@EdenicFaithful's banner p

EdenicFaithful

Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:50:58 UTC 

				
User ID: 78


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
EdenicFaithful


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 04 18:50:58 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 78


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The Munk Debate with Matt Taibbi, Douglas Murray, Malcolm Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg is now online: Be it Resolved: Don't Trust Mainstream Media.


Contrary to many alternative media takes, I thought that Goldberg had a surprisingly strong showing. I remember her from the Peterson, Fry, et al. debate where she seemed too crude at times. This time Goldberg's opinions clearly came from experience, and her points were well conveyed. Briefly she claimed that there are clear signs that the media does learn from its mistakes and "overcorrects," that the media would not have driven you to make bad decisions if you followed it, and that the processes and culture of the media remain in place. The debate was worth watching just for her.


Murray conveyed a deep sense of moral disgust at what he saw as the carelessness of the Con side. This too came off as having come from experience. There was a point lurking here that I thought needed more articulation. The Con side said that they were professionals who were still doing what needed to be done, and they pointed frequently to successes on their side. But can one be called a professional if only the broad "process" is followed, and no attention is taken to details such as promptness of reporting, accountability, and the taking of personal responsibility rather than pointing fingers? In the absence of the markers of professionalism, it seemed more like they were claiming that their status as mainstream reporters performing an essential service gave them the right to lead people to a better future. In this I am reminded of the film The Verdict. Few people really care if a doctor will do a fine job in the future, if he can get away with criminal negligence just this one time.


Gladwell's performance dragged down the debate consistently, but I feel some sympathy for him. His system of diversity has left him in a place that he didn't think it would take him. His constant complaints about white people did not seem enlightened, but as bigoted as any racist tract. Still, his point about whether people like him would have been "included" in the past did have something to it. What we've seen in recent times is a concept of diversity that succeeded in pushing people forward, but failed in the end to bring them up to the same standards as those who they have joined. It is just like programs which try to give educational opportunities for the disadvantaged, but which children finish without learning proper English. If you forget the goal, then you have failed and must try again. Similarly, Gladwell wasn't supposed to end his journey as something that strongly resembles a bigot, but he seemed unable to stop himself from doubling down on it despite it being obvious that it was doing them no good. If men like Gladwell begin to recognize failure and try again, perhaps building on what they have learned so far, I have little doubt that they will do a lot of good.


Taibbi did well, not much to say there. I do think that the Pro side didn't adequately answer questions about their alleged fixations on culture war (edit: and Twitter) issues, but it seems like a charge that could easily be thrown back at the mainstream media over the past decade.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
More generally,


    

  1. 

    That will never happen.
    

    2. 

  2. 

    When it happens, you will fucking deserve it.
    

    3. 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 24, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, what are you reading?


Can't say I'm reading much. Poor Edmond Dantes is in prison. I suppose I'll pick up something Christian soon.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 2, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So TheMotte has finally infected my dreams.


There was an image-posting thread called "Simple Idealism" with the caption The world is aflame with ideology. Just remember that this is all training for upcoming Mandarins in powerful institutions, and has been ignored by people worldwide since the dawn of fire. It was followed by Renaissance-styled art of rustic fireplaces.


Thank you, IdealisticFireplace. Please lurk less.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 10, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, what are you reading?


I'm going through the Quran. Some themes are emerging. The sight of the unseen, the desire to express things which seem difficult to communicate, the rejection of wealth and privilege as a justification for belief, and above all the adherence to principle rather than expedience because the things desired were themselves provided by their God. Repetition of form but not substance seems like a principal means of expressing subtlety.


There's an evident underlying rage, but I think that we lose much by examining only the words and not the approach. There was a dream here, one which may help fill some of the gaps in my understanding.


Still on McGilchrist and Dumas.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for November 26, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, what are you reading?


I'm picking up Zurayk's The Meaning of the Disaster, which established the term Nakba (ie. the disaster) related to the Palestinians. I've seen it mentioned several times in articles by pro-Israel writers, typically to point out that the "disaster" was that Arab countries failed in their war against Israel, and not just the unprovoked displacement of the Palestinians. I wondered how the source text itself would read.


It is refreshing to read a foreign opinion on the topic, however dated. One does wonder if his take on international Jewry, which reads a lot like conspiracy theories of the West, was an indigenous one born from dealing with the West from the outside, or an imported one.


Also picking up Herzl's The Jewish State.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Wellness Wednesday for October 5, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
E-Prime is English without the verb "to be." I read a quote somewhere by someone that it is an effective way of teaching the scientific way of thinking, removing the ability to make god-like declarations about the nature of reality. Albert Ellis suggested that it is useful for therapy.


