I've got a 5 page unfinished draft of a work I was thinking of publishing called "Civilisation: The Basics" and, with different terms you have made that effort no longer necessary. The inability to make explicit the rules that make distinguishable the public-private domain is the primary cause of cultural anarchy aside from immigration. At best, when conveyed and obeyed with intent and clarity, not only regarding the rules but the consequences of more-boundaries, the public domain is made another private domain altogether, whereby the differences between private sensibilities are so outwardly subsumed by signified role playing, that one may no longer need to be defensively conscious of others predilections and individual peculiarities - for being so outwardly conforming, they become as it were, like furniture to the mind - that is inert, predictable, safe, enclosed. Only Japan has the momentum of cultural conformity to retain this possibility, which is why it is the only first world country, culturally, in the world. Thank you so much for writing Randy
I could add also that this affords the persons within the civilisation to be simultaneously more erotic and passionate in intensity and breadth - think of the Japanese "violence just under the skin" dynamic that characterises their warrior culture, and their delicate sense of the aesthetic. These are not merely concomitate or loose conjunctions from happenstance, but causally related in a manner I am sure you will go on to elaborate in your future posts. In less, social conformity of the type we're describing is exactly apart - often times at stages the whole - of the process of individuation. But enough, thankyou
is some light violence (hip toss, wrestling) a good implementation of social shaming? not on woman of course, I'm thinking of the zoomer boy who blasts whatever in public.
> either cowardice, or the lack of ability, to “speak in public”. Many are capable who do not attempt it, and many are simply incapable, having not developed the psychological necessities to enable it.
Where i live now it is a part of a culture that is being almost transmitted with mothers milk (what is an equivalent of it when it comes to fathers?) to say toasts. Not that i am incapable but had i been born here it would be a level 67 by now not 14 through pains and effort (my father should have chose his wife and place to live more wisely). Thanks for reminding me it.
> The arbitrary bourgeoisie politeness of “may I” “please”, and so on, are exactly as fake.... There is a difference in scale, but not in category.
Reading now ordeal of civility. Isnt it his point that politeness for jews is a superstructure, dissimulation, hypocrisy not social reality sui generis hence room for psychoanalysis is a rest room from manners, counter-public space.
Maybe it is not arbitrary at all, development of the west one by one solved deadly sins - greed, lust, ?, ? - by devising this norms. They work - why arbitrary then?
Wanted to say for a long time now that your substacks are smth i can think about later. Even if answers to my question are exactly in this post.
when I call them arbitrary, I am speaking to myself/the reader who is still "on the inside" so to speak, of the normal, mainstream paradigm. My point is indeed that they are not arbitrary at all, it's meant as a reference to how they are being portrayed in mainstream culture and history. But I admit I should probably have been clearer about that and less snarky
I frequently reflect on two different experiences I had, one in public speaking and another in a friend group, that felt exactly the same. The first was, someone went from telling a personal story into saying a scientific fact in their public speaking competition. The second was, someone starting telling the large friend group, mid-riffing, what their therapist said. In both cases, I thought, "Wow, if I could coach this person I'd do it totally differently, because before this it felt like you were building something with the group, and now you're kicking your feet up, and asking us to do a bunch of work. Ah yes, I recognize the importance of science/your wellbeing."
The point is not that these people are taking from the commons, it's that figuring out whether or not they know that is very costly. A lot of the "the culture is coarsening, the discourse is bad" is because a lot of people are out here *not knowing it's the discourse*
I disagree(?) with a few(?) points. Please correct me if i misunderstood something.
The act of watching a movie may be a private experience, but the movie itself is not private at all - it's been watched by millions of other people too, which is why references to it work in the first place. So why people use pop-culture references?
I can point towards two aspects: 1) it is precisely because a reference is an outside influence it has value in (some) human minds - it's not "yours", the words/sounds are someone else's, and therefore not sincere. Picture a situation: a friend of yours is departing on a long journey - will you say you wish him safe travels and eagerly await his return, or will you recite "May the Force be with you"? We live in the age of mass irony-poisoning, when people are afraid of expressing their true emotions, so they hide behind dozens of layers of sarcasm and detachments. Many deem one of the dialogue options to get a bit too close to heart. They aren't retreating into private, it's quite opposite.
