartening to hear. Job loss is hard but your description here of how it transformed you is a real service to many others much earlier in that same journey. Thanks so much for sharing it.
As to your question, sadly no. Her theory is outstanding for framing an experience at the threshold, but once you’ve passed through the door, she goes quiet. Mostly because what she is highlighting is a lack of information but as you now know, you have that information — there’s no missing piece.
This is fascinating, Louise. I don't know of LA Paul or her work but I'm definitely going to look her up.
I want to ask about "becoming someone else" - is that her term or your gloss? It seems to presuppose a self solid enough to be swapped out - I tend to prefer the notion of the self in constant flux, carrying its past forward into whatever it meets as part of a process of perpetual becoming. Interested to know your thoughts here
So glad you enjoyed it, Mark. It’s definitely me playing a bit fast and loose, but only a bit. Paul’s idea of personally transformative experiences is about something that changes your core values, preferences — the “what it’s like to be you” element. She doesn’t talk about becoming somone else, but I’d argue it’s not far off.
That’s a lovely description of the self. My metaphor tends to be more the Ship of Theseus, changing out planks as we go but always remaining the ship. Either way, Paul would be fine. She doesn’t need a constant self for her philosophy to work.
Thanks for the great comment and question. Thoroughly enjoyed thinking about it :)
I love the Ship of Theseus idea - though in the UK we often refer to it as Trigger's Broom - even in university courses, I believe. It comes from a 1980s sitcom called Only Fools and Horses which was massively popular. Here's the clip: https://youtu.be/56yN2zHtofM?si=x6zNYfKpMAOly3jm
Enjoy!
Can't claim credit for 'perpetual becoming', I'm afraid. It comes from Alfred North Whitehead - though I have to confess I'm not sure if he used it or if it came from a commentary - I ought to look it up!