i tend to think of DA as trying to think in terms of a super structure into which most things can be plugged in, in other words it examines the mechanics of relationships, not unlike the music theory that gave us the concept of scales based on overtones... whereas CD tries to think of the best "leading note" and proceeds from there. DA will tell you what can and will happen based on that note, but offers little help when it comes to choosing. CD works hard developing a "melody" but has no real concept of the broader constraints... of course this is colored by feeling v thinking, I think this most applies to SEE/ILI and EII and LSE. for something like EIE and LSI things change. In other words, CD feeling is good at charting a path, DA is good at explaining whats going on in the broader sense and why the CD path succeeded or failed

i do think in general theres a great deal of complexity because you have DA and VS which sort of compile the code and HP and CD which sort of view things linearly, but even that is a rough estimate of things. I really feel like this sort of stuff is really hard to wrap your head around because it can get very alien the further you diverge from your own mode. I will say that I really liked the illustration of VS as kind of naturally viewing the world in terms of quadra complex and just situating oneself where one can be buoyed by the appropriately helpful flow. I never thought in my life to be like that but once it was mentioned it totally fits my perception of how they go about trying to find their place and how they interact with others

at the same time it gives me a great deal of appreciation for ILI which is really trying to suss out for themselves the mechanics of the system because it feels like such a sisyphean undertaking not far afield of a standard lifelong moral enterprise, it just manifests itself in this hardcore logical way, but underneath it is like this sincere desire to figure things out in such a way that will help people