A big-picture type of question: What do you envision a world full of wholeheartedly Eros-driven actors looking like? Would such a world be desirable? Or is the drive for self-actualization a frequency-dependent good?
> Eros shifts the gears, by invention and revolution, and Thanatos keeps the wheel straight, by ensuring we keep enough inside to live peacefully together
Interesting how this maps to Stewart Brand's "How Complex Systems Learn and Keep Learning":
>> Fast learns, slow remembers. Fast proposes, slow disposes. Fast is discontinuous, slow is continuous. Fast and small instructs slow and big by accrued innovation and by occasional revolution. Slow and big controls small and fast by constraint and constancy. Fast gets all our attention, slow has all the power.
> So consider this possibility, unpalatable but fair, that the only acts of rebellion you engage in are precisely the acts of rebellion the system allows you to have.
Almost? agree; the only counter-example I have found is not to consume.
But...
> Knowledge is only useful if it informs action. (...) It’s all good knowing what needs to be done. The submission occurs when you think that’s a success in itself.
(but...) maybe the idea that ‘not consuming is an act of rebellion’ is a form of submission.
> this difference between being life-affirming and being life-denying is the single most important psychological decision you will make in your life.
Camus dixit :).
Then an errata (I think):
> Herbert Mercuse
Maybe I'm missing something (because it's written thrice), but isn't his last name "Marcuse"?
An finally my self-centered thoughts:
Regarding the main idea: I'm not sure I would want to change the world. I would selfishly change the way people are, but that doesn't feel right to me. I think my approach is closer to "trying to change myself to better cope with reality".
> success is not having to set an alarm to wake up on time. That’s power too, even if no one knows you gained it.
Now you got me! :D
> This is power exorcised with a pat on the back, and a ‘Good job, kid. I’m so proud of you’.
This helps me understand better my disgust for validation.
> Interesting how this maps to Stewart Brand's "How Complex Systems Learn and Keep Learning"
Honestly, I'll have to sit on this. If anything I'm going against how he maps it to power, no?
> Almost? agree; the only counter-example I have found is not to consume.
I suppose I'm using the impersonal you (both here and everywhere), so really I'm addressing that as a state people can and often fall into, rather than the whole audience being in there. And what % of people do not consume? We're talking less than 0.1%. Especially if we're saying, say, under 30 years old.
> Maybe I'm missing something (because it's written thrice), but isn't his last name "Marcuse"?
Lol yeah. This one took a lot out of me mentally. Maybe ill edit but i kinda like the typo.
> I think my approach is closer to "trying to change myself to better cope with reality".
Can you do that from your bedroom? I still think it requires action in the world. Or else can it be reality that you are coping with
> Honestly, I'll have to sit on this. If anything I'm going against how he maps it to power, no?
I read both as the same:
> Eros shifts the gears, by invention and revolution [=> Eros is the fast part of the system that innovates and learns]
> Thanatos keeps the wheel straight [=> Thanatos is the slow part of the system that constrains the faster pars]
And even when it may seem as a contradiction....
> The self that wants power [Eros / fast].
> And the self that’s scared of gaining it [Thanatos / slow].
[...] I can make sense of it: Eros-fast wants the power because it doesn't really have it. And Thanatos-slow is scared of power because it has too much. Note that this "freudian twist" is not on Stewart Brand's article because he is not analyzing individual humans as systems with fast and slow parts, so this layer of "feelings" do not apply to his model.
> And what % of people do not consume? We're talking less than 0.1%.
Totally agree, I was talking in an almost theoretical way. And I say almost becaue I tested it in practice but with N=1.
> Can you do that from your bedroom? I still think it requires action in the world. Or else can it be reality that you are coping with
I don't understand the last sentence (I'm not a native speaker). I think reality is what I'm coping with and what I tried to convey in my comment.
Regarding if I can change myself from my bedroom, I would say yes, maybe in a less effective way than going outside, but that's the main point: if I want to change the world I MUST act outside, but if I want to change me, it MAY BE ENOUGH to act inside.
Thanks for this; much to think about here!