2) Which also alters the reason why people in general use references. They want to "Connect" - want to know others who they can share their information with without being hurt, while also getting the same/similar in return. But since just pouring onto others the contents of your soul doesn't work if the other party doesn't care about it, gotta find someone who has similar interests. Who responds the right way.
This is where a "reference" factors in: It's an easy way to find out if others like a certain thing, which would allow to have a conversation about it. Or about something else too, because responding to a reference also signals that both of you have similar tastes, and possibly have more things to share: "you like what i like". And it's really easy - Star Wars(or GoT) was watched by generations, so finding common ground with others wouldn't pose a challenge. That kebab song was a signal flare for others to respond to. Which also illustrates how "difficulty" varies with popularity of the content referenced.
Would it be quicker to just ask people if they like Star Wars(or GoT)? Yes. But it is also direct. Sincere. Reference, while still getting close to one's soul, is impersonal enough, and allows for some level of neutrality. For both participants.
An effective(-ish) solution to Hedgehog's Dilemma which allows to be close and distant enough. It can be seen as an "escape" from the "public" sometimes, but it's a two-way street, one can run in both directions towards the same point in the middle.
It sounds like you and Randy are describing the same problem through opposite doors; an inverted public and private set of spheres. And inversion itself is far too common as well
Half-way through writing that i realised i wasn't disagreeing as much as i initially thought, even if his argument didn't sit right with me still. Perhaps there could be better words to describe the error i feel he made, but i haven't found them yet.
Minor quibble- the line is one-dimensional (breadthless length). So the two-dimensional theory of mind you referred to would be better described as 'objectified across a surface', i.e. superficial, depth is external to it.
Also still not sure what the public/private sphere distinction is. Sounds too much like the individual/society antagonism. Is there anything that isn't mediated by the public/social? If so, what remains of the distinction? And is this conceptual distinction a product of specific historical conditions or are we doomed to have our existence bisected per aeternitatem?
Wonderful essay. There's a reason you're the only writer I read straight from the email reminder.
I think the act of forcing people to restrain their impulses in public probably helps in private too, as you now have some practice at holding back your urges, and can use that when it's only yourself and your guilt that would stop you from being gluttonous/horny/etc.
I will defend the normies a little bit though, even the online right sphere has its own in-jokes and references: WAGMI, pepes, its over/we're back, even it's own kebab-related reference that I'm guessing most of you might know. Everyone has some way of referring to common group experiences, and I don't think these are necessarily bad in their own right, they only become bad when they're used as a way to avoid deeper emotional expression.
And for the most antisocial among us, they can be like training wheels to expressing oneself more fully. It's better for a lonely autist to send his friend an angry yelling pepe with a gun or an emotional anime quote than for him to not communicate at all. But certainly, those should be transcended on the way to actually saying "I'm mad at my boss/wife/mom because they treated me unfairly". While training wheels are normally just for kids, if we're all emotionally and socially stunted, I guess we gotta start somewhere
Interesting that the Ordeal of Civility was written before the age of stand-up comedy, as I feel that in the modern day a similiar book would have to include that profession as yet another one in which Jews are overrrepresented and which speak directly or indirectly to the difficulty adapting to modern social rules and mores.
Freud says "Gentiles have lustful and rude thoughts and feelings too beneath the surface" and Seinfeld says "The social rules that make up civility can be inconsistent and appear arbitrary".
