Reducing the Input

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
This is something I pick up on in my own language. I'm conscious of constantly referring to "I", but I also don't want to speak for everyone else so I'm in two minds about referring to "we" or "you" in that way.
I don't know if anyone's noticed but I deliberately confuse I and we and speak as if I were the actual forum sometimes for a laugh
 
If you get it from someone else, can it ever be sincere? You're always copying what they did first. It's not an original expression.
Yeah everything has to be somewhat of a recombination. I feel sincerity has to involve risk and vulnerability and being willing to be misunderstood and lose face
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
Yeah everything has to be somewhat of a recombination.
This was something I struggled with re: music a while back.

I definitely struggle with new music atm, but it's extended to any music at all for the time being. The process of listening to it feels like it requires a lot of effort and it's much nicer to just listen to nothing at all. I said something in another thread about rather than being sick of new music or new arrangements of familiar elements, I'm sick of the elements themselves. I'm sick of drums and synths and guitars and voices and so on.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
It makes you wonder how much of a person makes them unique.
Genetic difference compounded by circumstantial/environmental difference. As far as I can tell, that accounts for literally everything variable among humans. Of course, I would argue against solidifying such a belief, especially one as drastic and unromantic as that.

edit: you know, reserve some doubt in the interest of magic/spirit/transcendent stuff - if for no other reason than to sustain the dialectics.
 
This is something I pick up on in my own language. I'm conscious of constantly referring to "I", but I also don't want to speak for everyone else so I'm in two minds about referring to "we" or "you" in that way.
I do this quite a lot and I think it’s mainly when I want to discuss the universal, or test if something is universal. And cos It’s inclusive cos im a Buddhist and shit. It’s also Instagram template craic “that moment when....”
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
That taking in more and more information often results in becoming less and less certain seems to be one of the big problems of our time and is exactly one of the reasons I decided to stop looking at the news. I've so little faith what I'm reading's reliable that I see no value in reading it.
 
Stating the obvious there. But I do go back and sometimes change my Is to yous or wes in messages or here and notice the difference in how it feels to read
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
That taking in more and more information often results in becoming less and less certain seems to be one of the big problems of our time and is exactly one of the reasons I decided to stop looking at the news. I've so little faith what I'm reading's reliable that I see no value in reading it.
Do you think this is worth brainstorming to find ways out of? Because I agree, in that it does seem to be increasingly common.

Even identifying this struggle seems to be a huge step forward. Not sure how much of a grasp other people have on it - it seems to be something that is more often felt than articulated.
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
If you're particularly fastidious... like Werner Herzog, you might extend that to watching celebrity big brother and love island and so on. Get a feel for the gestalt
Do you watch any television?

I do, I watch the news from different sources. Sometimes I see things that are completely against my cultural nature. I was raised with Latin and Ancient Greek and poetry from Greek antiquity, but sometimes, just to see the world I live in, I watch “WrestleMania.”

An unexpected choice.

You have to know what a good amount of the population is watching. Do not underestimate the Kardashians. As vulgar as they may be, it doesn’t matter that much, but you have to find some sort of orientation. As I always say, the poet must not close his eyes, must not avert them.

So you’ve been watching “Keeping Up With the Kardashians?”

I’m starting to discover it. I’m curious; that’s my guiding principle.
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
Do you think this is worth brainstorming to find ways out of? Because I agree, in that it does seem to be increasingly common.

Even identifying this struggle seems to be a huge step forward. Not sure how much of a grasp other people have on it - it seems to be something that is more often felt than articulated.
Yeah, I do. I'm just not sure there's a solution. You can't un-open Pandora's Box.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Yeah, I do. I'm just not sure there's a solution. You can't un-open Pandora's Box.
It seems like there is a major (hypothetical) alternative to media doing people's thinking for them. That alternative seems to involve arming/equipping the people with a potent and versatile ideological toolkit, one that can enable them to process more complex situations/phenomena.

Whether or not this alternative is feasible, I'm not so certain. I'm not even sure what it would entail, really. That said, I think the nearly impossible solution is a step up from the absence of a solution - provided we have the Sisyphian stamina that our era demands of us . From here, it is just a (long, long) matter of refinement.

Just like physical machines make our labor more effective/productive, perhaps theory-machines/devices (models, etc) can optimize our cognitive labor. Actually, that seems to be exactly what theory is best for.

If the global citizen is having to process more and more, do more and more cognitive labor, then they have much to gain from effective theory-tools / theory-machines. Much like if the classical worker has an ever increasing quota of products to make, they would have much to gain from access to physical machines.

This is part of the reason I stress the algorithmic behavior of nature: I think it is possible to make sense of anything. It just might involve creating a few new tools.

If we are trying to figure out how people can more effectively and more independently process the world, it would involve succinctly capturing (to enough of an extent: "All models are wrong, but some are useful") the crucial dynamics of everything, from how molecules effect the atmosphere, to the global political economy, and these models would have to be compatible and configurable into a kind of motherboard theory.

Is it possible to spread effective and thorough theory through the masses, even if it takes an innocuous and simple form? Or will most people only accept prescribed opinions? This is where I am inclined to study how the species, as a macro-agent, behaves, and what it seems to value. That might hold some key to an underlying mass appeal - that is, once we can understand how the species' values irrupt through the individual's values.

I'm not convinced it is Impossible, but I am convinced it is absurdly difficult.

Also, sorry to keep making everything so heavy - feel free to ignore these posts if they only bring headaches. No obligation to engage.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
they're not heavy. they're charmingly quixotic in a quaint Californian way. they add colour and variety. i really like them. it's as if we had one of the tech-titans of silicon valley here, one that hasn't quite worked out how to turn his dreams into a billion dollar empire yet.
 
Top