/lit/ - Literature

>>12050286
>so how do you propose to get a grip as a society, or to educate people to get a grip, when those who get a grip end up not reproducing, and those who don't get a grip end up reproducing? i.e. natural selection selecting against getting a grip?
you've heard of JBP. you know how he feels. he's a Grip-Master extraordinaire, but these threads are mainly towards talking about the story of philosophy you don't hear in Peterson lectures. warrants mentioning, tho, he's not only done some heavy lifting on his own, he's also a test case for the reception of Get a Grip ideas in society in general.

the first thing would be, i don't attempt to CTRL or influence Society *at all.* it's only individuals, nomads, and their little war-machine clusters that matter. the Law is death, and gov't/state power also. anything at all that is positive will trickle out into the world along meme-magic hyperwaves percolated up from the lowest of low places on earth: the melanesian tap-dancing boards. people are spectacularly unique and different, and that is both the good news and bad news for ideology. that Chaos Reigns is an absolute truth and axiomatic law. when you ask the hardened ideological culture-warriors about this, they usually propose Great Solutions that in the end only result in disaster.

so the first thing would be a question from an old Cosmotechnician from back when:

>The question at stake,' said Epictetus, 'is no common one; it is this: -- Are we in our senses, or are we not?'

mostly the answer is, no, we aren't. b/c we are probably Enchanted.

>and when there's resource scarcity, do you think that will be the response?
in resource scarcity there will be either Unironic Communism or Unironic Fascism, that is, Emergency Solutions. that's what always happens in a crisis. in those circumstances people don't forgive, they fuck each other. i'm not dreamy about these things.

>do you believe that endless growth is possible?
no. JBP thinks the population will cap at 9 billion, maybe he's right. it's the *idea* of endless growth that is more damaging.

>if so, why?
i don't. growth as such doesn't correlate to quality, skill, or excellence, which is what is needed. raw material needs to be refined. and everyone can be refined. 'tis the GL.

>And is it possible to decide that question apolitically?
not in terms of anything resembling politics as we know it today, but that's politics' problem. the metaphysics of *scarcity* drive a shitload of modern political thought, for which the kryptonite is Bataille. *superabundance* and solar generosity are his bag. and Bataille is a big part of why Uncle Nick is the way he is.

>You say don't take all your cues from your libido - what do you do about people who do? Forgive them as they continue to breed and further spread suffering?
Confucius' weapon was the *sigh.* it's mine too. also i shitpost and write tiny little essays (but that is more recent).

it's "sanity" that matters. and "sanity" is free.