Crustacean Jung vs Cocaine Hegel

Found it:

"

"

CLOUD of UNKNOWING
December 05 at 5:50 am

This was written in a white heat some years ago and probably is incomprehensible.



[A]t once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in Literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously - I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason - Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge.

Byron was wrong, it was the internet killed Keats. It kills the capability of "remaining content with half-knowledge" for long enough to get the feel of things in fog or dusk. We're all Coleridge now (your cell phone is the portable Person from Porlock). "Half-knowledge" has the taint of shrill ignorance in 2013, but that's not what Keats means in 1819 or whenever it was.

When you've gathered enough of life and all, as Shakespeare had, then you ought to let your mind go up and monkey in the branches, blow soap bubbles or skip stones over the lake of it, for once not having Google (or Etymonline) open in one tab while you unspool your thought. It's what I love best in Stendhal and Pound, but that sort of writing can't be published honestly now. Once upon a time, being stuck in some small town without a decent library was apology enough for writing insights without footnotes.

I mean the ability to write purely in the mind because one is in a place inaccessible to research or any sort of fact-check. And that absence, as the author sits down to write his mind, explains the power and beauty of the writing. He lets his mind run and work across the landscape defined by what he remembers and how he feels remembering it. This is not an evasion; he knows he is doing this and reminds the reader of it. It was a then-possible way of expression.

You get a literal transcript of another mind, blind spots, biases, static and all. You can niggle the prose to death if you care to go dig up every reference now which he could not then. But only here, also, if you can set niggling aside for the moment, can you witness the pure dance of intellect. You can, from the page, inhale great thought like a bloom. You can commune with a skilled and fallible human mind, shamelessly unattached. Iron fact is supple and warm there, history's limber.

Let yourself overlook the flaws and gravel in the path that leads to it, for the sake of inhaling it pure for those few seconds you're in it. There's no other way in.

You can't do that intelligently anymore in the age of the internet. Write that way. Be vague about the dates and exact names. A reader who encounters that now is likely to regard it as a sign of laziness or chicanery.

Also, just flipping back through 90 odd pages in jumps of my bullshit, dude.

You are so brave to do what you do.

I cannot say the same of myself, only die a bit inside and feel the futility of trying to communicate with such poor tools, just looking back, thinking of recent times, that whole post just now.

If you say "But Erd ..."

I ask you why?

Fucking doonah of the lobster mate, I am not joking.

You're allowed to have ennui, get some counselling, do what you need to, I know nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

GOD!!!!!!

^Is it worth pointing out that the whole emo diatribe actually serves as a catch-22 to demonstrate the inherent ability and innate power to regulate and overcome adversity?

Ages of religious doctrine use this dual good vs evil mental fixation to fascilitate a personal growth paradigm.

It's obvious why the broad strokes are utilized and nuance is left out of the paradigm, it wants to encompass as many people as possible to make the "mental tool" applicable to as wide a variety of people as possible.

Peace,

-Boem-

What do you mean by the emo diatribe Boem?

"

Boem wrote:

The video's where ok, but it seems rather ingengious to say things like "you work 4 hours to produce what you need that day and then the next 4 hours make profit for your employer" as if by some magical wand swing you aren't given currency to utilize in the consumer system yourself enabling movement within the system.

The idea at play here, as far as I understand it, is that those extra 4 hours are "yours", but you don't really get paid for it - rather, the value you produce goes to those who own the means of production. They profit from your labor because they own the platforms or systems or machines you need to perform your labor - and this profit is often obscenely disproportionate. Why can a company afford to pay its CEO millions of dollars, but can't afford to pay its workers a living wage?

"

The alienation is a fun concept, i contemplated something similar myself on various occations, for example how outraged new-age groups are with hunting or animal suffering while they go and purchase meat in a shop every single day as if that animal didn't require killing.

It's only getting worse - consider: the advent of the bullshit job.

"

Currency is a magnificent tool to proliferate responsibility within the system until it reaches "non-consequential" value's among a mass of individuals.
This probably leads to the "morality within capitalism" thought pattern. But when i discuss this with people i always tell them, so imagine we have as a people two million dollars and we can split it 50%/50% to some guy with 160iq and to a guy with 90iq is that moraly justified?

