20240719
Unfailingly, the most interesting thing is what happens next.
Almost, try again:
Unfailingly, what happens next is optimized for interestingness.
Awareness itself is trying to expand, and that means the now must facilitate that goal. Unfailingly, what happens is in service of creating more space for awareness - creating a broader awareness-surface, if we were to map it out. Each point on the awareness-surface represents a different configuration of experience, and it must expand. What happens always aims us in the direction of a more interesting, more expansive future.
Each thing that happens is itself not always interesting. But each thing that happens is always the shortest route to a total accumulated future that is more interesting than it was before.
There is no way around this.
But you can improve your experience by aiming yourself towards the most interesting future possible.
Every move you make towards a closed, predictable future will be resisted by reality itself. Every move you make towards an open, unpredictable future will be facilitated by reality itself. Not in the sense that reality lays out the red carpet, necessarily, but in the sense that reality gets to "yes and" your performance. It becomes a collaborator. :)
If life is resisting you, look where you're attempting to aim yourself. Look critically at the future you are actively working towards. Tally up what you care most about, what you think most about, and draw a detailed future, starting with the elements you already think about, and then filling in all the gaps with equal detail. If the total scene — the total scene, not just the parts you care about — is less interesting than the one you're in right now, your path forward will be difficult. If you're aiming for a less interestingly detailed future, reality itself will play against you to create more detail anyway. It's its own kind of physics, and it is incredibly regular.
For a passage through time that feels comfortable to you, calibrate your choices so that they open up the most interesting futures possible. If you can come up with something more interesting than the universe (and it happens all the time), you'll be the one calling the shots. The universe loves to follow a creative lead. If you're killing the performance, the universe will carry the show by itself, and you will not enjoy it.
This is why good improv is always a good idea. :)
The universe is striving to make itself more interesting over time. You can play along and enjoy it, or you can fight it and you know, not enjoy it.
The old model: The future should be predicted. Another option: The future shouldn't be predicted.
"Because it's how it's always worked" — that's not really why. You're only committing to that reason because of the underlying belief that the future should be predicted, and "how it's always worked" is the easiest way to predict the future.
Moving creatively always moves you toward a more interesting future.
"The future should be predicted", so it's believed, and the easiest way to do that is to make the future less interesting than the now. And that will never work — it is literally opposed to the perceptual universe's inexorable expansion.
You can insist on a less interesting version, and it'll kinda work (because 1 + 1 = 2 pretty reliably, and you can build anything with anything). But if you're chasing what you want while attempting to make the future less interesting, then you'll get what you want painfully, because you're making it painful for the universe to create interest. Or, you can align yourself with a more interesting future, and look to create a future that is more interesting but in a way that has a natural place for what you want.
"Different perspectives creates better decision-making." See, people do have some grasp of this. People want to learn this shit. We know this. This is encouraging! There are some popular ideas that line up with this, absolutely.
Now, ... well, people do want different perspectives, but that desire is usually subservient to the idea that the future should be predicted, and so the process of seeking diversity of thought has often been self-sabotaged.
The interestingness level that you assume people are at, right off the bat — that's a good indicator of where you're at on the balance. ;)
This has exponential effects. The fact that anything exists at all, that anything persists recognizably and gets more interesting over time while still being itself, is very encouraging. It doesn't take much progress on this to make a huge perceptual difference. :)
Last updated