text is fake speech and books are narcissistic monologues

[Brontosaurie]

discuss

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

discussions are narcissistic dialogues?

 

[Brontosaurie]

discussions are narcissistic dialogues?

no cause they're interactive and reciprocal, thus socially sound - not neurotic or pathological or what have you.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

speech is fake text, books are interactive with their target audience?

 

[Brontosaurie]

speech is fake text, books are interactive with their target audience?

are you saying that speech tries to emulate text, but fails to?

books aren't interactive. it's like one person speaking for hours and days. then perhaps you say "nice" to that person afterward. and the person will be like "nice "nice"".

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

are you saying that speech tries to emulate text, but fails to?

There are many qualities of written language that allow you to interact with it in a more stable way than speech. Simply you can re-read, analyse, conclude, which is usually time-limited when speaking.

books aren't interactive. it's like one person speaking for hours and days. then perhaps you say "nice" to that person afterward. and the person will be like "nice "nice"".

It is like one person speaking directly to you with you in mind and has something that you actually care about to tell you. Then you interpret and understand or disagree. Your understanding and conclusions are very similar to the understanding and conclusions derived from spoken dialogues.

Also if you happen to write your next book based on these experiences then you incorporate what you have learned/deduced and someone else can hear you and interact with you in his/her mind.

 

[Brontosaurie]

There are many qualities of written language that allow you to interact with it in a more stable way than speech. Simply you can re-read, analyse, conclude, which is usually time-limited when speaking.

yes it is a viable solution given the unnatural deprived stifling state of solitude in which, due to flawed division of labour and distribution of power and inefficient social organization overall, way too much human time is spent. no-one should be lonely except in sleep. i'm pretty much the most introverted person i know and i say this.

It is like one person speaking directly to you with you in mind and has something that you actually care about to tell you. Then you interpret and understand or disagree. Your understanding and conclusions are very similar to the understanding and conclusions derived from spoken dialogues.

Also if you happen to write your next book based on these experiences then you incorporate what you have learned/deduced and someone else can hear you and interact with you in his/her mind.

this stuff is immensely foreign and dangerous. it's like death. no need for Si fear though. i don't know which function defies. but you should defy this stuff. there is some slick glossy stereotype about death-defiance which puzzles me a lot. it's framed as an aesthetic trend or futile pathetic rebellion when in fact it is the strongest, boldest possible way to look at death. death cannot be accepted, and it cannot be feared - because then it rules you. in fact even defiance verifies its authority too much. you gotta loathe that fucker. or look away. like in the nietzsche thread, i think you replied? we gotta stop negating and start eschewing (the expressions of) death or stagnation or ugliness or social structure or whatever hue it is.

i shall now get to the point, if one is available. i know biologism is kinda tired but i'll start off by asking: are we wired to consume information as continuous text in amounts which greatly exceed the chunks we parse when interacting verbally? what potential side-effects could result? might the medium perhaps be susceptible to projection and passivizing fantasy??? a hypnotic sedative crystallization and deification of that which by definition is fluid, adaptive and ever-changing: intellect.

to me this clearly describes an automatic power mechanism in service of the status quo. a sly, cunning, dishonest and perverse - that is, EVIL - homeostasis. must debase. must offset.

 

[Puffy]

I think you have to be self-absorbed to a certain extent to write a book, just because of the degree of solitude involved, and the necessary assumption underlying the exercise that what you're writing is worth reading.

Books are ultimately a technology that transfers information though (that I'm sure will be superseded by superior technologies in times to come). The complexity of human thought develops staggeringly once you have the means of preserving a thought, and thus an external memento to return to and develop upon. It is why I write to myself all the time and go through many notebooks; in doing so the creative process is continually active and the object of it clearer.

I personally think it takes narcissism to assume that one's intelligence is beyond the need of books though. Dialogues and exchanging writings via text are very valuable, but nothing can beat a book in terms of sheer density, subtlety and (years of) focus on a single topic. Whether the writers were narcissistic or not, I'm very grateful to be able to read those few books that ultimately advance my own creativity, intelligence and interests.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I think you have to be self-absorbed to a certain extent to write a book, just because of the degree of solitude involved, and the necessary assumption underlying the exercise that what you're writing is worth reading.

Books are ultimately a technology that transfers information though (that I'm sure will be superseded by superior technologies in times to come). The complexity of human thought develops staggeringly once you have the means of preserving a thought, and thus an external memento to return to and develop upon. It is why I write to myself all the time and go through many notebooks; in doing so the creative process is continually active and the object of it clearer.

