/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13113246]

I'm worried that people are downloading their personalities. That, when people are exposed to high rates of individualized information, they are flung out from the group and into a a personalized reality with a low degree of correspondance to that of its neighbours. I'm worried that when one is put into a personalized reality, the reality of others is hollowed out, leaving just the empirical impression. I'm thinking of a lot of things but just now the NPC meme really comes to mind - a meme, a learnt and repeated set of words and associations, that is deployed to deny the autonomy of other individuals. And while we all sink into private fantasy worlds there still remains a large, for us anonymous, mass of workers who extract and shape the means for us to maintain the electric charge which holds together our feigned reality. Just as modernity has raised a large portion of the Earth's population to the world's stage, and given them the means to speak loud enough for the rest to hear, then also these same individuals fragment into groups and further sub-groups, making these developments of communication void. I'm worried, is what I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.13113591]

That is the primary goal of ahriman, to change the human being from an idiographic into a nomothetic entity. Idiography is the study of irreducible personality, character, etc., and can only be "explained" narratively and sympathetically. Nomothetic sciences study quantifiable, propertied "unit"-entities in a homogeneous field.

Idiography focuses on gestalts, irreducible holisms, so that to understand the whole you have to understand not only its parts but the relation of the whole to its parts and vice versa. To understand a Dostoevsky or Dickens character it is not enough to give a discrete listing of predicates and properties, like "Man," "Infirm," "Liberal," etc. The only way to understand that character as a whole is to read him, as he organically develops by encountering and integrating his concrete experiences. To learn the "what" of something you have to learn the "how" of its coming into being.

Nomothetic science is only useful for conceptually circumscribed domains, like chemistry. In any routine chemical procedure, you already know "what" all the things are, and how they behave. All you care about is cataloging, quantifying, and measuring their actions. Same with physics. Only in cases of extreme divergence from expectations are the grounding concepts of the entities themselves revised, and then usually by adjusting the ratios of their constants quantitatively e.g.

Ahriman's job is to make humans behave as static entities with superficially varying "accidental" (in the Aristotelian sense) characteristics. So, all the sciences of man have changed to see humans as static, fundamentally similar "units," who will all, ideally as in a physics problem, behave identically and determinately if given the same initial stimuli. External differences are accidents, so if you can account for all the possible accidents a human "unit" can have, you can model all the possible variations of possible responses to any given stimuli.

The point of algorithms is not just to model human behavior but to reduce humans to the initial modelling-concepts of the algorithim as well. The more you can replace real human characterological uniqueness, which is irreducible and irreducibly indeterminate (free), to unitary and quantifiable preferences for certain media or introjected behaviors and responses as DERIVED from algorithmic averages, the more successful the algorithms will be in subsequent predictions. If the "average" of all male Dostoevsky characters is the heuristic description "male Dostoevsky characters are angsty with 3 sub-variants," and you then go rewrite Dostoevsky novels so that all the male characters walk around saying "I'm Angsty (type-2)," you've got a more successful computer program and a humanity ready to be converted into gray goo.

[Anonymous No.13114342]

>Bordan P Jeterson through a veil
nah

[Anonymous No.13114821]

>>13113591
this is the most interesting post I've seen on /lit/ for quite a while

[Anonymous No.13115963]

>>13113246
Interesting, and pretty decent writing style. I wish I could write at that level.

[Anonymous No.13116694]

>>13114821
it's gibberish, through and through.

[Anonymous No.13116951]

>>13116694
It's not. It's not particularly novel (Heidegger's concept of the Bestand would cover most of this) but it is coherent and intelligible (to most people, perhaps not you, but certainly more so than Heidegger)

[Anonymous No.13117489]

>>13113246
>guy who gets his personality from 4chan memes is worried about other people's personalities

[Anonymous No.13117540]

Wait but this isn’t a new phenomenon right? This has always happened right?

[Anonymous No.13118543]

>>13113591
This guy knows

[Anonymous No.13118617]

>>13113246
Homogenization of culture and society was a given. Honestly no one is all that special and the differences between people that may some different on the surface are really just variations of the same trope.
That's why childhood is so revered. The thought of a fresh mind with ideas all his own which he and him alone thinks is fact. I can't even remember what I thought girls had instead of dicks, nor if I cared, now I can hardly make it through the day without concerning myself over one's pussy, and I don't feel alone at all in this feeling.
The loss of innocence and emotional authenticity is what kills a man.

