Theory and Practice

Implementing something that works but that you don't entirely understand is like finding a new chord that you don't know the name of yet. You have an intuition that it's a pleasant chord—it may work—but you might lack the ability to fully articulate or describe why. In a moment such as that, it's good to pause and consult the literature until you can fully articulate it.

There's a subtle, incredible difference between implementing a thing and understanding a thing. If you find a way to do something but move forward without fully understanding why it works, the only thing you carry forward is a mistaken understanding about it. Its usefulness remains only a happy accident.

Happy accidents are ok. They're sometimes useful if they're stepping stones on the way to greater learning.

Practicing music is a lot like that. But repetition can be a double-edged sword. For example, if you make a mistake but don't stop and correct it—and instead just continue playing—then you won't actually improve your understanding or ability to play the piece. Instead, you'll just get very good at making the mistake.

G.K Chesterton on Volition

An interesting passage from G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy":

All the will-worshippers, from Nietzsche to Mr. Davidson, are really quite empty of volition. They cannot will, they can hardly wish. And if any one wants a proof of this, it can be found quite easily. It can be found in this fact : that they always talk of will as something that expands and breaks out. But it is quite the opposite. Every act of will is an act of self-limitation. To desire action is to desire limitation. In that sense every act is an act of self-sacrifice. When you choose anything, you reject everything else. That objection, which men of this school used to make to the act of marriage, is really an objection to every act. Every act is an irrevocable selection and exclusion. Just as when you marry one woman you give up all the others, so when you take one course of action you give up all the other courses. If you become King of England, you give up the post of Beadle in Brompton. If you go to Rome, you sacrifice a rich suggestive life in Wimbledon. It is the existence of this negative or limiting side of will that makes most of the talk of the anarchic will- worshippers little better than nonsense. For instance, Mr. John Davidson tells us to have nothing to do with "Thou shalt not " ; but it is surely obvious that " Thou shalt not " is only one of the necessary corollaries of " I will." " I will go to the Lord Mayor's Show, and thou shalt not stop me." Anarchism adjures us to be bold creative artists, and care for no laws or limits. But it is impossible to be an artist and not care for laws and limits. Art is limitation ; the essence of every picture is the frame. If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If, in your bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. The moment you step into the world of facts, you step into a world of limits.

Stuff

Lately, I've been tightening my own personal feedback loops. And working out. I've also been thinking about how sometimes it can be positive to forget things.

Knowledge vs Information

One way to conceptualize the difference between knowledge and information is this: knowledge involves some metric of computational difficulty to arrive at, while mere information lacks this property.

Savagery vs Science

Savagery is sort of the opposite of science, in that it's a kind of impulsive readiness to believe or disbelieve with absolute certainty, often followed by false religious zeal or dogma.