Notes
-
On the statelessness of things
When learning chess it may present the illusion of being a stateful game. That is, it seems that what you want to do depends on what has happened. “What am I doing?” or “What is my opponent up to?”, are things you may ask. At its core however, history and psychology based play is at most a secondary side effect of human play. Optimal play is decided purely by the current position itself, and not by how it got there.
Much like how you at some point when learning chess realize that it’s a fundamentally stateless game, I think individuation inevitably involves a similar realization. I am not yet decided how literal the statelessness of things are, but I know for sure that they are more stateless than they first seem.
Of course, you have plans to attend, or relationship histories to consider. It might similarly be unpleasant for one or both parties if you stop speaking in the middle of a sentence – a break in continuity. Must we not prevent us from forgetting? To some degree, yes, but you get the non-forgetting for free, here and now. It may seem like semantics until you realize that the act of reaching is effortful almost by definition, yet it doesn’t have to be.