Both of these observations are true, they only become pernicious when used to say " therefore my lustful thoughts and actions should be allowed to roam freely" and "therefore we should get rid of these silly social rules"
"wake up honey, new egg report dropped"
thanks
I've got a 5 page unfinished draft of a work I was thinking of publishing called "Civilisation: The Basics" and, with different terms you have made that effort no longer necessary. The inability to make explicit the rules that make distinguishable the public-private domain is the primary cause of cultural anarchy aside from immigration. At best, when conveyed and obeyed with intent and clarity, not only regarding the rules but the consequences of more-boundaries, the public domain is made another private domain altogether, whereby the differences between private sensibilities are so outwardly subsumed by signified role playing, that one may no longer need to be defensively conscious of others predilections and individual peculiarities - for being so outwardly conforming, they become as it were, like furniture to the mind - that is inert, predictable, safe, enclosed. Only Japan has the momentum of cultural conformity to retain this possibility, which is why it is the only first world country, culturally, in the world. Thank you so much for writing Randy
I could add also that this affords the persons within the civilisation to be simultaneously more erotic and passionate in intensity and breadth - think of the Japanese "violence just under the skin" dynamic that characterises their warrior culture, and their delicate sense of the aesthetic. These are not merely concomitate or loose conjunctions from happenstance, but causally related in a manner I am sure you will go on to elaborate in your future posts. In less, social conformity of the type we're describing is exactly apart - often times at stages the whole - of the process of individuation. But enough, thankyou
is some light violence (hip toss, wrestling) a good implementation of social shaming? not on woman of course, I'm thinking of the zoomer boy who blasts whatever in public.
peaceful, legal, safe and effective social shaming
“Pink noise as a weapon against private encroachment of the public space”
Body slamming him may make him behave better next time, but it will also ruin your life.
Wonderful, can't wait to read pt 2.
Can you explain a little more what you were talking about wrt innuendo being an even more extreme expression of libido? I didn't follow.
maybe not "extreme" but definitely "intense". rather than just "more energy", "more/the same energy focused in a smaller point"
I.e. by not talking about the thing directly, crudely, impolitely, you actually signal your real desire for the thing more intensely?
long range rifle vs shotgun spread, basically
Woah
> either cowardice, or the lack of ability, to “speak in public”. Many are capable who do not attempt it, and many are simply incapable, having not developed the psychological necessities to enable it.
Where i live now it is a part of a culture that is being almost transmitted with mothers milk (what is an equivalent of it when it comes to fathers?) to say toasts. Not that i am incapable but had i been born here it would be a level 67 by now not 14 through pains and effort (my father should have chose his wife and place to live more wisely). Thanks for reminding me it.
> The arbitrary bourgeoisie politeness of “may I” “please”, and so on, are exactly as fake.... There is a difference in scale, but not in category.
Reading now ordeal of civility. Isnt it his point that politeness for jews is a superstructure, dissimulation, hypocrisy not social reality sui generis hence room for psychoanalysis is a rest room from manners, counter-public space.
Maybe it is not arbitrary at all, development of the west one by one solved deadly sins - greed, lust, ?, ? - by devising this norms. They work - why arbitrary then?
Wanted to say for a long time now that your substacks are smth i can think about later. Even if answers to my question are exactly in this post.
when I call them arbitrary, I am speaking to myself/the reader who is still "on the inside" so to speak, of the normal, mainstream paradigm. My point is indeed that they are not arbitrary at all, it's meant as a reference to how they are being portrayed in mainstream culture and history. But I admit I should probably have been clearer about that and less snarky
appreciate your answer, Randy
GO EGGMAN GO
I frequently reflect on two different experiences I had, one in public speaking and another in a friend group, that felt exactly the same. The first was, someone went from telling a personal story into saying a scientific fact in their public speaking competition. The second was, someone starting telling the large friend group, mid-riffing, what their therapist said. In both cases, I thought, "Wow, if I could coach this person I'd do it totally differently, because before this it felt like you were building something with the group, and now you're kicking your feet up, and asking us to do a bunch of work. Ah yes, I recognize the importance of science/your wellbeing."
The point is not that these people are taking from the commons, it's that figuring out whether or not they know that is very costly. A lot of the "the culture is coarsening, the discourse is bad" is because a lot of people are out here *not knowing it's the discourse*
I disagree(?) with a few(?) points. Please correct me if i misunderstood something.
The act of watching a movie may be a private experience, but the movie itself is not private at all - it's been watched by millions of other people too, which is why references to it work in the first place. So why people use pop-culture references?
