Being "radical" and being "rational" are not opposites.
If you're radical, the process is an afterthought, and the end state is what matters.
If you're reasonable, you'll put the ideal state on the back burner and emphasize the narrative of the process.
I think this is often the case with Bitcoin.
Of course, whether they are ultimately right or wrong, the more goal-oriented viewpoint always wins out.
##Of course, they also have in common a reluctance to talk about "time."##
For example,
Consider the current political system as a reasonable ideal.
What if you, the person who had a say in arriving at the current state (a democracy with direct election), were living in a pre-feudal absolute monarchy?
You would immediately be hanged for your insanity and made an example of.
This is what a "radical" opinion looks like.
Or if you live in the same era and want to achieve a democratic direct election system, but you are only working on a "printing revolution" to make citizens realize their "rights" within it? You will be exiled from the community.
The risks are too different? That's the return-risk balance. The weight of a purposeful statement is almost always much greater.
That's why I want us to be able to accept each other, even if it's a little uncomfortable.
It's actually encouraging to see each other's goals first, and argue about them later.
(In Eastern philosophy, this is called the virtue of moderation).
It's ironic that the caterpillar, envying the butterfly and criticizing the chrysalis, and the chrysalis, complacent and forgetting the butterfly, think they're in opposition to each other.
leeleeleelee / Leeleeleelee
npub1uk…ecz8p
2023-08-10 00:49:58
in reply to nevent1q…czr3
Author Public Key
npub1ukkvjrv05p3asprtgw3ct7cthu882humjq7chclzvfdmhqjhxqdqqecz8pPublished at
2023-08-10 00:49:58Event JSON
{
"id": "98842cb0955ad5a806a0eace4fbaa57ea38cac713b1f1960da5f732e65a2759f",
"pubkey": "e5acc90d8fa063d8046b43a385fb0bbf0e755f9b903d8be3e2625bbb8257301a",
"created_at": 1691628598,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c96f7de9fba755d6e95d07b177ee8eaf72c1066576ac544f0845ee16072728db",
"",
"root"
],
[
"p",
"eab0e756d32b80bcd464f3d844b8040303075a13eabc3599a762c9ac7ab91f4f"
],
[
"t",
"Of"
]
],
"content": "Being \"radical\" and being \"rational\" are not opposites.\nIf you're radical, the process is an afterthought, and the end state is what matters.\nIf you're reasonable, you'll put the ideal state on the back burner and emphasize the narrative of the process.\n\nI think this is often the case with Bitcoin.\nOf course, whether they are ultimately right or wrong, the more goal-oriented viewpoint always wins out.\n##Of course, they also have in common a reluctance to talk about \"time.\"##\nFor example,\nConsider the current political system as a reasonable ideal.\nWhat if you, the person who had a say in arriving at the current state (a democracy with direct election), were living in a pre-feudal absolute monarchy?\nYou would immediately be hanged for your insanity and made an example of.\nThis is what a \"radical\" opinion looks like.\n\nOr if you live in the same era and want to achieve a democratic direct election system, but you are only working on a \"printing revolution\" to make citizens realize their \"rights\" within it? You will be exiled from the community.\n\nThe risks are too different? That's the return-risk balance. The weight of a purposeful statement is almost always much greater.\n\nThat's why I want us to be able to accept each other, even if it's a little uncomfortable.\nIt's actually encouraging to see each other's goals first, and argue about them later.\n(In Eastern philosophy, this is called the virtue of moderation).\n\nIt's ironic that the caterpillar, envying the butterfly and criticizing the chrysalis, and the chrysalis, complacent and forgetting the butterfly, think they're in opposition to each other.",
"sig": "c49eedc0f1b2b666a4e35b58bdf7c7fc2d65e31b9c4549c283d14bc3a7968cc6a1f0eccfb6d79a2a669451bd804f07189eb5f2758863d1c92e5b8c00b30d35c2"
}