2019-03-17 at 20:10
There are many nomenal consequences to low world-formation capacity. One of them is this: a lumpenprog lives in a world with no agency.
Things like ‘war’, ‘poverty’, ‘success’, ‘crime’, ‘riches’, ‘peace’, ‘safety’, and et cetera, are seen like abstract energy fields, emanating from the cosmos de novo, that may randomly seem to ‘imbue’ some locations (they do not even see the inhabitants of such locations), and not others; they are not seen as things that are *done*, something that some *agent* in particular is *performing*; something that *brought into being* by the agent, the conduit or substrate through which the phenomena might be instantiated (and without which, it cannot).
They almost always speak in terms of the passive voice: ‘someone should get rid of that guy’, ‘[X] people should just disappear’, and et cetera. Sotto voce: intentionality is something that other people have.
You may, for example, correctly point out that the prevailing conduct of many portions of ruling/high-status populations in the west, and large portions of populations taking cues from high status populations, amounts effectively to an official europoid genocide policy. If pointed out to such a person they might so oft say, ‘thats crazy, noones trying to kill off white people’, and, they will, more or less, *be almost completely earnest in asserting this feeling*, because *they literally do not, **can not**, think in such terms*.
They are practically allergic to the idea of anyone ever simply, ‘directly’, *doing* something. This of course has manifold implications in the formation of political opinion, amongst other things. Whenever they conceive of some state of being in their head that they desire (we may ignore for the moment what felicity it may or may not have in coherence with actual Being), they feel an instinctual preference for the most circuitous, tangential, and proximate approaches to influencing some thing in order to bring it about; and heaven forbid anyone ever actually be *in charge* of the business.
Now why, might one think, would an otherwise less capacitous dasein feel attracted to producing needless complexifications in such approaches to governance? The reason is simple of course; they do not actually see the complexity involved. Such that would be encountered in, or created by, such approaches.
This is the reason for a certain ‘double valence’ in the patterns of behavior or assessment of events by the congenitally solipsistic; ‘penny wise and pound foolish’.
They can be, in more parochial contexts, almost anally retentive in their concerns or recalitrance with regards to some risks (such as a persons ability to, for example, responsibly own a firearm); yet at the same time, in more transcendent contexts, they can be unthinkingly foolhardy in pursuing or advocating for some such massively upsetting policies (such an alien immivasions, de-structing cultural superstructures, reformating directly responsible governance into indirect irresponsible non-governance, and et cetera).
They, at the same time as phobically recoiling from instances of direct authority (responsibility), desire intensive micro-managing of particular affairs. More than once over time have more conscienteous writers (sometimes called ‘conservative’) observed a contradiction here in this, between what is said in one context and done in another; all of it however and in fact, is springing from the same mode of thought.
When a solipsist criticises someone, *they are telling you about themself*. When he nervously recriminates over all the trouble people could possibly get up to without ‘supervision’ (who’s supervision? *passive voice*), *he is not actually talking about them*. When he heedlessly advocates massively upsetting adventures on national scales, *the scales do not actully exist in his mind*. When he thinks about great wars, great economies, foreign nations, foreign peoples, *other people*, he is not actually thinking of these things, in terms of forming a world of such motions, that is more felicitously responsive too and coherent with the World. What he thinks of when he thinks of these things, rather, are *idols and caricatures*, which have their own private particular motions, irrespective of relation to something in greater reality, that are nominally referred to by the same designation as something in greater reality. A truer relationship of such greater things is not something that he can truly produce, not something that can truly ‘fit’ within him.
He is heedless of the greatest of risks, of life and civilization in general, because he does not see them. He is disproportionately concerned with trivial risks, because there, now, finally, tendrils of reality start coming down to levels he can begin to actually comprehend.
Because he cannot really see such much more transcendent contexts, he also cannot really see what feedback from reality on the matter looks like; the caricatures that exist in his mind continue to exist safe from devalidation. In great matters he feels endlessly confident, because in his mind it is easy, and in his mind his answers are not contradicted; he may even fancy himself rather genius, with how effortlessly he may twirl what mental artifaction he would be fain to call [the-subject-in-question]; or perhaps a bright specialist rather, conveniently specialized in such higher things that are difficult to verify, rather than things where chronic mistakenness would be easier to verify and identify ahead of time.
(Contemplation of modernity is full of such ironies to appreciate; persons who are *least* qualified for a certain matter, are disproportionately attracted to it, to being *authorities* on it.
One might not help but be tempted to consider, if you say have someone who cannot even imagine how axial tilt causes seasons, how could you expect them to come to good conclusions on somethings so much more massively important to the course of civilization?)
But come some less transcendent contexts, phenomena from Outside become increasingly intrusive in their presentation to himself, poking through veils of narcissism; he can more ably *see* such things, see *contradictions* to conceits he may be holding in such matters, in ways he cannot so easily deny or dissimulate (to himself, most importantly). It reminds more conscious parts of him of something he would not like to be reminded; reminding him that he, on some level, perceives that the world, at least parts of it that he can see more easily (and such parts he is extra ordinarily concerned by), *is not in fact* as easy as the caricatures he some times imagines; on some level, he *knows* it isn’t, and this is a source of constant cognitive dissonance for him. *He is deeply disturbed by the motions of a reality he can scarcely comprehend*, and this concern is exacerbated by, is sublimated into, an intense desire for control; the fear of people having authority, and desire for micro-managing of people, derives from the same impulse.
He is allergic to the idea of anyone having sole direct authority over anything, because, in a part of himself he can hardly acknowledge, he imagines himself in the same situation with the same responsibility, *and finds himself wanting*.
H/T le Chateau:
What’s revealing about this video is that these cucked Swedes are completely sincere. And if your only goal in life is to maximize happiness/goodfeelz/dopamine while minimizing accountability/badfeelz/cortisol, and this pushes out all other considerations, then this behavior isn’t even hypocrisy, technically. You have to imagine the interviewer prefacing every question with “Would it make you more happy or more afraid if…?”
The assumption that the point of life is to be carefree and happy is conceited (hence all “hypocrisy” is logically justifiable via principle of explosion), but this conceit is an unexamined assumption shared by most people.