Sometimes watching clips where the director is there commenting, on why we did this and why we did that, is interesting. There is a lot to this craft.
Somebody spent millions of dollars to show you 90 minutes of excellent instructions in particular fields or in life in general? This is what I wonder about. How were these instructions woven into the plot and scenes? Every human situation (if it is judged at all), infers the values of that culture. If those values are my values, the story can have meaning for me. If those values are NOT my values, or even if I was raised with them but now have discarded them, (very consciously); that movie is rubbish for me.
Blundering values are the cause of all world conflict. No matter how skillful a movie is crafted, if it is based on stupidity, it is stupid. Even let's say, if 90% of society is stuck on resolving life through those values, they will never do it. Because it is those limited concepts that are the cause of everything they seek to resolve. Most movies are aimed at a wide audience, the wider the better to regain those millions of dollars. Therefore most movies (probably all of them), are aimed to try to make sense of a human mire. Of course they never do it, stuck in the same mire, but audiences applaud them for giving it a good try.
The net effect is that the audience is stuck ever deeper into the falsity of their life. (It is their life, so for them it is true and not false.) I learn nothing out of watching it.
If a movie, or any art form, theater or novel, can question my current values, it has promise. Even if I end up not accepting it, I have looked and questioned how I operate, and maybe I have opened a window of curiosity to look deeper into it on the next occasion.
Models of human behavior under various conditions are always tied to underlying beliefs. They have no general application outside of that belief structure. This is where all movies DO NOT relate to your life. People may communicate and interact in a stupid way. All it can do is to make you embarrassed about the base levels in your culture. It was my culture. Is it any more, can I reject it, or am I stuck in it? I think life moves on. You say thoughts, emotional reactions or behavioral scenarios are very limited and, usually, pretty much unchanging over our life.
That is not my experience at all.
Decoding behavior patterns for an adult is a categorization. It comes from obsolete past judgement points. Novelty comes only through discarding them, as best as possible and day by day. "Finding a spontaneous person ready to risk their status quo for the sake of becoming more human is a rare treat." He has discarded many categorizations.
You say a live-interaction is risky - the other person may do something unexpected, unwelcome, challenging or openly threatening your status quo. I have never met anyone who stepped out of decorum. I don't travel in hostile neighborhoods though. If anyone, it is me that asks uncomfortable questions. I don't demand any answers though.
It's a continuous negotiation of your own borderlines in order to make you more of yourself than a few minutes ago. That's well-said.
> the director is … commenting, on why we did this and why we did that, is interesting. There is a lot to this craft.
These are technical issues, very important to understand the imagery. More interesting are the choices made by the people (director, screenwriter, actors) and reasoning for them. This is where we can learn how the mind is preprogrammed and manipulated by the so-called common knowledge, or unverified ideas which we blindly accept and on which we rely in our life.
> If those values are my values, the story can have meaning for me. If those values are NOT my values, or even if I was raised with them but now have discarded them, (very consciously); that movie is rubbish for me.
This is a self-centered approach. It’s only half of the story. The other half is about what motivates (or possibly can motivate) other people. I’d say that it is more important, even in the survival context. Being part of the society, we need to be aware of how others operate, even if they are ruled by values foreign to us. For example, the great “Pickpocket” movie from 1959 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053168/) can be a learning tool to become aware of a certain social phenomena and, alongside, about our own vulnerabilities. In both cases, the technical aspects are as important as the understanding of the minds of the persons, both the pickpocket and you as a possible victim.
> The net effect is that the audience is stuck ever deeper into the falsity of their life.
I don’t care about what other people can learn from the movie, it’s their problem. I prefer to see the movie as a compact crash course in human relationships, including motivations, power games, control aspects, or the choices we make and how we arrive them all are manipulated into them. With this attitude, every movie is about me and every movie may be a useful contribution to my life training.
> Decoding behavior patterns for an adult is a categorization. It comes from obsolete past judgement points.
That’s true. We all do this 24/7. It’s one of the most intrinsic, prevalent processes of the mind. It never leaves us. This is why, in my view, it is so important to be aware of these processes within my own mind. There is no need, and truly there is no way to antagonize, fight, deny or get rid of it.
