Just read @Meaningness' newest chapter, "Finding the complete stance", and… finally grokked *how* Meaningness is "not philosophy", via playful analogy with productivity tools.

Tentative understanding, confidently stated, below.

https://meaningness.com/finding-complete-stance

1/

Some context:

Meaningness is an in-progress ebook on "better ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—around problems of meaning and meaninglessness; self and society; ethics, purpose, and value".

I've been reading it, on and off, since mid-2019.

https://meaningness.com 

2/

Dave Chapman ( @Meaningness, the book's author), often emphasizes that the book is *not* philosophy.

3/

…which some part of me, until now, has been unable to read as anything other than:

"I'm NOT doing philosophy here."

"<does philosophy>"

4/

But something clicked as I was reading this chapter!


Meaningness is "not philosophy" in exactly the same way that the Pomodoro Technique, Deep Work, Mindfulness, and SMART Goals are "not philosophy".


5/

Each of these "self-improvement" tools is deeply *practical*. They're made of models, yes, but the point of those models is to communicate a potentially helpful skill.

I think the fact that @Meaningness structured this chapter as "four steps" helped me see this analogy.

6/

Surely there's philosophy to be found in Deep Work, Mindfulness, Pomodoros…

…but focusing on that would entirely miss the point.

These aren't meant to be philosophical theories: they're *ways* of doing things, each offering improvements to various aspects of life.

7/

(While drafting the last tweet, noticed:

One might call Mindfulness, Deep Work, etc… "ways of thinking, feeling, and acting"! )

https://twitter.com/joyurge/status/1247731254125924352

7.5/

Similarly, asking "do you believe Cal Newport's Deep Work?" misses the point.

The question, when reading this sort of book, is whether or not you find it useful!

Same goes for @Meaningness.

8/

I've found Meaningness *quite* useful…

And, as I've read, I've found it easy to feel like I need to *believe* what Dave is saying, in order for it to work.

@Meaningness doesn't need you to believe anything, but it's still easy to end up forming some beliefs along the way.

9/

As a result, as I've noticed myself starting to share @Meaningness with others, I've become anxious that I'm proselytizing:

"Listen to this guy on the internet! He's got the answer to life, the universe, and everything! And it's righ—er, 'useful'!"

10/

(An aside: the anxiety itself appears to come from a judgement I seem to hold that "proselytizing" is BAD and would make me a BAD PERSON, *regardless of context*…

…and thanks to @DougTataryn I now feel excited to notice a feeling like that. #SobSquad)

10.5/

And, that anxiety seems to have something to do with what I've been thinking Meaningness *is*: philosophy. (Despite @Meaningness' best efforts!)

…because I don't have that anxiety when I'm telling someone for the first time about Pomodoros, or Deep Work, or SMART Goals.

11/

This is so even though I *do* inevitably form beliefs—including ones I find partially suspect—in using such tools:

"Doing something valuable is not my default state"
"It's possible to spend 25m doing only one thing"
"There are a finite number of tasks"

etc.

12/

I've picked up similarly-confused beliefs as side-effects of reading @Meaningness…

…and at the same time, I've developed some deeply satisfying ways of being in complex and confusing situations, while caring for what I care about.

(And of working with confused beliefs!)

13/

So, now it's become much more clear to me:

The reason I want to share @Meaningness with you is just like the reason I want to share any other tool with you—I think it might help you care for what you care about!

https://twitter.com/joyurge/status/922175433583616001

14/

The reason Meaningness has often *felt* like reading philosophy (and perhaps why @Meaningness has had to clarify this point so much) has become clearer too:

The subject-matter—the *area* of life it aims to help with—is something we're used to addressing with philosophy.

15/

(This is very true for me: in my first year at @Swarthmore I took a whole course on the Meaning of Life—in the @SwatPhilosophy department, naturally! This remains among my most beloved courses.)

https://twitter.com/joyurge/status/593803781831262208

15.5/

Another way to put this is:

Using the Pomodoro Technique involves understanding oneself as having "work" to do.

Using @Meaningness involves understanding oneself as having "stances" in relation to meaning, etc.

2nd feels more like philosophy, but isn't that different.

16/

Both *can* be understood as philosophical statements… and can also just be used as practical assumptions.

It's obvious that this is the point when using the Pomodoro Technique…

…and it's finally hit me that this is also the point when reading @Meaningness.

17/

Seeing "work" & "breaks" as separate doesn't make sense in every context—but it does when using the Pomodoro Technique!

& Seeing yourself as having "stances" in relation to meaning doesn't make sense in every context—but it does when learning @Meaningness' complete stance!

18/

Importantly, it doesn't need to be ultimately "true" that "work ≠ break" for the Pomodoro Technique to be useful.

Likewise, nothing in Meaningness needs to be "true" for its "ways of thinking, feeling, and acting" to be useful.

/end