Hypermodern Times: The Alienation of Man

[deleted_user]

Or - Man Made Alien

Post your thoughts on why we're all more alone, and why we've inversed all our values, and what the blight is (if it isn't ineffible - spoilers - it is, but so is the better status of being, so try anyways, because what's the alternative? If you're here it's already too late)

Some argue we've entered "hypermodern times" aka post modernism's successor which began after WWII, with the advent of the Internet in 1995. I don't even know how to define hypermodernity, but it rings true.

As with all great sociocultural shifts and their respective epochs, an event is regarded as the catalyst. If the publication of the World Wide Web marks hypermodernity, I want to argue we're in a state of hyper accelerated epochs and subsequent "eras," further marked not just by the Internet, but each new app, algorithm, viral product, and all other players which are perfectly, "quietly" disseminated to greater and greater audiences, as ubiquetous as the elements, the very air we breathe. And just as inescapable, and "needed."

What mental fibs can we employ to artificially find solace? Is the idea of harnessing philosophies as "facades" viable? Like a lens we look through, to make sense of things, even if it doesn't shed all the rain, all the sun, all the snow, it helps? Is it more about the ends than means? The ends - a less isolated life, with more "meaning," because we know nothing, but we do know we feel, so the ends are ourselves, and everyone else is an ourselelf too - how do we reconcile that paradox? Can an ego-inclined doctrine benefit the whole?

Methinks by participating one is already infected, hence "too late." Does a tumor grow in you? Thanks, will post more tomorrow.

[occamslightsaber]

Heh, we’re so alone in our internet age that we post stuff on a forum and strangers on the other side of the planet give a shit about us. Oh, the irony.

[fightinfrenchman]

@Amsel_ I almost read your post!

[deleted_user]

The Affector gets affected by its affectees, and affects again, otherly.

[fightinfrenchman]

The Affector gets affected by its affectees, and affects again, otherly.

I disagree

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[Cometk]

NSDAP = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

No need to obfuscate yourself.

I am unsure of the solution to this decline. Spengler thought that, through willpower, one could overcome it. But the technicalities of installing a societal elite capable of guiding the country towards higher ideals and away from degeneration are so complex that it could only arise out of pure chance, and with the permission of these very autonomic societal processes which are the root of this decline to begin with. The NSDAP is the only example of this I can think of in history. They had just the right mindset of resisting the decay, while still exploiting it to its fullest benefit. I haven't studied Roman history enough to determine if the rise of the Caesars also resulted in a societal rejuvenation.

I am curious for further explanation on what you mean by this paragraph.

Referring to the Nazi Party as "a societal elite capable of guiding the country towards higher ideals"
Referring to the Nazi Party as having "the right mindset, while still exploiting it to its fullest benefit"
"Societal rejuvenation" as a result of the Nazi Party

[Jam]

The Affector gets affected by its affectees, and affects again, otherly.

This is a very good sentence.

[harcha]

NSDAP = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

No need to obfuscate yourself.

I am unsure of the solution to this decline. Spengler thought that, through willpower, one could overcome it. But the technicalities of installing a societal elite capable of guiding the country towards higher ideals and away from degeneration are so complex that it could only arise out of pure chance, and with the permission of these very autonomic societal processes which are the root of this decline to begin with. The NSDAP is the only example of this I can think of in history. They had just the right mindset of resisting the decay, while still exploiting it to its fullest benefit. I haven't studied Roman history enough to determine if the rise of the Caesars also resulted in a societal rejuvenation.

I am curious for further explanation on what you mean by this paragraph.

Referring to the Nazi Party as "a societal elite capable of guiding the country towards higher ideals"
Referring to the Nazi Party as having "the right mindset, while still exploiting it to its fullest benefit"
"Societal rejuvenation" as a result of the Nazi Party

>implications are implied

[Amsel_]

when you say "bad things are the norm now" what exactly are you referring to, @Amsel_

TP start as China.

NSDAP = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

No need to obfuscate yourself.

I am unsure of the solution to this decline. Spengler thought that, through willpower, one could overcome it. But the technicalities of installing a societal elite capable of guiding the country towards higher ideals and away from degeneration are so complex that it could only arise out of pure chance, and with the permission of these very autonomic societal processes which are the root of this decline to begin with. The NSDAP is the only example of this I can think of in history. They had just the right mindset of resisting the decay, while still exploiting it to its fullest benefit. I haven't studied Roman history enough to determine if the rise of the Caesars also resulted in a societal rejuvenation.

I am curious for further explanation on what you mean by this paragraph.

