I’ve come to find that there’s a computational superpower that comes from believing in something commonly called ‘good’. My belief in good, which is extremely useful, works like this: What I believe we are all traveling through some space of possibilities; many things
It seems to me that this belief can be summed up as "It's okay to be a goodness satisficer, not a goodness maximizer. Some things in life are supererogatory, not mandatory. We just have to get close enough, because good things are like the breadth of the sky rather than the stars in space: you can't miss as long as you're going in the right direction."
In other words, a perfectionist's acceptance of the demandingness objection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demandingness_objection), rejecting perfection in favor of good enough. Would you say that this is accurate? Possibility space may be vast and full of horrors, but the set of paths that take us to the 'good endings' are vaster still. And, crucially, they stick together as a ray of light in the dark. Any path can be the right one as long as it heads towards the light instead of the darkness. Any destination will do, because all the destinations can be connected by another path through the light. You just need that guiding light - and your own two feet to start walking.
(Or more prosaically, heuristics are great when the computation problem is intractable.)
And, well, your style of writing here makes it sounds like you're still being bothered by this, such that you can't relax and write something easygoing. All the italics just sound... tense.)
Just wait for when you make it beyond belief into knowing...
It seems to me that this belief can be summed up as "It's okay to be a goodness satisficer, not a goodness maximizer. Some things in life are supererogatory, not mandatory. We just have to get close enough, because good things are like the breadth of the sky rather than the stars in space: you can't miss as long as you're going in the right direction."
In other words, a perfectionist's acceptance of the demandingness objection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demandingness_objection), rejecting perfection in favor of good enough. Would you say that this is accurate? Possibility space may be vast and full of horrors, but the set of paths that take us to the 'good endings' are vaster still. And, crucially, they stick together as a ray of light in the dark. Any path can be the right one as long as it heads towards the light instead of the darkness. Any destination will do, because all the destinations can be connected by another path through the light. You just need that guiding light - and your own two feet to start walking.
(Or more prosaically, heuristics are great when the computation problem is intractable.)
(Also, you may want to get checked for Pure O OCD: https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/types-of-mental-health-problems/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd/symptoms-of-ocd/. Stuff like "you are indeed balancing 300 different sacred subgoals that trade off each against each other..." makes it sound like you're suffering from, or suffered from, intrusive thoughts about not doing enough good.
And, well, your style of writing here makes it sounds like you're still being bothered by this, such that you can't relax and write something easygoing. All the italics just sound... tense.)