[Anonymous No.13118640]

>>13113246
I think I get it. I'm pretty sure I'm writing a novel that's basically about this, but less big words, and more entertaining

[Anonymous No.13118653]

>>13118617
>Honestly no one is all that special and the differences between people that may some different on the surface are really just variations of the same trope.

Not really. People of different cultures during the antiquity or the middle ages for example were fundamentally different. Not just their customs but their very basic ideas or way of thinking.

[Anonymous No.13118655]

>>13114342
One thing that Peterson said in the debate that was really interesting was that statistically (lol) it wasn’t ideology people were concerned about or that centered their life but personality. I thought that was really interesting. Like REALLY FUCKING INTERESTING

[Anonymous No.13118669]

>>13118653
In modern society I find that statement false.

[Anonymous No.13118683]

>>13113246
I wouldn't call it inherently a bad thing. For me, introspection on a more serious level brought to my attention that the struggles I face and ideas that I encounter within my private fantasy world as you would put it are there, and are acknowledged by a simple man such as myself, and are therefore able to be acknowledged by fellow man. In fact, they most probably are, at numerous points in each of our's life. The more deeper you dig into your personality and learn about yourself the more you come to understand that other people are doing that as well, so the problem of it all is not really the action of gathering and living with this personalized information but the lack of articulation of it in our words and especially actions in every day social life.

[Anonymous No.13118706]

>>13118669
I think there are people with fundamentally different drives than the ones assumed by society. Autists for example. It might be that you're sampling just from some section of society that is well adapted to it and therefore more homogeneous.

[Anonymous No.13118757]

>>13118669
That's OP's point.

[Anonymous No.13119765]

bumping until someone explains in layman's terms.

[Anonymous No.13119926]

>>13119765
Fast fashion means you buy a t-shirt off the rack instead of a tailor made shirt. The t-shirt doesn't fit as well and everyone thinks you're wearing it to look cool for buying that brand. The shirt fits and everyone thinks you are making the clothes look cool and wants to know where to buy one but they would never fit it.
I assume /fa/ is as layman as it gets.

[Anonymous No.13120766]

>>13113246
you worry too much. now go back to sleep, goy.

[Anonymous No.13121469]

The world of sense contains moments which resist domestication. These moments challenge the who and confront it with its what, that is, the individual comes to face its species in its limitations, as its paticular failings are resolved in the generality of its faculties.

Or some such thing. Jargon is awfully appealing. In it, one can let thought sink as though in a warm bath. The mind relaxes and articulation goes soft with a sigh. Why do you think I want to hurt you? Why do you think I want to master you? Who on earth do you think I am?

I suppose that, properly speaking, the "I" before you is really nothing but text and semiotics. Usually a face is enough to dissuade from real cruelty but here the "I" (or I suppose, if we are to be precise, the "thou") does not fully manifest, but is caught up in the format, like a face pressed against a sheet, the outline visible but the quality of its features hidden. In daydreams I sometimes flatter myself and call myself an online Bodhisattva, someone who outgrew /lit/ yet chose to remain out of compassion for those still here. But I don't know if you're all still here. You've got a new language, prickly to the touch, which I in my unwillingness can only observe from afar.

Where do you suppose that all this cruelty comes from? Where is, if you'll allow me to so express myself, the bottom of it all? Sure, we might give this process a name and maybe that even helps a little, but really, who or what is at the bottom of these feelings welling up before me, on pages I have chosen to see?

The world of sense is constituted by an idea. As all worlds of sense conform to the same nature they also conform to this same idea, that is, the varied "parallel" worlds in fact run on the same tracks. They agree with this idea and endure by way of this agreement. In rising to meet what this idea expects they maintain their particularity in its universality, and so survive as individuals in so far as they do what is willed of them, not for the sake of a something external to that will, but conform to the will itself in letting it will itself through them, and so preserve not their individuality (which sinks into the abyss) but the idea.