I personally think it takes narcissism to assume that one's intelligence is beyond the need of books though. Dialogues and exchanging writings via text are very valuable, but nothing can beat a book in terms of sheer density, subtlety and (years of) focus on a single topic. Whether the writers were narcissistic or not, I'm very grateful to be able to read those few books that ultimately advance my own creativity, intelligence and interests.

very insightful post. well written also.

i must object to the justification of literature in its current form by merit of its historical significance. while such a reminder is good for perspective, it doesn't provide actual support imo. compare with theistic belief.

i don't assume that my specific intelligence is beyond the need for books. i assume that written language in general and literature in particular are more problematic and unhealthy than we think they are. i assume the reliance on text fails to harness the power of interpersonal communication. i think we are ready to stop judging education and knowledge and self-actualization by the standard of books.

 

[Puffy]

Thanks, it's an interesting topic. (sorry for tl;dr)

I think it depends on who your target audience is here and what "literature in its current form" is to you. The point I made about writing affecting the way you think isn't just historical, it's neurological as well. It's a fact, for example, that an oral culture can only preserve around 10,000 words (because of dependence on memory) where written lexicons number in the millions. Having more symbols to manipulate means more variation and divergence, more subtlety and precision in what you express, etc. This isn't something that just aids philosophy and literature, it seems unimaginable to me that our sciences would be as advanced today without writing and very precise symbol manipulation.

I basically agree with your last point. I think anyone would really struggle in this society without being able to read (even our visual communications basically derive from, and are dependent upon, a written script after all -- a pure oral culture isn't possible to return to outside forming smaller, self-sustainable communes). But given the explosion of the internet, someone can accumulate a lot of knowledge without reading books, and I certainly know people I consider more intelligent than myself who don't read books...

I think we're basically bred in this society to be separate from our surroundings (and consequently our community), and that it's a deep problem to be resolved. I'd rather be in and of the world, rather than create a duality of us and world. Dependence on text that basically abstracts and distances you is a part of that (I'd argue that cinema & tv does the same though, tbh).
I really value direct experience, walking and integrating myself with my surroundings and neighbours, the idea of "doing" and my creativity deriving from "doing things" with abstraction and books as an accompaniment. But books are basically a tool that serve a function, and I don't think we currently have any replacements for what they do especially well at the moment. I'm not saying you need books, just that I feel I'd be worse off without them.

 

[Cognisant]

Self determinism in life is a narcissistic monologue in action.

If you disagree with what's written write something new, as you have done.

*a sphere so black it hurts to look at appears in his hand, Cog raises it into the air and there it remains floating ominously*

That's the nihilism bubble, if this thread goes down an anti-intellectualism path it'll pop and so will begin another long rant on why everything is so meaningless, irrelevant, pointless and futile that it must be the epitome of foolishness not to just lay down and die

 

[Pizzabeak]

Meaning what? They should be eliminated from the universe and frowned upon? Knowing that, next time I send or receive a text I'll remember that it's all fake and somehow doesn't accurately represent an interaction or any conveyed information and that ultimately we'll have to speak in person for something more authentic, which is almost common sense in the first place.

Everyone knows books are merely a way of storing information... If some asshole wants to create a book (lit or non fic) because he maybe enjoys writing or feels there's some information he might be adept at conveying then... Okay. Maybe there are people that crave what he has. It's all probably mostly about the economy anyway. He probably has bills to pay and that's one method of acquiring funds, regardless of what his motivation is. If it's some 50 Shades of grey shit they're probably in it for the cash but if it's some type of non fic on a subject that isn't easily obtainable then I'm sure a few people would appreciate it at the very least.

 

[shoeless]

what's wrong with narcissism? why is it considered a bad thing?
discuss.

seriously though. i want to know.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

what's wrong with narcissism? why is it considered a bad thing?
discuss.

seriously though. i want to know.

It is not, however it was used as a derogatory for books. Or so it seems in this thread.

 

[Pizzabeak]

It's wrong because it's selfish and egotistical, opposite of pure altruism which is valued in a number of societies. Whether it is objectively bad is another question, but some form of it seems to be useful in that it primarily focuses on some degree of assurance of survivability

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

yes it is a viable solution given the unnatural deprived stifling state of solitude in which, due to flawed division of labour and distribution of power and inefficient social organization overall, way too much human time is spent. no-one should be lonely except in sleep. i'm pretty much the most introverted person i know and i say this.

