You are speaking from a materialist, consequentialist worldview. I do not buy into this worldview. 

It has caused massive suffering and existential crises on the planet and is deeply deluded about what 'beneficial' is. 

• Any good reading on circling, spiral dynamics, or chakras off the top of your head?

No, none come to mind. 

This is like asking about reading how to ride a horse. Find someone who can teach you to ride a horse with real horses, and you'll learn 100x more, with less error. 

• How do you think about impact when going for arahantship, or do you reject the frame? I'd love to do this too but think I could do an (actually) impactful startup

Truly beneficial impact is only possible with Awakening. Everything is still based in delusion until realization, and stream entry is not sufficient. 

That does not mean you shouldn't do anything until then. We can use everything for the path of letting go. 

But simply telling yourself you are using everything for the path is not sufficient, and you are probably deceiving yourself in some way. Therefore find a true spiritual teacher, and a good spiritual community, who can keep you on track. 

Until then, you are going to be making decisions based on liking and disliking, grasping and avoiding, and none of that really works. It only creates more, bigger problems. 

You can check out the Buddhism for AI course online. Might be of interest. 

Any chance you could rattle off the next half dozen things that come to mind?

Connection Theory Charting (Leverage Research framework), Core Transformation, Tai Chi / Qi Gong, Bio-Emotive Processing (Doug Tataryn), Shaolin practice (Shi Heng Yi on YouTube), TWIM, Gendlin's Focusing, Immunity to Change (Kegan process), Improv Theater (see book Impro), Perri Chase (spiritual teacher online). 

I haven't done this one but I hear Alexander Technique is quite powerful. Also heard good things about Landmark. 

I'm even considering training at a monastery.

Well if you are seeking, you can try visiting MAPLE for a week or so. Or try the 1-3 month program. It's not very traditional, but it is a good training system that supports deep practice. If you seek tradition, which has many benefits, I recommend going to Asia. 

The benefit of fixing on the release/dissolve as a way of being is that it will release/dissolve itself, and that's what makes it safer than fixing on anything that doesn't have an 'expiration date' as it were. 

I think the confusion on this is that

We have this sense that some process is safe or good to fix upon. Because 'process' is more change-y than something static. 

But even process is not safe to fix upon. You are not a process. We're not in a process. To say 'process' is trying to 'thing-ify' or 'reify' something that does not have a property called 'existence' nor 'non-existence'. We must escape from the flattening dichotomy of existence and non-existence, which is a nonsense. 

A "universe" cannot be fully specified, and I believe our physics has made that clear. But also our idea of 'universe' is ridiculously small-minded still. Science has narrowed our vision of what is, and fixated upon it, and now we're actually more ignorant / deluded than before. Although I also appreciate the beauty of science and math. 

I'm pointing to something more extreme than this, but I'd say this is a good direction.

I will attempt, badly, to capture it in words inspired by your description above. 

I say 'badly' because I'm not fully able to see the Truth and describe it, but there is a Truth, and it can be described. This process you allude to RE: dissolving and releasing is part of how Truth is revealed, and that's what I'm training in. 

So my re-write of this: 

An ontology restricts the shape of [the perceived world] by being of a set shape. All of them are insufficient, the Tao [is beyond conceptualization], but each can contain patterns that are useful [if and only if] you [use them to] dissolve and continually release [all patterns] rather than cling to them. 

You imply, maybe, that the point is to come back and reform. To get all the patterns 'integrated' and come back into structure. 

But the thing around 'flow' and 'faster' and such—all of this is better achieved with no structure or meta-structure. Because structure opposes flow, period. The point isn't to create some ultimate ontology or structure, no matter how fluid, fast, or integrated you think it is; this is returning to delusion, or making delusion the purpose. 

This takes sufficient letting go to see, but it's also logically sound even if you can't buy it experientially. 

Is there a place for structure? Yes, we use structure as middle way stepping stones to release structure. We have to use delusion (concepts, etc.) to escape delusion because delusion is what we have to work with. The fact that it's possible to use delusion to escape delusion is the amazing thing. 

Hello! Thanks for the greeting. Do we know each other by chance?

Removing fixedness in ontologies is good. I claim it's in the good direction. And then you go further in that direction and remove the ontology itself, which is a fixation on its own. The ontology is not strictly needed, in much the same way that you can be looking at a video of a waterfall—but it's meaningfully better and more true to look directly at a waterfall. In the same way, you don't need the concept of 'waterfall' to truly see it. The concept actually gets in the way. 

Actively rooting out and removing the concept makes it sound like you are somehow reaching in and pulling it out with force, and that's not really how it goes. It's more of a letting go of conceptual grasping, like unclenching a hand. 

Huh. I don't know if I get the bit on Statistical Learning. 

Good poems - I haven't seen those particular translations before. 

Catholicism never would have collected the intelligence necessary to invent a nuke. Their worldview was not compatible with science. It was an inferior organizing principle. ("inferior" meaning less capable of coordinating a collective intelligence needed to build nukes.)

You believe intelligence is such a high good, a high virtue, that it would be hard for you to see how intelligence is deeply and intricately causal with the destruction of life on this planet, and therefore the less intelligent, less destructive religions actually have more ethical ground to stand on, even though they were still fairly corrupt. 

But it's a straightforward comparison. 

Medieval "dark" ages = almost no technological progress, very little risk of blowing up the planet in any way; relatively, not inspiring, but still - kudos for keeping us from hurtling toward extinction, and at this point, we're fine with rewarding this even though it's such a "low bar"

Today = massive, exponential technological progress, nuclear war could already take us all out, but we have a number of other x-risks to worry about. And we're so identified with science and tech that we aren't willing to stop, even as we admit OUT LOUD that it could cause extinction-level catastrophe. This is worse than the Crusades by a long shot. We're not talking about sending children to war. We're talking about the end of children. Just no more children. This is worse than suicide cults that claim we go to heaven as long as we commit suicide. We don't even think what we're doing will necessarily result in heaven, and we do it anyway. We have no evidence we can upload consciousnesses at all. Or end aging and death. Or build a friendly AI. At least the Catholics were convinced a very good thing would happen by sending kids to war. We're not even convinced, and we are willing to risk the lives of all children. Do you see how this is worse than the Catholics?