How do you become aware of your own mind? Only and solely when you are challenged by external stimuli. Your mind cannot self-analyze and be honest about it. When it does, it always falls back on its own creations. This is why we feel so at ease when there is no other person around, there is no risk of being challenged beyond the mind’s self-indulging processes.
When input is provided by another person, especially in the form of criticism or contradiction, the mind can use it in a comparison with its own programming. External input is the only way we can transcend ourselves and the limitations which we use to stay where we are. External input is the basis for all learning, from classic school education, to advisors and counselors of people with responsibilities, to modern psychotherapy for everybody, not necessarily linked to any clinical problems.
In a different take, our mind always goes after new external inputs. We are simply wired this way, and there is no need to reject it. In a sense, our mental capacities are born, shaped and optimized (for the needs resulting from our preferences) in the interactions with the external world. “External world” always meaning “other people”.
Hello Dan; I see that our game of commenting on other people's videos has shut down. What was it my turn? I made a suggestion, but I attached It to a longer reply, so it didn't get noticed.
What do you think about our latest post about a theater monologue? It is a video, but this is an excerpt of the monologue. You don't have to like it. But I would love to hear your opinion.
Now we have an experimental proof of how badly the Substack platform is designed. We have one core article (Contradictions…) with the alleged 42 comments. Quite good, and the appearance is “Oh, they have something going on here”. Except that all these comments are made by your team and one outsider (me). Threading the comments is a total failure (it simply does not exist), so we are losing track of what is happening where and when. The failed design made you to add a reply “as if” if were another comment, which didn’t help in tracking the thought train and complicated the story.
All in all, I see the Substack as a tool which is unsuitable for conversations extending beyond two short replies. In other words, I (and you) put a lot of energy into something cognitively valuable (my subjective view), and it’s all bogged down in an unintelligible mass of words which we cannot even mind map to see what it is about.
In short, wasted energy. Nobody will read it. The article has a slight advantage of symbolic structuring, which is helpful for the reader and which allows the author to guide the reader in their process. In-depth comments, no way.
Going deeper into this dead labyrinth will blackhole energy (your and mine). We may have the feeling of mental satisfaction (which is useless, anyway) and that’s it. I am not really seeing any point to it.
Why don’t we “write” a book (or a series of books) and self-publish it instead of this dead end? It will be at least an opportunity to have financial return for our copyrighted (as the product of our minds) contributions. Obviously, if you consider all this of any value other than short-term mental entertainment :-)
I see that human perception is best when it notices contrasts, or a sudden change. What is stable (the fish in water), is just not received. So you speak the truth when you say:
How do you become aware of your own mind? Only and solely when you are challenged by external stimuli. “External world” always meaning “other people”. When input is provided by another person, especially in the form of criticism or contradiction, the mind can use it in a comparison with its own programming. External input is the only way we can transcend ourselves and the limitations which we use to stay where we are. (Do we use the limitations or do the limitations use us?)
You also say:
"The movie is a compact crash course in human relationships, including motivations, power games, control aspects, or the choices we make and how we arrive to them all and are manipulated into them."
Our latest post is a video, not a movie. There wasn't a director/actor interaction, but only a sole playwright that wrote down his own contemplation. The actor can add his interpretation, but the words are those written. The post is called "an old theater monologue, and current events".
Please see if you get any {learning} out of that one. There are a few good comments that expand upon it also.
That insight may be a key to unlock the mysteries of making our own life miserable. The mind perceives stillness and uniformity (absence of contrast) as danger. Maybe because it cannot exist in stillness - it’s very nature is of constant movement, preferably chaotic (see “attention span”). Uniformity renders the mind useless, which is why power-based systems enforce uniformity (clothing, behavior standards, speech control, punishing “anti”-social actions, etc.).
When everything around is monotonous and unchanging from day to day, the mind first goes crazy (“revolt”), and then adapts (“conformity”) because going with the monotonous flow means the survival. Those who “disrupt” the class are punished, even if they have good intentions and great suggestions. Protesters are called “activists” - which clearly shows that activity is a no go. Because protesters want change.