Referring to the Nazi Party as "a societal elite capable of guiding the country towards higher ideals"
Referring to the Nazi Party as having "the right mindset, while still exploiting it to its fullest benefit"
"Societal rejuvenation" as a result of the Nazi Party

Yeah, the people who are considered the devil in the modern secular religion of liberal-socialism fought against the source of that same modern secular religion. What's surprising about that? And I referred to the party by its name on purpose, because I was speaking about them as their country's elite at that time. If I just said "nazis" I could be referring to all sorts of people, in many countries. It's just like how you could say "communists" or you could specify the Vietnamese Communist Party.

I've been thinking a lot about one-party-states actually. I was initially opposed to them as some sort of banana republic type state. However, I've begun to notice how, in practice, all these think-tanks, ivy-league universities, and upper-class cliques already operate as a decentralized party. I've been wondering if that's why people will believe conspiracy theories about world-dominance by overtly liberal, yet seemingly weak institutions like the CFR; they see the influence these groups have over their certain domain, and mistake the tree for the forest.

Wait, we're making the full 360 here. These are the same groups that are causing alienation by homogenizing everything under their common standard, and making the individual person powerless.

[Jam]

[Dolan]

Probably because we're in a transitional phase of evolution, between that stage when our brains have evolved in a tribal setting, during which they have become specialised in social cognition, and the next phase, in which our minds/brains are adjusting to living in a society that is geared towards individualism.

Seen through this lens, autism is probably nature's risky bet against archaic tribalism and collectivism. It's a tentative, unsure development that bears all the hallmarks of newly developed traits: at first it makes the "afflicted" look maladjusted against his environment, barely shuffling into one's social roles. Then, as the trait spreads throughout the population, society changes and develops new ways of articulating itself.

It's not inconceivable that eventually this planet will be inhabited by aliens, without ever getting invaded from outer space.

As Matthew 5:5 presciently said:

Blessed are the edgy kids, 'cos they will inherit the earth.

Fire.

[fightinfrenchman]

Imagine smokin crackula

[gamevideo113]

Probably because we're in a transitional phase of evolution, between that stage when our brains have evolved in a tribal setting, during which they have become specialised in social cognition, and the next phase, in which our minds/brains are adjusting to living in a society that is geared towards individualism.

Seen through this lens, autism is probably nature's risky bet against archaic tribalism and collectivism. It's a tentative, unsure development that bears all the hallmarks of newly developed traits: at first it makes the "afflicted" look maladjusted against his environment, barely shuffling into one's social roles. Then, as the trait spreads throughout the population, society changes and develops new ways of articulating itself.

It's not inconceivable that eventually this planet will be inhabited by aliens, without ever getting invaded from outer space.

As Matthew 5:5 presciently said:

Blessed are the edgy kids, 'cos they will inherit the earth.

Fire.

Would you say autism is an evolutionistically favourable trait in nowadays society? That doesn't seem the case to me.
I agree, society is shaped by the sum of its individuals but first of all autistic people are a very small minority, and secondly humanity has kind of escaped natural selection, in a way that prevents advantageous traits to really emerge over the others. In other words, you can't control the rate at which autistic kids are born and they also won't become "prevalent" if you just let things run their course. Or at least it is very unlikely.

[Dolan]

There is definitely a correlation between higher autism rating and propensity to have highly technical preoccupations. I think I read about a survey that was made among people with highly technical jobs in Silicon Valley and, on average, they scored higher on the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) than the general population. Another study found that autists score higher in neuroticism and lower in other personality traits like agreeableness and extraversion. I'm pretty sure I'm not the first to come up with this idea that autism might simply be a new adaptation to a society that relies on technical knowledge more than our archaic tribal structures. Introverted, slightly asocial people tend to be fond of very technical jobs that involve small details and fine motor skills.

It's true, nowadays, autism is still viewed as a developmental disorder, but what if this disorder is simply the low end of a spectrum that is found in the entire population? Maybe the trait was retained by evolution because it was beneficial to everyone in small degrees, even though slightly maladaptive in a small minority. It might be a similar case as with homosexuality. The genetic mechanism responsible for keeping these traits might be genetic drift.

I'm not sure if this species has really escaped evolution, it's probably the case that we branched out in our own evolutionary lane, in which we don't compete with other species anymore, but we continue to evolve traits that keep individuals competing with each other. Conflict is definitely hardcoded in our genome, our species includes personality traits that are completely opposite and hardly reconcilable with each other. It's no coincidence that "nerds" and "chads" feel like natural enemies, it's what nature intended. Nature wanted these traits to compete and let the trait that confers most evolutionary benefits prevail eventually, while still keeping some trail of those receding traits.

[Horsemen]

Marx wrote about this ages ago. He was wrong, as usual. Technology is in fact the best way to reduce social alienation. We are blessed to be living at a time when our social lives are being revolutionised by this.

[fightinfrenchman]

Marx wrote about this ages ago. He was wrong, as usual. Technology is in fact the best way to reduce social alienation. We are blessed to be living at a time when our social lives are being revolutionised by this.

