May 28, 2022·edited May 28, 2022Liked by Egg Report
Your frame assumes categorically that evil and stupidity both do not exist, nor do they need to be addressed. Big Contrary tho good job
> Uncritical thinking is having fun. Uncritical thinking is about entertaining wild crazy interpretations of things, because it’s fun.
Satire involves wild and crazy interpretations of things, and it’s fun. But satire is not overly charitable, because satire being overly charitable as you imply, would be to remove the humor—and you actually become dishonest because you’re doing an undeserved steel man. Which is now hyper-rational, which invalidates your entire premise
The issue is that today the system tend to act in the world with perpetual plausible deniability, and assert the right to do takebacks when they’re engaging in deliberate cultural debasement and demolition.
On the other hand when those who stand against the system and for something of substance make humorous and fun satire about the system this is considered by your “uncriticality” as being “too serious” (satire is now somehow now inverted to be practiced by those with a stick up their ass)
You’re somehow simultaneously claiming critical thinking is too literal-minded, while also endorsing blindly trusting people when learning a language, rather than conditionally (critically) doing so because it’s pragmatic and expedient. Confused thinking
"And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven."
this hits close to home for me, and I suspect also for many codemonkey rw twitter accounts that kvetch about the miserable experience that is contemporary software development - most of our peers are "critical thinker" kill-joys & happiness vampires
There are many signifiers for the mode of cognition, indexed by context. What I'd like to see expanded upon, can people even self-govern to use mode befitting of the task at hand? The impression I get is that people do so by pattern recognition at best, programmed socially.
Can an uncritically thinking inclined person even see when using intuition is improper? Can a sperg just yield to a gut feeling, without ad-hoc overintellectualizing? If so, how would they go about it?
While this is what Kant touches upon, in a dry autistic language, a rulebook "using the widest terminology" for us mere proles could be interesting.
Like all other muscles, the cognitive muscle of imagination must also be stretched. Otherwise, it will atrophy and die, taking with it creativity and originality, perhaps even an essence of the soul. Of course, critically , the soul does not exist because it cannot be measured for length, width and height.
Your frame assumes categorically that evil and stupidity both do not exist, nor do they need to be addressed. Big Contrary tho good job
> Uncritical thinking is having fun. Uncritical thinking is about entertaining wild crazy interpretations of things, because it’s fun.
Satire involves wild and crazy interpretations of things, and it’s fun. But satire is not overly charitable, because satire being overly charitable as you imply, would be to remove the humor—and you actually become dishonest because you’re doing an undeserved steel man. Which is now hyper-rational, which invalidates your entire premise
The issue is that today the system tend to act in the world with perpetual plausible deniability, and assert the right to do takebacks when they’re engaging in deliberate cultural debasement and demolition.
On the other hand when those who stand against the system and for something of substance make humorous and fun satire about the system this is considered by your “uncriticality” as being “too serious” (satire is now somehow now inverted to be practiced by those with a stick up their ass)
You’re somehow simultaneously claiming critical thinking is too literal-minded, while also endorsing blindly trusting people when learning a language, rather than conditionally (critically) doing so because it’s pragmatic and expedient. Confused thinking
"And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven."
this hits close to home for me, and I suspect also for many codemonkey rw twitter accounts that kvetch about the miserable experience that is contemporary software development - most of our peers are "critical thinker" kill-joys & happiness vampires
Criticical and Uncritical.
Autistic and Holistic.
Deductive and Inductive.
Sensing and Intuitive.
There are many signifiers for the mode of cognition, indexed by context. What I'd like to see expanded upon, can people even self-govern to use mode befitting of the task at hand? The impression I get is that people do so by pattern recognition at best, programmed socially.
Can an uncritically thinking inclined person even see when using intuition is improper? Can a sperg just yield to a gut feeling, without ad-hoc overintellectualizing? If so, how would they go about it?
While this is what Kant touches upon, in a dry autistic language, a rulebook "using the widest terminology" for us mere proles could be interesting.
Another good article, enjoyed the framing.
Like all other muscles, the cognitive muscle of imagination must also be stretched. Otherwise, it will atrophy and die, taking with it creativity and originality, perhaps even an essence of the soul. Of course, critically , the soul does not exist because it cannot be measured for length, width and height.