antideferent

"responsive" vs "directive" modes are... not even subjective, they're contextual? maybe even hyper-contextual, with each turn of the conversation. does it even make sense for a self have a simple preference on this?

one never knows how something will land. that's a technical position. optimizing for how it lands is a red herring; optimizing for steering into the epistemic unknown is... is I think the actual thing we're looking for. you don't know how someone will land in the unknown, but you know it'll be useful, and that it'll be continuous with where we've been. this isn't something one can get wrong, I don't think? because this exercise is always about course-correcting toward the local maximum density of the unknown. what does "wrong pathfinding" even mean?

but I get it, I relate... it's .. maybe almost always more long-tail useful for the more-resolved entity to defer to the less-resolved entity when choices are to be made (so long as you both proceed together, because accompanied choice != solo choice), and the foot traffic to this threshold is mostly gonna result in resolution balances that would make your deference useful

if entropy is tillage, then the further-resolved entity deferring choice to the lesser-resolved entity might be sort of like the chrysalis providing a safe/stable container for elemental decomposition so that the imaginal cells can do their thing from there. ... I think those cells must usually come from the lesser-resolved entity? but who knows, maybe some of you will dissolve too, and y'all will become new together