Things are different when the controlling party adds changes. In a monotonous and boring environment, any activity which breaks the routine is welcome. This is why wars are spaced: first soldiers are turned mind-dead in a mentally boring and physically exhaustive training, and when they are made sufficiently conformist (see the term of mandatory military service), they will do whatever change is proposed (see all major conflicts in the 20th centuiry: Korea, Vietnam, Middle East) without even asking “Why are we attacking peasants?”
So change and contrast are ok, but only when they are enforced by the controllers. As a low-level initiative, they are labeled “revolution”, “anarchy”, “threat to democracy”, and so on. I don’t mean political aspects - when we see these processes within the playground of the mind, we start to understand that we, the society, are doomed as a group and nothing positive will ever come within the social setting. Those who want to improve the social life will be ostracized, punished or eliminated (unless they join the controllers). Is it the reason why all VIPs say that the prison system does not fulfill its assumed role, yet literally no-one makes any changes to it in order to actually re-educate the inmates into a civil and socially contributive ways?
The mind, the tool to perceive contrast and change, and the greatest enemy of contrast and change.
And the most dangerous mind to the mind itself is the writing mind - because it spins theories whose sole purpose is to self-affirm its status quo. This is why mind-destroying books are long and monotonous, practically impossible to read with commitment (Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, marketing handbooks, social studies, psychological treatises, etc.). For the same reason, user manuals for useless software (organizational, CRM, CSR, HR, etc.) are long, badly structured and impossible to implement. The mind will cast its shadow wherever it can.
What about non-verbal people? There is some communication between them and verbal people, but we don’t really know how it operates. Things are easily explainable once we drag non-verbal people into the verbal world, but this is violence - we simply impose our constraints on them.
If they are not verbal, do they experience contradictions? Contradictions of what?
What about non-verbal animals? We may start with dogs and cats, which we “think” we know (really?). How do they process contradictions?
One angle to examine, is that we are all non-verbal people. Whatever is non-verbal about our nature is operating right now. I can think of a lot of things like balance and orientation, and the sensation of being in an environment, and in touch with other beings, heat and cold, pain, so many things. This is without going into "paranormal" reports. But since we tend to describe in words, everything that we give a distinction to, the words obscure the raw nature of it. So it is hard to consider it.
Verbal beings set the culture. Non verbal beings mimic that culture, and find ways to survive within it. A good mimicker probably models all the verbal parts, as well as their non verbal essence. How do dogs process contradictions? What would that be? The wife pets the dog and the husband beats the dog. Is that a contradiction? I don't think the dog is confused by it. He prefers the wife, and runs away from the husband.
My basic message is that contradictions are a (verbal) creation attached to the verbal structure of your society. You are making up the contradictions, along with the stereotypes of behavior in that "reality". Even though you have to make due to live in that society, I am indicating you don't have to suffer-through its contradictions. Just make them up differently for you. (And learn to deal with those who are still holding on to them tightly.)
Deaf and mute people are verbal. They are taught the meaning of finger signs and know sign-language. It must be the same for them. More mentally handicapped people mimic what it takes to get through each day.
I'll ask you; what is a contradiction for a non verbal being? What is an example?
Hi, GA. It’s so amazing that we can consider and reconsider our being here and share these views with another. Maybe even find some resonance. Maybe even put this resonance to some use. Maybe even make one’s life felt more fulfilling as a result.
Your observation - we are all non-verbal - is so crucial to understand literally everything we experience.
The internet has brought in another factor: we all have a very strong potential to be anti-social, after we become verbal. We feel so ok with reacting to dead random dots on the screen.
Your next observation - the sensory self-deprivation - is a huge stimulated development we are witnessing.
The wife/husband/dog triangle is not a nice example of contradiction, as the stimuli come from different sources. The dog certainly examines and reconsiders what is happening, just like all animals. It’s obviously in a different dimension (for the lack of a better word), so we do not have access to it. Just a quick impression.