Chances are the guy with the high iq will create things that serve not only himself but the world at large(as evident by the current system) as a consequence of his personal goal.

This is a particularly randian thought pattern, and one I'm not sure I agree with. The thought experiment itself is a bit of a weird setup. It's hard to disagree with as stated, but we certainly don't have a system that divvies up money according to IQ. And then we get into a whole other nasty can of worms when we start to realize that poverty itself and the stress that comes with being poor actually lowers IQ by almost a standard deviation, and that's before talking about things like lead exposure or poor education.

"

The system as a whole is the beneficiary of it's most labour intensive and smart people, which means it is moraly justifiable to funnel the most resources to those people while providing a sustainable and healthy life for regular people.

I don't think most modern socialists really disagree with this. Making life better for those who contribute greatly to society is pretty common sense. We tend to disagree on two points: firstly, that "making life better" means "earning more money as an individual in a year than several small countries", and secondly, what "smart people" means in this context - many of the best-paid CEOs, for example, led their companies horribly, and while there is sometimes a good correlation between benefit to society and pay, there all too often is not.

The key here is that a sustainable and healthy life for regular people isn't really a "thing" at the moment. Capitalism is failing a lot of people. Depending on the country, those people may rely increasingly on government social programs, or end up falling through the cracks (see also: https://www.gofundme.com/mvc.php?route=homepage_norma/search&term=insulin). And at the same time, you hear things like the richest man in the world saying, "The only way that I can see to deploy this much financial resource is by converting my Amazon winnings into space travel" in the same news cycle where it comes out that workers at Amazon warehouses are abused and underpaid. It's not hard to figure out where the anger comes from. A system that simultaneously allows for people to starve in the street and allows for others to have so much wealth that they literally cannot figure out how to spend it all is a system with some problems. Or, as AOC's policy staffer put it in his twitter handle: "Every billionaire is a policy failure".

"

Of course if we start going all diversity qouta's and undermining the selection process for those smart and labour intensive people then that ship leaves the harbor and we end up in a corruption incentivized civilization, since human self interest will compete with civilization as a whole.

Hoo boy do I really wanna open this can of worms?

Okay, let's just crack it open a little bit.

The "selection process" is and always has been horribly, unbelievably biased, almost always in favor of white men. There is so, so, so much research on this, from studies into HR reactions to "black names" to studies on what happens when we blind reviewers to the gender of the applicant in orchestras to individual cases that are just utterly mind-blowing. One particularly telling study that came out this month can be found here:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w25759

"

For organizations focused on scientific research and innovation, workforce diversity is a key driver of success. Blinded review is an increasingly popular approach to reducing bias and increasing diversity in the selection of people and projects, yet its effectiveness is not fully understood. We explore the impact of blinded review on gender inclusion in a unique setting: innovative research grant proposals submitted to the Gates Foundation from 2008-2017. Despite blinded review, female applicants receive significantly lower scores, which cannot be explained by reviewer characteristics, proposal topics, or ex-ante measures of applicant quality. By contrast, the gender score gap is no longer significant after controlling for text-based measures of proposals’ titles and descriptions. Specifically, we find strong gender differences in the usage of broad and narrow words, suggesting that differing communication styles are a key driver of the gender score gap. Importantly, the text-based measures that predict higher reviewer scores do not also predict higher ex-post innovative performance. Instead, female applicants exhibit a greater response in follow-on scientific output after an accepted proposal, relative to male applicants. Our results reveal that gender differences in writing and communication are a significant contributor to gender disparities in the evaluation of science and innovation.

A few things of note:

- The study takes it as a given that blinded review reduces bias and increases diversity. This is really well-established sociology at this point, to where it can be used as a premise rather than something the paper has to establish independently.
- Despite reviewers being unable to tell which applicants have which gender, womens' proposals get reviewed more harshly, and this seems to come down to gendered biases within how men and women write
- This disparity in review score not only disappears but actually reverses when it comes to the actual results.

So because of a disparity between how men and women write about these subjects, male projects are more likely to be selected, despite the blinding, and despite the fact that the female projects are more likely to succeed. This is one such built-in bias in the selection process that is legitimately harmful.