A big-picture type of question: What do you envision a world full of wholeheartedly Eros-driven actors looking like? Would such a world be desirable? Or is the drive for self-actualization a frequency-dependent good?
Ok, this one was deep!
First, the substantive parts:
> Eros shifts the gears, by invention and revolution, and Thanatos keeps the wheel straight, by ensuring we keep enough inside to live peacefully together
Interesting how this maps to Stewart Brand's "How Complex Systems Learn and Keep Learning":
>> Fast learns, slow remembers. Fast proposes, slow disposes. Fast is discontinuous, slow is continuous. Fast and small instructs slow and big by accrued innovation and by occasional revolution. Slow and big controls small and fast by constraint and constancy. Fast gets all our attention, slow has all the power.
Source: https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/issue3-brand/release/2
> So consider this possibility, unpalatable but fair, that the only acts of rebellion you engage in are precisely the acts of rebellion the system allows you to have.
Almost? agree; the only counter-example I have found is not to consume.
But...
> Knowledge is only useful if it informs action. (...) It’s all good knowing what needs to be done. The submission occurs when you think that’s a success in itself.
(but...) maybe the idea that ‘not consuming is an act of rebellion’ is a form of submission.
> this difference between being life-affirming and being life-denying is the single most important psychological decision you will make in your life.
Camus dixit :).
Then an errata (I think):
> Herbert Mercuse
Maybe I'm missing something (because it's written thrice), but isn't his last name "Marcuse"?
An finally my self-centered thoughts:
Regarding the main idea: I'm not sure I would want to change the world. I would selfishly change the way people are, but that doesn't feel right to me. I think my approach is closer to "trying to change myself to better cope with reality".
> success is not having to set an alarm to wake up on time. That’s power too, even if no one knows you gained it.
Now you got me! :D
> This is power exorcised with a pat on the back, and a ‘Good job, kid. I’m so proud of you’.
This helps me understand better my disgust for validation.
Nice thanks for these. Some thoughts..
> Interesting how this maps to Stewart Brand's "How Complex Systems Learn and Keep Learning"
Honestly, I'll have to sit on this. If anything I'm going against how he maps it to power, no?
> Almost? agree; the only counter-example I have found is not to consume.
I suppose I'm using the impersonal you (both here and everywhere), so really I'm addressing that as a state people can and often fall into, rather than the whole audience being in there. And what % of people do not consume? We're talking less than 0.1%. Especially if we're saying, say, under 30 years old.
> Maybe I'm missing something (because it's written thrice), but isn't his last name "Marcuse"?
Lol yeah. This one took a lot out of me mentally. Maybe ill edit but i kinda like the typo.
> I think my approach is closer to "trying to change myself to better cope with reality".
Can you do that from your bedroom? I still think it requires action in the world. Or else can it be reality that you are coping with
> Honestly, I'll have to sit on this. If anything I'm going against how he maps it to power, no?
I read both as the same:
> Eros shifts the gears, by invention and revolution [=> Eros is the fast part of the system that innovates and learns]
> Thanatos keeps the wheel straight [=> Thanatos is the slow part of the system that constrains the faster pars]
And even when it may seem as a contradiction....
> The self that wants power [Eros / fast].
> And the self that’s scared of gaining it [Thanatos / slow].
[...] I can make sense of it: Eros-fast wants the power because it doesn't really have it. And Thanatos-slow is scared of power because it has too much. Note that this "freudian twist" is not on Stewart Brand's article because he is not analyzing individual humans as systems with fast and slow parts, so this layer of "feelings" do not apply to his model.
> And what % of people do not consume? We're talking less than 0.1%.
Totally agree, I was talking in an almost theoretical way. And I say almost becaue I tested it in practice but with N=1.
> Can you do that from your bedroom? I still think it requires action in the world. Or else can it be reality that you are coping with
I don't understand the last sentence (I'm not a native speaker). I think reality is what I'm coping with and what I tried to convey in my comment.
Regarding if I can change myself from my bedroom, I would say yes, maybe in a less effective way than going outside, but that's the main point: if I want to change the world I MUST act outside, but if I want to change me, it MAY BE ENOUGH to act inside.
Thanks for the replies!