Your third paragraph makes me think that “contradictions” may be an equivalent of how each one perceives the environment and handles it to make it further on.
What happens when contradictions cease and disappear? When the person is at ease with what is happening?
Are contradictions external to us or do we create them, or a mix of the two? If we create them, why? What for? What is their purpose - or, why do we need them?
By verbal, I understand word-related and sound-related. A word is a set of sounds transliterated. Those deaf and mute seem to be unable to live in words, even when hearing others. They resort to symbols, which are not verbal. That’s probably another mystery which we want to cover up with “knowing”, but we are unable to know what is happening in a mind which cannot experience fragmented information, aka words. Just a thought.
If I were to define, a contradiction would be a situation (person, group) in which energies are not aligned. First thought.
I like the Substack platform, and if there are any limitations, they don't effect me (yet). I like the history part of it too. If I go back and read something I wrote, most often I feel it is still relevant to how I think. I remember you saying you felt confined by the old posts. I was shocked when I saw that you deleted all of them. I had really liked some of your thinking. I did not categorize you by them either.
Now I guess that you read 40 other sites and comment there. Thanks for coming to wnt. You could also make a "Note" with every comment, by checking the little box. But you don't. So I don't see your full "breath" (your wideness).
Here I try to select topics that can be tested in daily life. (You say resonance, and put that resonance to use.) Global-Advances chose this topic.
What happens when contradictions disappear? Yes, we are at ease about that issue, and that is an empowerment. (But I think we will quickly find another contradiction). {Are Contradictions external or self-created}; They're external in the sense that they are part of the greater cultural belief system. That's how I look at it, but each culture is a man-made artifact. You can't single-handedly change the culture, but you can see through it, that it is artificial.
Needed, but not determinant.
What is their purpose? A good way to discuss that is to list a few prominent contradictions, and examine them. Are they still true in every language system? You say it's where energies are not aligned.
(When I hear "verbal", I think of linguistic. Signs are a language in which each sign is a separate meaning, like a spoken word. I don't know why a coded sound would be different than a coded symbol?) We gain so much information even through hieroglyphics.
> I was shocked when I saw that you deleted all of them.
Only a few. But that’s a nice reminder. I should be more active.
> Now I guess that you read 40 other sites and comment there.
This is where I see the huge shortcoming of this platform. Finding an article, pretty easy. Except the one feature missing: a useful TOC for the relevant author’s articles. You have to scroll down by bits to the oldest article and then navigate up and down. Absolutely unprofessional and counterproductive, disrespectful of authors - extremely limiting your exposure and keeping readers in the blind of what you have done. After 4 years, unforgivable.
A bigger bad thing is that finding information in comments is almost unbearable. Many times comments feature better information than articles, but you need half an hour to go through say 300 comments to a good article. No “Save all comments as…” and “Save article as…” - after 4 years, unforgivable.
A huge shortcoming is the lack of a TOC of the whole platform broken down into areas of interest.
So, I don’t see any reason to push the platform upwards and build its brand value while I get nothing in return except collapsing my time in a black hole.
> I think we will quickly find another contradiction
Oh yes, we are good at this :-)
> Are they [contradictions] still true in every language system?
I recommend an interesting exercise. Choose any of your normal working days. Do whatever you normally do. But - do not speak. Pretend that you cannot speak. Not a word, not a single onomatopoeia. Only gestures. No exceptions. 24 hours. For real, not to test anybody. Become numb for 24 hours and experience. You will soon appreciate (hopefully) how useless language is.
> Signs are a language in which each sign is a separate meaning, like a spoken word.
No, no. Absolutely no.
> why a coded sound would be different than a coded symbol?
Check any dictionary. We are putting a lot of effort to explain the meaning of one word with three dozens of other words. What a waste of time. The result? People pretending to be adult and pretending to have what it takes to manage other people hire consultants, advisers, spokespeople, representatives, lawyers, editors, reviewers and more to “communicate” whatever they want. And their audience see them through in an instant and accurately and precisely respond: “Liars”.