We see such patterns consistently within sociology - whenever we blind reviewers to the race or gender of the applicants, women and people color do better than expected, indicating that there is an existing bias toward people who aren't black, and people who aren't women.

Quotas are often a blunt, rather stupid instrument. But insisting that some proportion of the board of directors be women is hardly going to lead to far more unqualified people on the board - there are plenty of incredibly qualified women available. The study into the effects this has on productivity are a bit of a mixed bag, but it's very hard to argue for a clear negative effect.

TL;DR: quotas are not great but help counteract the far worse existing biases within "meritocratic" institutions.

And because that was all very dry:

"

鬼殺し wrote:

The Finnegans Wake of debates.

Finnegan's Wake is such a hard voice to get into; just grates on me. I bought it thinking a page a day could be kind of fun, without expecting to understand it in any narrative sense, but lord, it's horrible, the bubbling porridge - toned dead slang of it. Does it change on page ten or something?

Also, Budget Player,
zoning in on Finnegan's Wake was me taking a breath, kinda.
Looks like skipping over your well-thought out post, well I am, but others won't, not at all.
I am skipping around, and in no mood to do it justice, is all.
Oh dear, would you like a scone, perhaps some tea?
:)
haha
where'd I put that ... uh...

ill just use numbers as to not have to quote every single point and mash it up.

1) Does this aknowledge the fundamental risk somebody takes that invest's(at the expense of risking all of his own previous 4 hours of extra currency earned in a previous point in time) in the means of labour and then provides those to other people so that they in turn can also climb up in the system.

Im obviously not stating the system is perfect or is not corrupt.

But corruption is in my view preferable to ideology. Self-interest is allowed to every human being untill it reaches a point of moral fraud.

If a company doesn't pay it's workers a living wage, then those workers wouldn't be working there, it's a contradiction in statements. Maybe they aspire higher wages, but that is not the same as saying they have no means of survival by working at a company.(their self-interest obviously competes with the company leaders self-interest)

2) Bullshit jobs is something i have been pointing out to my dad for over twelve years now, it's fairly obvious when looking at politics and the proliferation of needless positions.(most obvious example highlighted in common society nowadays)

People need to be taken into the system while the system itself is getting more efficient over time which means a paradox occurs. An excess of work force and a decrease of work.(assuming efficiency of output outweighs the grow of potential consumers)

3)I don't understand how you can make the statement the current system doesn't operate on this function.

Entrepeneurs, investors and big funds all aim to preserve the wealth they have. Their self-interest directly aligns with attracting the most brightest future people into their ranks to sustain the wealth and make it in return available again to the future most brightest among us.

It's obviously a result of self-interest but that doesn't make it moraly corrupt for society as a whole.

Why do you think billionairs invest in schools and funds to educate people who show great promise/potential? What exactly do you think institutions like Yale and Harvard are? They divide populations on purpose so that the best rise to the top and can be scouted by big company's.(worth the investment of wealth)

Iq research has been done extensively, so not sure why you feel the need to point at environmental factors. The results are controversial(averages) but that doesn't take the function out of the institutions which is currently being undermined.

Again, not making the claim no corruption occur's, but i prefer corruption over instituted racism as is currently evident by the actions taken against asians in institutions like Harvard. Apparently asians are "superior", time to be offended or just aknowledge thats how the situation currently is.

4) i would bring up my point 3) as far as incentives go.

As for the system as a whole, i would be entirely in favor of "moral capitalism" but then the obvious question becomes "who's morals?"

As for the system failing people, any game ever invented has "fail-states".
The welfare state has obvious flaws as a whole, taking my own country as an example, a person taking social compensation for being unemployed get's 900 euro's a month, the same person working full-time in a low-skilled setting will earn 1200 euro's.

When i discuss this topic with my dad i always tell him the same thing
"why in the world would anybody feel motivated to work 20 days a month to gain an additional 300 euro's"

And why is the discrepancy so low? Well, taxes to pay for that welfare state.

Keep in mind, i'm from Belgium you can go check our tax rates and see how we score worldwide on that front.(if i remember correctly our total tax is 62%)

I don't see this as a failing of capitalism but a failing of understanding human motivation coupled with socialism.

