EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
No bio...
User ID: 78
So, what are you reading?
I'm still on Delany's Babel-17. It's definitely on the too-weird side, but Rydra Wong is a fantastic protagonist with the apparent ability to read people like a book.
Paper I happen to be reading: Elias (1956). Problems of Involvement and Detachment. My impression of the social sciences has undergone a rehabilitation ever since I learned that Comte coined "sociology."
If you're like me, you spend a lot of time trying to talk yourself down from temptations. I think I've found a general method that has more or less solved the problem.
Instead of asking whether you can or can't do something (eg. eat cake), ask only if you can say yes to doing it, or give no answer at present. The problem with "yes or no" is that deciding 'no' implicitly begins a power struggle, where one has to enforce the answer rather than merely understand the issue.
"Yes or no answer" removes the difficulty and makes objective thinking easier, and while it doesn't always stop the problem, it tends to put one in a better position over time. My thoughts are much more accurate and powerful when I try this: instead of "but it's against the rules I set!" I think things like "the laws of health won't go away just because I want them to." You can always try the normal way afterwards.
So, what are you reading?
I'm picking up Delany's Babel-17. In an old SF mood. Something about language.
So, what are you reading?
I'm still reading Sargant's Battle for the Mind. Can't say I find him very reliable, but I do wonder if I can find some similarity between the models of the mind which he has laid out and tropes about how humans behave.
So, what are you reading?
I'm picking up Sargant's Battle for the Mind, an early tract on brainwashing. Sargant is somewhat notorious and the book doesn't seem to be taken very seriously today, but I find that I often learn a lot more from founding myths than from contemporary consensus. In particular there seems to be an old popular debate about how Pavlovian conditioning-related ideas actually apply to the human sphere- whether conditioning is ubiquitous and therefore humans need safeguarding, or whether the will is primary and therefore punishment is futile- and while this may be a popular oversimplification, I'm trying to figure out what makes each side tick.
It has the virtue of being a real show.
The characters work well together, they aren't pieces of paper who exist for the sole purpose of pouring out the writers' impoverished souls. It runs the gamut of (mildly) thought provoking to hilarious.
There's only one actor who seemed to come straight out of Discovery (had one episode and honestly wasn't bad), most of the rest displayed a shocking level of competence.
There's no silly plot points sending people on fetch quests (apart from maybe the doctor, but he gets better), no obnoxious mystery boxes.
It's filled with a warmth and thoughtfulness that can really pull one in. For a first season of a Trek, it gets top marks. It isn't perfect, but these people had fun working on something that had genuine merit, and it shows. I would recommend watching episode 2 first if you can't find much patience. Ahura's introduction is where it starts getting good.
I haven't seen it all yet, but it's a sincere effort.
All of the new actors are at least trying to fit in, and it mostly works. Some of the character behaviour is bizzarre at times, and that can be very off-putting, but it isn't all the time. They manage to get some fire out of Patrick Stewart, and occasionally it comes at an appropriate time. The other TNG characters have done great.
Still has the problem of trying too hard to be something it isn't, and its underlying structure is still thin. But it hits the right notes consistently enough- it got me on the very first episode when it was riffing on The Wrath of Khan.
It isn't stellar (as far as I've seen, it isn't nearly as solid as SNW), but it isn't something that hates its audience or the art of storytelling, and it has some genuinely good moments with a much lower level of utter cringe than before.
Still trying Historical Construction of National Consciousness, but it's putting me to sleep. Content is good but the style is dense.
Looking at Bernard Suits' The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia. It starts with a Socratic dialogue where the grasshopper in the grasshopper-and-ant story is a leader of a philosophical school who leaves behind a puzzling dream for his followers when he dies. It is said to be both an influential and a sometimes overlooked book on game studies (not game theory, more like Homo Ludens).
So, what are you reading?
I'm starting The Historical Construction of National Consciousness, selected writings of Jenő Szűcs. The actual writings seem to be, as the title suggests, scholarly writings on the formation of the sense of nationhood, but my main interest is in Hungarian thought during the communist years. I don't know how much I'll get out of it on that front. Nevertheless it looks like a worthy and recent volume which may deserve more attention. The book is open access.
So, what are you reading?
I'm still on Condon's The Manchurian Candidate. The trope of suspecting some hidden, embarrassing failings in everything that looks outwardly competent and yet fails to adjust has always seemed strange to me. The writing didn't live up to my expectations, but the setup so far seems like it may pay off powerfully if he does it right. I wonder how seriously anyone took this kind of fictional brainwashing at the time this came out.
So, what are you reading?