If I had to choose between random strangers and my own company. I would rather be left alone and in peace. I know how dangerous people are and how quickly misunderstanding can lead them to anger and agression. I am safe with written words that can betray me, amuse me, make me indifferent, all this on my own and not else's terms.

I do feel a need of being with someone, but not simply someone. Yes you could say that social gatherings are distorted and people no longer seek understanding in large groups. It rather seems to me that you need to be flashy and loud to be recognized and treated with attention. Wisdom and balance are the ways of past.

this stuff is immensely foreign and dangerous. it's like death. no need for Si fear though. i don't know which function defies. but you should defy this stuff. there is some slick glossy stereotype about death-defiance which puzzles me a lot. it's framed as an aesthetic trend or futile pathetic rebellion when in fact it is the strongest, boldest possible way to look at death. death cannot be accepted, and it cannot be feared - because then it rules you. in fact even defiance verifies its authority too much. you gotta loathe that fucker. or look away. like in the nietzsche thread, i think you replied? we gotta stop negating and start eschewing (the expressions of) death or stagnation or ugliness or social structure or whatever hue it is.

Defy what? Defy the written? Defy the alien? I do not understand you, yet i don't defy you, I seek understanding of what you have just stated in written words.

Let me tell you that death can be feared, accepted, challenged, overcome and many things beyond that, this depends on individuals and their states of mind. What I agree with is that fear of death and any particular fear you might have for anything, such as written forms, is unnecessary as ultimately you fear your position in a world you are part of. There is no fear of things that exist, that are obvious and that are beyond our power. There is only certainty and peace when it comes to ultimate. Either you fear that you yourself lack something or that you are complete, or that you have worked to become complete.

No, eschewing, ignoring is what hides your fear, it is defying yourself. Negation, after you realise things beyond your power, fears, is what brings you to openly challenge the world and yourself as it is one.

I would say that certainty and peace stems from the ultimate, from axiom. Things that resemble ultimate and finite are flawed and can be understood because of the limits and sources.

Why we have lost the point of books and narcissism?

i shall now get to the point, if one is available. i know biologism is kinda tired but i'll start off by asking: are we wired to consume information as continuous text in amounts which greatly exceed the chunks we parse when interacting verbally? what potential side-effects could result? might the medium perhaps be susceptible to projection and passivizing fantasy??? a hypnotic sedative crystallization and deification of that which by definition is fluid, adaptive and ever-changing: intellect.

We are capable of doing this, it is not necessary to consume information to live.

Real, rather than potential side effect is that we tend to require more stimuli and more information to have the same effect on us.

Speech can be as easily used to coerce and put you off balance as written words. There are numerous examples of authoritarian projections on masses that later were enchanted by the leader and by the crowd reactions.

to me this clearly describes an automatic power mechanism in service of the status quo. a sly, cunning, dishonest and perverse - that is, EVIL - homeostasis. must debase. must offset.

I am lost. Why did you bring ethics, morals, social systems, evolution theory, realism, determinism into a defying books the function that speech has.
Speech or dialogue, can be narcissist, interactive, defying, alien, charming and enchanting as well as books.


I don't really know what is going on in your point that eludes me. Please rephrase your point in maximum 3 sentences so that I can respond directly.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

It's wrong because it's selfish and egotistical, opposite of pure altruism which is valued in a number of societies. Whether it is objectively bad is another question, but some form of it seems to be useful in that it primarily focuses on some degree of assurance of survivability

Look at what you just did. I don't condemn it. Just be objective. You have ethics and stated that altruism is good and selfishness is wrong. After you have used this ethics you have rejected all other possible ethics and systems.

I agree that in terms of egoism as evil, altruism is going to be a good thing.

However this view is your opinion rather than discoursive statement.


Let us look at motivations, are they absolute? No.
Let us look at composite motivations. These tend to be egoistical. Why?
You work for your own benefit and achieve things that are perceived as good for you.

If you were to work for others benefit, you would expect others to benefit you.

Why do you work for others and why do you treat them equally? Because you tend to expect that they will also treat you equally?

You are not selfless and altruist, you are aware of your needs and you do not give up your needs to satisfy others.

You are neither altruist nor egoist.

Assuming that one ethical system is better than others because it is widely recognized is misleading

 

[Ninety-Fourth]

generalizing: all action is fake thought, all art is mental masturbation

No one said that mental masturbation can't be public.