You know, it actually helps for self-reflection. Many times in thinking we are confused about where the emphasis ought to be. Is the fault with me? Ought I not to blame myself? How should I feel? E-Prime has a way of obviating the problem by acting as a compass where you only need to follow the needle and see where you end up.


For example, instead of thinking "I am sorry," in E-Prime I ended up thinking "I want the problem to stop." This is a revealing conclusion, because wanting the problem to stop does not mean that I am doing anything to stop it.


Today I was reflecting on another mistake, and E-Prime led me to "I acknowledge that I failed to meet expectations in an egregious manner, and now that I put it that way, I realize that I have a lot of work to do before I intuitively understand the gravity of my error." This is considerably more useful than the "sorry" that came naturally, and importantly, it helps me clearly understand my state of mind- I didn't say "I feel terrible about it," instead I said "maybe I should feel terrible about it, but I need to put in some effort before that can happen."


This complexity is easily masked in "I am sorry," which can include anything from "I regret the choice" to "I recognize that I must offer an apology for social harmony" to "I feel horrible about this." It seems more about belonging to a category than anything specific.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 29, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Male protagonists are often in a sense sex symbols for women. You can't easily write a leading role of a female sex symbol. Competent male leads work for both men and women. James Bond is an obvious example of a character tailored in some ways to female tastes.


As to your question, I have never thought of Major Kusanagi as anything other than incredible.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah, Gladwell's monologue near the end was an incredible display of compartmentalism. He really didn't seem to realize what he was saying.




I don’t mean to make light of it at all, but it is one that makes me a little uncomfortable. Because I don’t think that you can ultimately say that trust in institutions is reserved solely for institutions that perfectly match the characteristics of the general population. It is like saying that we don’t trust kindergarten teachers, because kindergarten teachers are over-represented with people having an enormous amount of patience for the temper tantrums of four year olds. I mean they are an extraordinary and very specific subgroup of the population that performs very well in that particular task more generally.




Murray's objections about the disorderly manner they conduct their thoughts was spot on.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 21, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, what are you reading?


I'm on Meyer's In Defense of Freedom. It's an effective statement of right-libertarian ideas, and surprisingly critical of Kirkian conservatism. Meyer's defense of freedom and reason is in large part against "New Conservatism's" defining of freedom as the freedom to do one's duty. It's surprising considering that the system related to his name is "fusionism." I'll have to dust off my Kirk sometime.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 22, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, what are you reading? (Also, see another good book thread here in the Fun Thread)


I'm picking up Alan Watts' The Way of Zen. Watts has often been in the back of my mind, but I never read him deeply. Extremely vague links to Korzybski has stirred my interest.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for September 25, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, what are you reading?


I'm picking up Benda's The Treason of the Intellectuals. It seems like one of those books that people who know things reference at some point or the other.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, what are you reading?


Still on Hurewitz' The Struggle for Palestine. Slow progress. The topic of education has stuck in my mind. Jews educated young Zionists in schools on the Continent, while Arab Palestinians couldn't help but be influenced by their local peers.


Zurayk made an interesting comment in his book The Meaning of the Disaster that Jews spent their youths being influenced by all kinds of "isms." If we pare down his evident outgroup prejudice (he includes Naziism), there was a point being made there. From an Arab point of view, the Jews were importing a great deal of the rest of the world's thought. But taken literally, it seems that the Arabs lacked the desire to empathize because they were busy berating their own people in a nationalist educational program.


Meanwhile, the "national home" of the Jews became a done deal, and because of the pressure for emigration from Europe and its underlying reasons, Arab maximalist goals, rightly or wrongly, moved further and further away from their grasp.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for September 24, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, what are you reading?


I'm still on Paradise Lost. So far God isn't coming off well and Jesus sounds harebrained. On the other hand, Satan seems to have unfortunate ideas about what to do with humanity, which feels personal.


Paper I'm reading: Magnus' Science and Rationality for One and All.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, what are you reading?


I'm picking up Kendi's How to Be an Antiracist. It has been on the backlog for a while as an influential book, but a careless thought has finally given me a reason to be interested: I wonder what impact wokeness has had on highly successful minorities.


Paper I'm reading: Thiele's Things Fall Apart: Integrity and Visibility in Democratic Liberal Education.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 11, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
One of the core insights which has struck me in the past years has been that tribalism is downstream from reality.


People too often focus on the group itself and ignore the ecosystem it's part of. Any group gets modified by reputation, competition, practicalities and the need for results. It is only after this kind of modification has happened that you can understand the significance of a "social ritual."


There are risks, but groups are also the basis of pluralism and a way of learning where we all stand relative to each other.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, what are you reading?


