Before we proceed to the substance of the article, indulge me by loading into your head a number of seemingly disparate items as such, unconnected. Take it on faith, I promise it'll be worth your time so just do it.
- Item #1. Diana wants to know why the girlies manning the sastreria can't be trained to become actual human participants, must be relegated to object status in the background. This is by and of itself a very solid, and very important question, and it unmitigatedly deserves an equally solid answer. Why is it that people can't play the role of people ?
- Item #2. I have said,
I expect (on the basis of experience!) that it is quite feasible to teach computing to ignorant thinking people -- god knows it is impossible to teach thinking to computer-cvasilliterate morons.
and moreover my own practice is very much congruent, and for a long time, with this saying. Why would I derride a
3031 yo "investment banker" instead of educating her ? What senseless waste of life is this, where I literally would much rather throw her away than pick her up and fix her ?
- Item #3. Consider this discussion :
mircea_popescu in other news, https://lurkmore.to/%D0%9A%D1%82%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D1%81_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8,_%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%82_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81 quite entertaining.
mircea_popescu "Мужчина без остро выраженной социальной позиции напоминает трансвестита, подкаблучника, труса или еще какую дешевую мерзость, недостойную носить это гордое имя: Воин! Дядька, стыдливо проходящий мимо подлости и грязи, — это уже напо ловину тетка, вне зависимости от его кондиций, возраста и социального статуса."
mircea_popescu if you ever wondered about the deluge of crossdressers -- this is exactly it, i'm sure. in the immortal words of Weston Amsbury Liggett, "to beat everyone, including you, to the punch".
mircea_popescu on meditation, that piece makes it plainly evident redditardation is ~generational~, not ideological. there sit the russki kids, who'd be in a fine position to understand the problem. god knows they have much better access to much better priors that readily illuminate it.
asciilifeform generations that get unplugged from sense, aha
mircea_popescu but instead, "совки vs. либерасты" hurr. they reconstructed "the dilemma", truly more meaningful than their lesser brethren's "coke vs pepsi", but to them ~just as meaningless~. the fucking point is that they ~want~ the "superiority" of http://trilema.com/2014/fred-quimby-and-ancient-evils/#footnote_5_53722
mircea_popescu amusingly enough, the 90s romanian redditard magazine was called "dilema".
mircea_popescu BingoBoingo has a lot more in his hand with the whole degenegeliation theory than readily realised : schmucks simply wanna "dilemma".
- Item #4. You have probably read along with me that excellent Ballas piece, "How does the shutdown relate to me" ; but I suspect you didn't understand it. I know I didn't, until having actually dissected enough "New Man" brains to gain actual familiarity with the... diseased state, shall we call it.
Alright, we're done. Let's proceed to thinking!
We shall think in the form of my asking questions. Question one : why is it that I could ask you load up four disparate items each worth some involved reading ? Whence and wherefore do I have the sort of credit ?
This happens to me all the time, by the way. I can pick up items in all kinds of shops without paying, I can do anything I fucking want. Far, far from "you can't order things not on the menu" (someone actually said this, you know ?), I can actually do whatever the fuck it is I wanti. The older woman in the sastreria story asked me specifically and precisely, "what do you want to do" when it came to payment. Because, and this is the important part, whatever the fuck it was, she was going to go along with it, all she wanted was it be specified clearly, and that's all.
But look at the other side. Why can I ask you to load up on some gibberish, with naught but the promise that "it'll make sense later" on offer ? You're a certain kind of chump, aren't you ? I mean, as far as alf knows, the only way to run a computer is to never ever do this. He's right, too -- yet the only way to run a human is to do this, precisely this, for as long as you can.ii
There is something that anchors, you to me, and me to you, my friends to me, me to my friends, my landlord to me, me to my landlord, there's something there. The space between a handshake, right ?
And yet you know people who don't have it. Well, "people", at any rate. But you are aware they exist, sad, broken defectives.
Question two : what if it doesn't stop there ? What if desocialization is not actually the only possible derealisation of the individual ?
Consider the oft discussed case of wolf children : in rural India, wolves will sometimes carry children away. The human child being the most whorish thing known to nature, they manage to mimic a wolf cub enough to not get eaten, but fed instead. Can you believe this is what we are, at the bedrock, by the way ? Yet it's true.
These children fed by wolves fail to develop speech. Children learn to speak by mimicking originally, which is to say, by taking the adults on credit. As wolves don't speak, wolf children do not learn speech, and as brain plasticity and human development carry on, the portion of the brain that'd have been occupied by speech gets taken over by other functions. Adults who grew up with wolves can never learn language, not to any respectable standard in any case. They will never enjoy a book, or laugh at a joke, or even recognize a pun. Just not there.
