I think there is also a common loop where you recognize yourself slipping into a type and recognize it could be (must be!) the result of a bunch of empty posing, irony, marketing, etc, all the things you mentioned - so you think "ugh, this must not be really my true self", and reject that desire and look for something else, so you can make sure to not become "that guy", and then you keep doing that until you're spending your time on Saturday morning reading a long substack article about the end of desire and then commenting about it instead of doing literally anything else.
Plenty of insights. But reality without symbols to filter it is lovecraftian, nightmare inducing: that's what the existentialists tried to tell you. The cinematographic identity is the how we evolved not to become mad at the unadulterated realness of things, and beyond the repulsiveness of what we see without symbols (the meat of the flesh, the disgusting processes). Because in the end, if we remove all symbols we would only see death, impending. And the Thing that looks unflinching at death and does not go mad is not a human anymore, and has no desires.
In french, all the things we choose to spend time on for fun are called distractions.
And here is my drawing of my partner making coffee: https://imgur.com/xwJp0ul (this is taking a while, I hope the post doesn't reference too much more drawing)
> Also, personally I hate the whole "don't you see it? isn't it obvious? do you see it now?" thing. I find it super patronizing.
Why is this a problem? Had you noticed "Reddit Romeo" didn't actually describe the women he went on a date? Was it obvious to you that the articles answered the questions they asked by simply existing? Had you thought of removing the symbolism to understand the reality it was hiding?
If not, why is his writing a problem? I find it provocative
If you did, why are you reading something that was not written for you?
On a parallel note, yhea @steffan this article could be much shorter. This is an issue not because of the text being poorly written, only because it's an innefficient meme. I think I understand what you're talking about, but I'm not sure I could explain it to someone else.
(might say more about the reader than the text though. cheers)
I think there is also a common loop where you recognize yourself slipping into a type and recognize it could be (must be!) the result of a bunch of empty posing, irony, marketing, etc, all the things you mentioned - so you think "ugh, this must not be really my true self", and reject that desire and look for something else, so you can make sure to not become "that guy", and then you keep doing that until you're spending your time on Saturday morning reading a long substack article about the end of desire and then commenting about it instead of doing literally anything else.
Was re-reading DFW's E Unibus Pluram recently and thought pretty much exactly this.
Still find it fun though. Maybe when you've read like 10 saying the same thing time to move on and go on a hike or something.
Who is "that guy"? Does he live freely without gazing in the mirror?
Plenty of insights. But reality without symbols to filter it is lovecraftian, nightmare inducing: that's what the existentialists tried to tell you. The cinematographic identity is the how we evolved not to become mad at the unadulterated realness of things, and beyond the repulsiveness of what we see without symbols (the meat of the flesh, the disgusting processes). Because in the end, if we remove all symbols we would only see death, impending. And the Thing that looks unflinching at death and does not go mad is not a human anymore, and has no desires.
In french, all the things we choose to spend time on for fun are called distractions.
Here is my elephant drawing: https://imgur.com/KO6d3pY
You forgot the tusks!
Indeed, I thought something was off, and I laughed heartily when I looked up an actual picture of an elephant afterwards
And here is my drawing of my partner making coffee: https://imgur.com/xwJp0ul (this is taking a while, I hope the post doesn't reference too much more drawing)
I think I get TLP's "The Second Story Of Echo And Narcissus" now.
Dude, you're a pretty good writer but this article is WAY too long.
You're getting at a difficult idea - that we identify more with simulacra than the real thing. Plato's cave and all that. Yada yada.
I don't blame you for drawing it out a bit, but come on this is at least 4x longer than it needed to be.
Also, personally I hate the whole "don't you see it? isn't it obvious? do you see it now?" thing. I find it super patronizing.
> Also, personally I hate the whole "don't you see it? isn't it obvious? do you see it now?" thing. I find it super patronizing.
Why is this a problem? Had you noticed "Reddit Romeo" didn't actually describe the women he went on a date? Was it obvious to you that the articles answered the questions they asked by simply existing? Had you thought of removing the symbolism to understand the reality it was hiding?
If not, why is his writing a problem? I find it provocative
If you did, why are you reading something that was not written for you?
On a parallel note, yhea @steffan this article could be much shorter. This is an issue not because of the text being poorly written, only because it's an innefficient meme. I think I understand what you're talking about, but I'm not sure I could explain it to someone else.
(might say more about the reader than the text though. cheers)
i mean it's an audience thing. it's very long if you're familiar with a lot of the ideas already.
i still quite like it
and yeah i try to write stuff that will annoy some % of readers, not doing anything interesting otherwise
I think you might be interested in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics It's about recognizing that your perception is made symbolic by your body.
wow yes this is very close