No sain person would ever move out of the social system if his alternative is a marginal increase in compensation for 20 days of intensive labor.

Socialism requires people to feel bad in order to keep itself boot strapped in the political sphere so the incentive structure is tailored around keeping socialism enforced and not to help the people.

5) i'm fine with that assesment, i just dont think instituted racism is the solution.

Sat's are as far as i know objective measurement tools.

You think it helps people to throw them into a competitive educational environment in which they cannot compete because they where favored based on gender/race? You think such an action helps their stress and self-esteem levels?

It's so utterly flawed and elitist not to mention undermines the future of society as a whole it makes my head spin.

I'm sure the colleges who where using diversity quota's are going to be receiving a whole slew of prosecution and rightfully so by students who's academic career was undermined because some twat wanted to ideologically enforce diversity to fit a narative not condusive with how the world operates.

Hope that suffies.



Peace,

-Boem-

"

erdelyii wrote:

What do you mean by the emo diatribe Boem?

The whole "the world is full of suffering" peterson jam.

You linked a post criticizing it and to me it seems that person doesn't understand the inherent function of using the opposition of world of suffering and humanity inherently displaying strength to continuesly combat it and come out victorious in most cases.

Peace,

-Boem-

Look up "equity vs equality". Might be helpful.

Thanks for explaining, I wonder though if you're one of life's winners in the sense of few handicaps, and are aware of nothing outside your personal sphere and inner life, who and what exactly are you sharing the spoils of that victory with?

"

erdelyii wrote:

Look up "equity vs equality". Might be helpful.

Thanks for explaining, I wonder though if you're one of life's winners in the sense of few handicaps, and are aware of nothing outside your personal sphere and inner life, who and what exactly are you sharing the spoils of that victory with?

Everybody is equal before the law. That's what govermental law is ment for, obviously nobody starts out at equal positions only a fool would make that claim.

But in order for a society to function without missgivings the structures for mobility within that society need to be objective, which is the height of western achievement.(the individual has primary agency over his actions)

As for the spoils, i don't take any spoils so i have no spoils to give away.

In fear of repeating myself, i get a meal every day and have a roof over my head and as far as personal belongings go i have some clothing and a few books, the end.

If you want the books, i can probably manage to post-order them to you, the clothing however(call me selfish) i wish to keep.

Despite that, i help the people around me(physically) and provide food for thought if they desire so on whatever subject they want and never once requested compensation for doing so.

Does that count as sharing spoils? Not bothering other people is that a spoil?
Can the absence of action be considered a moral spoil? Or alternatively can it be subject to moral judgement.

Equality is a pipe-dream since nobody is born equal and neither will they ever be equal, we are individuals with our own personal burdens and life experiences and nobody is privy to a moral standart that can judge every single human experience and individual and proclaim punishment or reward based on that.

It is very hard for the world to match expectations if the expectation is heaven, then even a relatively good place let's say Europe of America crumbles under the weight of expectation and with it every feat we took ages to gradually work towards.

A road painted with the blood of milions upon milions of our ancestors now reduced to the childish notion that it didn't equate to heaven.

And i call it childish, because i can visit the graves of WWI and WWII, the mass graves of what currently would be called "nationalist's" who gave their life for a better tomorrow where an autoritarion top-down group dictated ideology would not reign supreme over the individual.

A notion many a senior citizens today still know with their body full well and cost the lives of milions of people all for the same chant "utopia".

You say i am unaware of anything out of my personal sphere, it's a valid claim to make. Though i would say people claiming they are "opressed by the patriarchy" have no clue about the current world.

One could point to 25 nations currently where oppression is institutionalized and attention should be focused on instead if one wanted to actually make a meaningfull difference.

People act like the war of idea's ended with the fall of the soviet union and i think to myself "yeah go tell that to the 500 boys that where gathered up in a village in Africa three weeks ago to be indoctrinated by boko haram"

Or the 112 girls that where take out of a school, the school set on fire with the teachers still inside, gun pointed against their head given the choice to run and be shot death or enter the transport vehicles only to be gangraped and turned into "obedient women".

I apologize if my priority's somewhat don't align with the main-stream notion of oppression when i see what happens on a daily basis worldwide and what i consider "injustice".

Peace,

-Boem-