But obviously, this is contextual, you say. Sure. It is contextual, those poor beings' misfortune (queue a whole boatraftload of literature showing how "really not" etc, all that tiresome wank). Yet...
Question three : what isn't contextual ? Obviously children learn language from their parents, but who do they learn socialization from ? Yes children are born with an innate drive to learn language, just like they're born with an innate drive to socialize. But who do they learn all this from ? And how ?
Question four : What else ?
It doesn't stop with language, or social relations, does it ? As a factual matter, there could be such a thing as a deidealized person.
Consider a child born by the sad failures inhabiting our sadly failed colonies in North America. This child is never liable to encounter any sort of relation between the ideal and the real that'd permit him to anchor the former into the latter, would he. In such a simulated world, the child would acquire no model whereby to relate the natural byproducts of his organ churning with the repeating patterns reported by the senses. "Exam taking" is the word for a light and limited expression of this problem, where the child fails to comprehend anything, but learns how to mix-and-match the incomprehensible garbage and meaningless refuse into experimentally-established acceptable patterns.
Yet it doesn't stop there, does it ? Asciilifeform's celebrated "if i make it what i think is the right size, it crashes!111" is the necessary and predictable end result of pop-up avoidance. Have you ever seen the iliterate (but not therefore unintelligent) computer operator engaging in this game of random clicking ? "I wonder if I do this...". The fellow's trying to get a desired result out of a black box, and can never answer a question in the vein of "but why are you doing that". In fact, merely being asked anything even remotely like it infuriates him -- not because he's evil, but because he's well aware what's going on, and fighting with himself over it. The third party expression of internally repressed ideas is what evokes anger in the individual. What the fuck else would ?!
Yet it doesn't stop there either, does it ? Can it ever stop ? What if one could bring up children who never ever interacted with any sort of abstract in any meaningful way, whose ideal world is completely, I do not use the world lightly, completely separate from the real ? They could speak, of course, but in the manner UStards speak -- small talk, prefabricated phrases on predecided topics, sports, commercials, "awareness", etcetera. The activity may simulate, for the naive, a complete orchestra -- but it'd be less complete than any conceivable alternative. In point of fact, while the mouth traced the wooden paths, the mind would be elsewhere, in an indescriptible, unilluminable elsewhere.
Last question : Would such a person ask you to explain how "the news"/"reality" relates to them ?
Because obviously they don't understand how anything abstract relates to anything concrete. Which doesn't mean that I, my lordship, the great and fabulous and whatever else myself carries no credit with them. It means that nothing does, you understand, ex nihilo nihil, there is simply no way to order idealsiii absent the fundamental bridge anchoring abstracts to concretes.
If I'm trying to explain tailoring to someone who doesn't know what it is, I will start with fabrics and cuts and needles. But if they do not understand what fabric is, because they have literally not ever perceived such a thing as the miracle of weaving before I will have to start a little earlier. Where would you start ?
Where do you start when there is absolutely nothing to start with ?———
- While explaining to girly the dubious nature of "crime", I recounted the following story : one day, I walked into a friend's business, and without further ado asked him how much he has in the till. He answered. "Alright, I'll take it", came the retort. And I took it.
"Was he being held up ?" stood the question to her. It's an unanswerable question. Alligned merchants belong to the lord (and unalligned merchants belong in the limepits). That I never oppressed my merchants does not mean they weren't my merchants ; and that officious intermeddlers came up with whatever "other names" for lords doesn't change the substance, structure or functioning of reality, nor carries any interest. Of fucking course I was welcome to take it, or any portion thereof ; and of fucking course I was going to make it up to him, after all he's my fucking friend, neh ? Yet what's "make it up to him" mean ?
I can (I know, because I have, and I don't mean illo tempore -- even within last year) pay my landlord a visit, take all the money he has in the house (plus some more the spouse runs over to bank to get from her private account and delivers at my door on her own fucking time), because I say "I need it". Can you ? Does this disparity make me a "gangland figure" and you a "law abiding citizen" ? Maybe it just makes your relations very fucking shitty, and perhaps the fault's not mere circumstance, maybe the problem's your very capacity for having relations in the first place ? Maybe it's because you play life-lite and never brought anyone any cool gifts, maybe that's why nobody gives a shit about you or what you say ? Aww, and you thought you could brute-force it by having children, tsk tsk!
- Have you seen Le notti di Cabiria ? Excellent film on the exact topic. [↩]
- I am too lazy to use the full Kantian regalia. Sorry bop. [↩]