I can point towards two aspects: 1) it is precisely because a reference is an outside influence it has value in (some) human minds - it's not "yours", the words/sounds are someone else's, and therefore not sincere. Picture a situation: a friend of yours is departing on a long journey - will you say you wish him safe travels and eagerly await his return, or will you recite "May the Force be with you"? We live in the age of mass irony-poisoning, when people are afraid of expressing their true emotions, so they hide behind dozens of layers of sarcasm and detachments. Many deem one of the dialogue options to get a bit too close to heart. They aren't retreating into private, it's quite opposite.
2) Which also alters the reason why people in general use references. They want to "Connect" - want to know others who they can share their information with without being hurt, while also getting the same/similar in return. But since just pouring onto others the contents of your soul doesn't work if the other party doesn't care about it, gotta find someone who has similar interests. Who responds the right way.
This is where a "reference" factors in: It's an easy way to find out if others like a certain thing, which would allow to have a conversation about it. Or about something else too, because responding to a reference also signals that both of you have similar tastes, and possibly have more things to share: "you like what i like". And it's really easy - Star Wars(or GoT) was watched by generations, so finding common ground with others wouldn't pose a challenge. That kebab song was a signal flare for others to respond to. Which also illustrates how "difficulty" varies with popularity of the content referenced.
Would it be quicker to just ask people if they like Star Wars(or GoT)? Yes. But it is also direct. Sincere. Reference, while still getting close to one's soul, is impersonal enough, and allows for some level of neutrality. For both participants.
An effective(-ish) solution to Hedgehog's Dilemma which allows to be close and distant enough. It can be seen as an "escape" from the "public" sometimes, but it's a two-way street, one can run in both directions towards the same point in the middle.
It sounds like you and Randy are describing the same problem through opposite doors; an inverted public and private set of spheres. And inversion itself is far too common as well
Half-way through writing that i realised i wasn't disagreeing as much as i initially thought, even if his argument didn't sit right with me still. Perhaps there could be better words to describe the error i feel he made, but i haven't found them yet.
Excellent article 👍
Minor quibble- the line is one-dimensional (breadthless length). So the two-dimensional theory of mind you referred to would be better described as 'objectified across a surface', i.e. superficial, depth is external to it.
Also still not sure what the public/private sphere distinction is. Sounds too much like the individual/society antagonism. Is there anything that isn't mediated by the public/social? If so, what remains of the distinction? And is this conceptual distinction a product of specific historical conditions or are we doomed to have our existence bisected per aeternitatem?
From an 'NPC',
It might become clearer in the next part, the next section I've planned should probably have been the first, if I was a really structured person
Wonderful essay. There's a reason you're the only writer I read straight from the email reminder.
I think the act of forcing people to restrain their impulses in public probably helps in private too, as you now have some practice at holding back your urges, and can use that when it's only yourself and your guilt that would stop you from being gluttonous/horny/etc.
I will defend the normies a little bit though, even the online right sphere has its own in-jokes and references: WAGMI, pepes, its over/we're back, even it's own kebab-related reference that I'm guessing most of you might know. Everyone has some way of referring to common group experiences, and I don't think these are necessarily bad in their own right, they only become bad when they're used as a way to avoid deeper emotional expression.
And for the most antisocial among us, they can be like training wheels to expressing oneself more fully. It's better for a lonely autist to send his friend an angry yelling pepe with a gun or an emotional anime quote than for him to not communicate at all. But certainly, those should be transcended on the way to actually saying "I'm mad at my boss/wife/mom because they treated me unfairly". While training wheels are normally just for kids, if we're all emotionally and socially stunted, I guess we gotta start somewhere
Interesting that the Ordeal of Civility was written before the age of stand-up comedy, as I feel that in the modern day a similiar book would have to include that profession as yet another one in which Jews are overrrepresented and which speak directly or indirectly to the difficulty adapting to modern social rules and mores.
Freud says "Gentiles have lustful and rude thoughts and feelings too beneath the surface" and Seinfeld says "The social rules that make up civility can be inconsistent and appear arbitrary".
Both of these observations are true, they only become pernicious when used to say " therefore my lustful thoughts and actions should be allowed to roam freely" and "therefore we should get rid of these silly social rules"
Thank you, brilliant.
oh god i really dont want to think this all the way through
lets see if my denial makes it through part 2
Miau