Owl re: central conceits

Follows OP from “Owl melons are only distinct in that they get off on informal networking with insiders while retaining formal autonomy from the chain of command. In contrast with, say, snake melons, who retain real autonomy in positions of formal responsibility. Because they don’t mind backstabbing, ignoring orders, etc. They feel much greater responsibility to follow informal rules than formal ones, and what’s the actual moral difference anyway?


just to clarify, does they refer to snakes or owls here?

Snakes.

Gotcha
I wonder how much of this is driven by a need to display external status versus need to display personal capability

Owls are much more legalistic in the sense that they feel the need to find formal justifications for things.
You see this a lot in Kratman’s writing, where he references lots of esoteric rulesets.
It’s like the American conservative’s approach to law. “Technically, the left is the fascist domestic terrorists because A, B, and in the words of Prussian tank commander so-and-so…”
Versus a snake is going to become a judge and be like “This guy isn’t a domestic terrorist.”
“Why, your honor?”
“I know this guy, he’s not a terrorist.”
Different strokejobs for different folkjobs.

it’s good to have reasons for doing things

“Every right-minded man has a philosophy of life, whether he knows it or not. Hidden away in his mind are certain governing principles, whether he formulates them in words or not, which govern his life. Surely his ideal ought to be to contribute all that he can, however little it may be, whether of money or service, to human progress.”
-John D. Rockefeller, Random Reminiscences of Men and Events

i do see areas where snakes and owls seem to overlap here (i.e. disregarding orders) but i have to imagein they do so for different reasons
the old saw about people blindly following the ideas of a long-dead economist always holds at least double for philosophy

Well I wouldn’t be so impolite as to suggest your phenotype is identical to your competitor’s phenotype.

there’s always a mirroring effect in any competitive endeavor
there’s no place for personal distaste or any kind of emotional reaction when doing this sort of high-quality quasi-oscience

Too true, too true.
There’s a particular flavor to products of abstract intuition, and it’s something like getting a song stuck in your head that you haven’t heard in decades.

it’s an addictive feeling, and when it turns out to be right there’s a satisfaction like nothing else
Of course, i was thinking just the other day about how john nash said that his schizophrenic theories came to him from the same place his mathematical breakthroughs came from and this was why he beleived them
i guess we chalk this up to the owl melon rpecept of “never trust anything completely”

That sounds about right, although I note that I trust logic completely.
It’s not a rational decision to do so, but it’s a very, very deep conviction.
I’m thinking of the time I threw out everything and became agnostic for a week, and just laid in bed reconstructing my worldview, and the marijuana story.
“The remarkable thing is that I was still functioning, if poorly, and entirely rational. Hyper-rational, even. I was making extremely predictive inferences.” https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/reflections-on-marijuana-use/
I’m done with Ken’s thing, I can’t think of any way to bring the Kurtz bit in except as an introductory blockquote.
Want to follow one of the tangents or move on to something else?

i would like your thoughts on the question i posed earlier about snakes feeling more of a need to flout formal status markers and owls feeling more of a need to flaunt laudatory talents/characteristics. think i’m heading in the right direction with that one?

Yup.
I don’t know if I can even expand on the statement, as it seems so obvious to me at this point.
Snake virtue signaling is to flaunt symbols of status and prestige. Wearing a Harvard shirt, for example.
As I mentioned in the OG snake post, it appears to be a requirement that the shirt be two sizes too large.
Owl virtue signaling is to flaunt informal markers of character.
In America we respect “genuine” people, so owl melons will wear the costume of a genuine person.
The form that takes may vary.

[Long-ass digression into male fashion. Will post separately.]

i’ll toss you a couple of last thoughts on owls but works for me

1. There’s a STRONG enemy/not-enemy distinction
with some gradations in the non-enemy category

2. Peter Navarro might be an interesting case study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Navarro

Right, you don’t kill everybody who isn’t your friend.

3. Redreading Dune. The Atreides are definitely owl melons and the movie does a good job of representing this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwA6gUnKBWU

The new movie, I presume?

it’s quite good, i recommend it
and yes, the new one

I’ll look out for it when it’s free, I don’t watch a lot of movies though.
Maybe I should get back into that as a personal discipline thing.

if you feel the need to spend the time
most movies these days are pretty crap, admittedly
but Dune is quite good and captures the spirit of the books well
and if you like big visual setpieces it’s a real feast for the senses

Good movies are good for me and I’m good at finding them.
Metropolis, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.
However…
“[INTJs] miserably fail to understand the basic needs of their bodies and therefore do not address them as a first priority. This goes for food and sex too. But do INTjs enjoy tasty food and sex? Sure, when you stick it under their noses. And what do they do to have plenty of fine food and meaningless sex? Precisely nothing. The latter one could be explained by the fact that by default INTjs are socially handicapped.”

yes, this is true
have seen it many times

Now, if sex were shown to increase triathlon performance that would be quite another thing!
One must pursue marginal gains.

“enthusiastic cardiovascular conditioning”

[Update] I missed this bit toward the end of the conversation:

final thought: the owl melon’s heros journey is probably to figure out how to balance power with responsibility, learning that you can’t have one without the other, and either ingegrating into established societal institutions and ruling them well or making off for the wilderneess and building one for themselves with the difficulty in the former often coming from how much societal/institutional norms differ from their own theories of morality and justice i know owls who have succeeded in finance explain to me that they like it becaues its ruthless and calculating, but openly and honestly so, and they find politics a disgusting cesspit because of the duplicity and hyprocisy involved

The paradox of being obsessed with both honor and expedience.

no honor among theives, but maybe some among assassins? i guess a good example is the camaraderie among professional fighters perhaps we can encapsulate the owl melon social paradigm as “enemy/not-enemy”, “us/them” and “insider/outsider” with the lesson to be learned being “either find your place or make it, just so long as you accept responsibility for your actions and stop treating everything as a just game”

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Owl re: central conceits

  1. In my opinion, your observations are spot on. This reminds me of the “archetype spiraling” posts, and also fitting with an intuitive intelligence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s