The biggest cause of social alienation is leaving Wildwood

[Horsemen]

Marx wrote about this ages ago. He was wrong, as usual. Technology is in fact the best way to reduce social alienation. We are blessed to be living at a time when our social lives are being revolutionised by this.

The biggest cause of social alienation is leaving Wildwood

I was socially alienated ever since I left Toon world. How do I re-enter?

[fightinfrenchman]

Marx wrote about this ages ago. He was wrong, as usual. Technology is in fact the best way to reduce social alienation. We are blessed to be living at a time when our social lives are being revolutionised by this.

The biggest cause of social alienation is leaving Wildwood

I was socially alienated ever since I left Toon world. How do I re-enter?

You must liebe

[Amsel_]

a society that is geared towards individualism

How do you define "individualism?" It seems that we are getting more individualist in the sense that allegiance to families, religions, countries, people-groups, etc are all declining. However, it seems that actual individual freedom is declining as well. People have a lot less personal power than they used to; and even heads of state can occasionally be seen flailing around impotently. Here in the United States, it used to be that you could get a free plot of land if you promised to develop it. That was the original meaning of "homesteading." We did this up until the 1990's. You can't just go out into the middle of nowhere and live your own life; you don't have that freedom. There are other things, like being able to say politically incorrect things, which society no longer lets us do. I've also mentioned the new dependency on automobiles.

[Dolan]

a society that is geared towards individualism

How do you define "individualism?" It seems that we are getting more individualist in the sense that allegiance to families, religions, countries, people-groups, etc are all declining. However, it seems that actual individual freedom is declining as well. People have a lot less personal power than they used to; and even heads of state can occasionally be seen flailing around impotently. Here in the United States, it used to be that you could get a free plot of land if you promised to develop it. That was the original meaning of "homesteading." We did this up until the 1990's. You can't just go out into the middle of nowhere and live your own life; you don't have that freedom. There are other things, like being able to say politically incorrect things, which society no longer lets us do. I've also mentioned the new dependency on automobiles.

Actually I think it's the free market economy that has destructured family, especially the corporate rat race. While in the early days you got a job to support your family and be a reliable breadwinner, today you work hard in the hope that one day you'll afford your own place, your own family etc. And both men and women are trapped in this dynamic of delaying settling down, because they need to focus on their career first, work those extra hours. They've also experienced high rates of divorce in their parents' generation, which made them wary of marrying the wrong person. So they keep "dating", looking around, living in "partnership", delaying settling down for as long as possible. The 2008 crisis and the post-2008 socio-economic malaise have also made everyone feel less secure about their job and income, which saps their confidence and feeling of financial security.

I dunno about the US, since I haven't lived there, but from what I heard from people who lived there, the prevailing mentality is that, from a social point of view, you're only worth as much as your bank account. If your financial worth is low, you're considered inferior. So everyone is caught up in the corporate rat race trying to lift their social status by chasing money every day. Money are no longer a means to an end, a way of supporting your family, they are the intrinsic and ultimate value, since everything else is considered purchasable with the right amount of money. That's a very individualistic logic, since it defines everything in transactional terms. Every person is a social unit whose desires, hopes can only be fulfilled transactionally, as a function of their financial worth.

There are many things to be said here. There's also a culture of gratification, the idea that you deserve a treat, because you worked hard for it. The main focus of marketing is targeting this psychological need that people have to reward themselves for their work. That's the logic of the "Have a break... have a Kit Kat" ad:



The whole retail sector works to output products that target this gratification of individual needs. Everyone is mostly defined in terms of preferences, needs, desires that can be satisfied for the right price, not so much in terms of relations, participation in something greater than yourself, playing your part in a social ritual, etc. Even this idea that we should define relationships between people as "partnerships", that we should avoid words like "wife", "girlfriend", "husband" and use "partner" instead, has the effect of neutralising the ritualistic weight that each sex has in a relationship. It makes relationships sound transactional, like a contract between partners in a firm. People lose their specificity if they talk about their "significant other" as a "partner". But that's the idea, they define themselves as units, rather than persons with specific traits.

As for freedom, that's one of the vaguest words in any language. When people talk about freedom, they typical think of constraints that limit their actions and that they want removed to fully express themselves. You didn't really have any choice about whether you wanted or not to learn your language, you were gradually conditioned to learn it, it was a constraint, although it's possible you didn't really feel like it was something imposed on you, against your freedom to choose whether you wanted to learn your language. But was it really a constraint if you never felt like you needed to be free from this social expectation to learn how to speak? So do you actually need to feel like something is a constraint on your actions to be entitled to talk about "freedom" from it? Or is freedom more like a native state, like that of a wild solitary animal, like the leopard, that doesn't even feel like it needs freedom, because its life wasn't shaped by gradual social conditioning, by "eat your vegs if you want to play with your Playstation"?