I'm picking up Condon's The Manchurian Candidate. I had stumbled on some other work of his and was very impressed with his writing skills. The movie left little impression, but the trope of brainwashing seems to be a recurring one in the modern mentality, even if it appears in different forms over time.
This is beautiful. I was only just wondering whether there was anything resembling a religious take on programming, and "holistic" is close enough. Thanks!
So, what are you reading?
I'm starting Yeskov's The Last Ringbearer, after a re-watch of the LoTR films. It's an "other side" story from Mordor's perspective mentioned occasionally on /r/rational. Hopefully it doesn't accomplish this by ruining the "good guys" entirely, but I suppose we'll see.
In the end, it's a crime story. The jargon, infighting and dubious motives honestly makes it feel like a good novel to read on vacation to me. Trying to analyze it deeply would lose the momentum. Neuromancer only seemed different because it pulled you into Case's mindset so deeply that one only notices at the end that the story had little intrinsic drive beyond being a crime story. Of course, that was also where the greatness lay.
So, what are you reading?
Still on Count Zero. It lacks the unbearable tension and intellectual fervor of Neuromancer, but it somehow feels more workmanlike. It's considerably more heavy on the jargon, and with little explanation. A pleasant read so far.
So, what are you reading?
I'm picking up Gibson's Count Zero, the second in the Sprawl Trilogy. I haven't heard much about this one, but Neuromancer was great.
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.
So, what are you reading?
Still on Freinacht's 12 Commandments. I think I have my answer as to what post-metamodernism looks like. Metamodernism claims to be both sincere irony and ironic sincerity, but I wonder if it isn't lacking the latter in practice.
Star Trek SNW seemed to me from the start like an ideal example of both metamodernism and its failings. Pike is a Nice Guy not because he sees through your resentment and learned a better lesson than you, but because he's already decided what box he wishes to live in. As much as I loved the show, one looks in vain for a sense of actual conviction.
It runs instead on a fait accompli which says "there are Thoughtful People who won't be hypnotized anymore." I imagine people will be shocked if the general populace once again willingly chooses to be dupes of obvious frauds rather than to be this kind of Thoughtful. Something is still attempting to be expressed, and spirals of complexity and sophistication can also be used as tools of suppression. The trick would be to ironically tease out what is actually being expressed and suppressed without being duped oneself, and to derive enduring principles stated in simple, effective forms on which a new sincerity can be built.
Again, my bad for cutting in. I'll freely admit that I posted without thinking. But you know, in a way this response sums up my initial intuitions about this whole thing.
If your anger stems from me being an idiot without grace or common sense, you would be right, but it also seems like you're prioritizing the fluff of conversation and not the meat. You might as well click a random page in the Library of Babel and learn how to use the I Ching on it. Sometimes you just have to say no, and you'll never find what you're looking for until you grasp what this feels like in practice.
I'm afraid I cannot put this into a more thoughtful form than this at present, so perhaps you would be right to declare victory and move on. But I doubt it.
Wrong person, though it's my bad for cutting in. I just don't get the point of conversations with ChatGPT like the one quoted above.
I'm happy to ignore Are You Smarter than a Large Language Model? Seems better to turn off the TV. Priorities, man.
As long as the world isn't exploding, I don't think I need that kind of pointless dialectic.
So, what are you reading?
Still on Freinacht's 12 Commandments. It's sparking some curiosity about what post-metamodernism might look like, though I'm still not sure that I have a clue as to what metamodernism looks like.
I would strongly advise keeping your head down, because there are likely power games going on behind the discussion that you have no awareness of. But to answer the question, I suggest a diet of papers and "grey literature." Read the most readable of them, the ones that at least have some effort behind it. Read CSIS' pdf reports, and those published by globalist organizations. Read papers by people like Kendi, and read a lot of them, not just books, because papers are an art form in themselves. Pay attention to interesting references and get a feel for that frame of mind.
An AI worm is inevitable, assuming that the size restraints from copying itself can be overcome either through shrinking model size or through increased storage capacity and transmission speeds.
This is the real first battleground, I think. We need to learn how to build resilient systems, and I'm convinced that we need new concepts for it.
So, what are you reading?
I'm on Comte's A General View of Positivism. For various reasons I've recently been thinking about the word "utopia" often. I can't help but feel that the current AI obsession is missing the forest for the trees, that there's still useful and necessary work to be done which our current intellectual leaders will not themselves start. Perhaps studying old reformers will spark some ideas.
The book itself is odd. Comte's an atheist who talks about spirituality, and though my impression of him has always been as the founder of an elite philosophy, he seems to be claiming that his new system would never find a home in the elites, but would find root among the working class and women. Would like to hear his thoughts on education.
More options
Context Copy link