I'm flipping through Simmel's The Philosophy of Money. The only thing I know about Simmel is that he wrote an influential paper on secrecy and secret societies. The book's a tome, and quite dense, but I've been looking for a while now for an economics-related tome that actually clicks. Perhaps this will be it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Cochrane review is out and masks have weak evidence that they are not effective
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is probably because population-level masking is more of a political than an evidence-based issue- values play a big role. And in any political issue, no matter how much people claim to be objective, factors such as "what the other side did" will always matter in judging the data, and in judging the proponents of particular interpretations of that data.


For this reason I find both sides of the flip-out to be lacking in self awareness. These kinds of conversations often begin with a friendly calm and end with both sides betraying each other without admitting to having done so, because somewhere along the line instinct and fuzzy memories took over without being noticed.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 18, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, what are you reading?


I'm still on Lucretius' On the Nature of Things, and also flipping through whatever vaguely Christian books happen to be in arm's length.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for September 18, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, what are you reading?


I'm still on Laslett's The World We Have Lost, one of those books from the past that Curtis Yarvin mentions occasionally. Has definitely stimulated some thoughts, but it feels like one of those books which will show its value over time. Also eyeing Burroughs' A Princess of Mars, due to a recent sci-fi related thread here. This is an anachronism, but I'm hoping for something that reminds of Frank Frazetta.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 12, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, what are you reading?


I'm trying to finish Alan Watt's The Wisdom of Insecurity. I wasn't impressed the first time I tried it, but his work on Zen changed my image of him in a positive way. Still slowly going through my backlog.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for September 8, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, what are you reading?


Still on The Conquest of Bread and Future Shock. Also finished Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life, which posits that Wallace was a precursor of intelligent design. The biography was good, though the arguments at the end were sometimes confusing.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for August 4, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, what are you reading?


Still on The Mysterious William Shakespeare and This Star of England. I wonder if the distinction between orthodox and unorthodox is really between “objective” and “subjective” theories of art.


The orthodox (some of them?) tell us that Shakespeare was apparently an objective artist whose works stand on their own. He was a workaday man who wrote plays for profit and there is no hidden significance to be interpreted. The unorthodox would have us believe that the author’s life and the people he knew strongly influenced the works, to the point where the works themselves can help fill in a missing biography. He was a man who didn’t care about money and whose sensitive nature is visible in the works.


I find the orthodox position (if this is an accurate representation of it- it may be dated) baffling. I cannot believe that Hamlet is devoid of subjective intent. In fairness to the orthodox, the attempt to reduce Shakespeare to a force of nature seems in part a backlash to their own excesses in the past, where scholars painted fanciful biographies for the man from Strafrord. I’ll have to delve into some of their works soon.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 7, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, what are you reading?


I'm on Arsène Lupin, Gentleman Burglar. The writing is smooth and the character is great, though still hoping it will be more than just entertaining.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Wellness Wednesday for April 3, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Writing advice is meant to be absorbed and then ignored. You have to do your due dilligence and take it all in, and of course you need to get the fundamentals down (don't skip the fundamentals), but you should know how to ignore advice.


Some writers will tell you two different things if asked the same question at different times. The value of the corpus of words words words which constitutes writing advice is simply that it exists in all its sprawling horror. It is there to be consulted when you're lost. It won't teach you everything you need to know right now. It's an immanent tool, not a fixed pattern. It is the I Ching with mildly better results.




That said, some writing advice.


    

  1. 

    Do you have a coherent message? Can you put it in words, in a paragraph or two?
    

    2. 

  2. 

    Signal-to-noise ratio is the single most important thing after message. You can equally damage the communication by mulling over things too much which the reader won't care about, even if it is of high technical quality. On the other hand, some things work simply because high techical quality was the point. What's important is if the message is transmitted.


    
You only need so much of each aspect as to get the message across effectively, and too much takes the focus away from the message. Your readers aren't stupid. Give them what you value in a form which they can accept, and they'll fill in the gaps themselves, sometimes by doing their own research.
    

    3. 

  3. 

    There really is no substitute for words outputted as far as getting off the ground goes, assuming that you haven't written lots and lots of words already. If you struggle to rack up words with a project which seems important to you, find a really dumb one which you won't take seriously (you don't have to hate it), anything that you can actually just write (you don't have to publish). You can't reflect on your writing if you have no writing to reflect on, however bad, and the mind seems to do this automatically.


    
Everyone is telling you to do this because we've all been there. At some point, it clicks, and it seems to do so simply by the amount of words. When you're there, at least you'll have a more realistic idea of where you stand and what your prospects are. The way you sound, I wouldn't trust your opinion of yourself.
    

    4.