So when you say you feel like individual freedom is declining because some extra constraints are imposed on you, do you think your predecessors felt freer than you? Or did they actually feel just as constrained as you, except by other rules? 100 years ago, you were expected not to have sex outside or before marriage, do you actually think people felt freer than you today? That's why freedom is maybe the vaguest word in language, since it doesn't express anything clear, except maybe a frustration with perceived constraints. You feel "free" when you remove previous constraints, but you almost never felt like you needed freedom from constraints that became a habit. A leopard would surely feel constrained if you tranquilised it, dressed it in specially sewn clothes then let it loose in the wild. It would try to "free itself" from those clothes.

What about the "freedom to settle anywhere in the country and live there"? In the 19th century, people were also free to settle their conflicts in a duel. That freedom doesn't exist anymore either, but do most people feel less free today because they can't solve their conflicts through duel anymore? I think some might feel relieved they don't have to accept a duel challenge, they might feel free from an obligation to duel.
In the case of political correctness, I can understand that, since it's about something very clearly defined: a new constraint that limits speech which was previously allowed. But in other cases, it's less clear how you could quantify whether there is less freedom today compared to other historical periods. What you're saying sounds more like you see "settling somewhere in the middle of nowhere" as an opportunity that you're being denied today. But maybe there is a good legal reason why this is no longer possible, for purely practical reasons. States have gotten better at keeping a cadastre record of land ownership and this has made arbitrary settlement less possible. How could a state accommodate everyone's wish to freely settle anywhere with a growing population?

[Horsemen]

[Amsel_]

In the 19th century, people were also free to settle their conflicts in a duel. That freedom doesn't exist anymore either, but do most people feel less free today because they can't solve their conflicts through duel anymore? I think some might feel relieved they don't have to accept a duel challenge, they might feel free from an obligation to duel.

I would actually like to take this opportunity to defend the merits of dueling, and advocate for a more accepting attitude towards violence. I've never enjoyed this little girl morality that says violence is always wrong, and you have no right to personally secure justice. If I see some guy insulting someone, and the guy he's insulting takes a swing or two, I'm going to side with the guy who was getting insulted, but the police won't. Duels are a good way to make this sort of violence more civilized. And the fact that the guy is expected to just stand there and take it is a great example of reduction in freedom.

But maybe there is a good legal reason why this is no longer possible, for purely practical reasons. States have gotten better at keeping a cadastre record of land ownership and this has made arbitrary settlement less possible. How could a state accommodate everyone's wish to freely settle anywhere with a growing population?

I'm not denying that there is a practical necessity to some of these things. But this last point you make about growing population being a main restrictor for the ability to go homestead in the wilderness feeds directly into my point about the decline in freedom being the result of techno-social development, "progress."

[spanky4ever]

Or - Man Made Alien

Post your thoughts on why we're all more alone, and why we've inversed all our values, and what the blight is (if it isn't ineffible - spoilers - it is, but so is the better status of being, so try anyways, because what's the alternative? If you're here it's already too late)

Some argue we've entered "hypermodern times" aka post modernism's successor which began after WWII, with the advent of the Internet in 1995. I don't even know how to define hypermodernity, but it rings true.

As with all great sociocultural shifts and their respective epochs, an event is regarded as the catalyst. If the publication of the World Wide Web marks hypermodernity, I want to argue we're in a state of hyper accelerated epochs and subsequent "eras," further marked not just by the Internet, but each new app, algorithm, viral product, and all other players which are perfectly, "quietly" disseminated to greater and greater audiences, as ubiquetous as the elements, the very air we breathe. And just as inescapable, and "needed."

What mental fibs can we employ to artificially find solace? Is the idea of harnessing philosophies as "facades" viable? Like a lens we look through, to make sense of things, even if it doesn't shed all the rain, all the sun, all the snow, it helps? Is it more about the ends than means? The ends - a less isolated life, with more "meaning," because we know nothing, but we do know we feel, so the ends are ourselves, and everyone else is an ourselelf too - how do we reconcile that paradox? Can an ego-inclined doctrine benefit the whole?

Methinks by participating one is already infected, hence "too late." Does a tumor grow in you? Thanks, will post more tomorrow.

Sorry, for giving you this feedback. I think the thread could be interesting, if I could understand it, in simple, or straight forward, terms. There is just this big labyrinth of strange words, that can be understood/misunderstood/interpretated/misinterpreted, etc etc.
If I were your mentor, I would give this paper back to you, with the advice of using less "strange concepts" - try to communicate to a bigger audience, and for heaven's sake, make some "full stop" now and then. It helps the audience grasp what you are trying to communicate, in a big way.

[fightinfrenchman]

Liebe