Hi Dan, here's a proposal for you. When we are talking together we are attempting to share what is important for us, for our way of looking at it. About the 40 sites that you follow; you said:
"Finding an article is pretty easy". I assume it will be meaningful for you.
How about bringing a good article here (the link), and we can both read it and express what are the good parts (for us), and where it might come up short.
This will be a good way to get to know each other. Thanks
Hi WNT, your proposal has been haunting me a bit. Since I see Substack as a big, highly compartmentalized pre-programmed echo chamber, I would like to avoid its limitations. Here is an alternative to consider, for you and all your colleagues in your team effort(s).
Why don’t we pick a movie to comment on?
Advantages: 1) Not “optimized” for Substack, 2) More universal in appeal, 3) Easily relatable owing to the visual context, 4) Provided in a “pure” form, without pre-selected terminology, 5) Limited text layer = concise, enforceable dialogs focused on conveying the message, 6) Extremely easy to convert into practical life lessons = superb benefit for all readers.
I find TV series very valuable for this purpose. It’s easy to choose a 2-3-minute part of a particular episode which is self-contained and does not need viewing the whole season or complete series.
I mean real movies, with real people, and with realistic scenarios which may happen to everyone. This would eliminate horrors, sci-fi, superhero stories, animation, etc. Of the remaining genres, action / criminal are probably the best material due to the constraints imposed on the action and the messages. Comedies are great for quick-witted interactions. Personal transformation series are also nice due to the development of the presented figures.
Ah, that will be a waste of time, yours and mine. For one, I don’t really care about what is interesting for other readers - this caring being an impossible task. Everyone has their interests and tracks what they need (or think that need) most. Two, I don’t feel any need to change the perception of other readers. Three, blowing up publicity for a random article for free? No way. Four, we change over time (hopefully), so what appears to be great now, tomorrow will be ancient and forgotten (hopefully, again).
And the most important part, I find it much more constructive to share my unsolicited insights than to apply for “contests” tethered to some predefined material. Mostly because after the first reading, the material is already half-dead: I absorbed what was appealing to me, discarded what I subjectively am not interested in. I love my first impressions, always working perfect (for me). More thorough analyses take time, effort and research, and I like doing it when commissioned and set up under commercial terms. Which is to say that if you (your group or team) are planning commercial publications, and for some reason you find the idea of my (commercial) contribution interesting, let’s play.
All of the above is about my preferences, not about rejecting you. I appreciate your proposal, it may be an interesting cross-examination of various ideas. For now, my biases are too precious to me :-) Maybe some time in the future?
Unlike free Q&As which we exercise here. I like this format a lot.
Hi Dan, By the way TOC is said to be the abbreviation for 109 phrases. Like total organic carbon, test operators console, toxic organic compound, television operating center, traction owners club, tightness of chest, triumph (the car) owners club, training operations center, technical oversight center.
When I happen upon an article with loads of comments, I don't read them. I am not drawn to people's opinions. If it is a military site or current events, I don't bother at all, but if it is somewhat life affirmative and philosophic, I go through the commenters and hover over each one. If the blurb on their site name is at all coherent, I open them in a new tab. Maybe I'll find 20, and I start to open their sites. I go immediately to the About Page and see if they have written any "credo". Then I go to Archive and see what is their latest. If I go down 4 or 5 I usually find something to read. (Hopefully it is not too long.)
I check how it was received with the comments and the likes, and then I read it. If it says anything, I'm sure that there will be something to comment on. If it is good, I will read another one. I am not worried about "all their brilliant articles", because I am not an information hound. I only care if they will respond to my comment. Usually my comment is the most insightful and provocative, because others don't take the trouble to analyze everything you said. Then we will dialog about it.
Most don't want to get tied up in discussions, because they believe making more and more posts is the key to growing their site. (They may have 1,000 subscribers now, but only four comments; or maybe more). Usually nobody dares to say anything that adds to the topic.
Substack lately stated: 10's of thousands make money on this platform, 100's of thousands express their views, and millions read it. That means 10% hit the jackpot, (which may be $5 a week?)
I don't see any reason to read a platform if all that comes to your mind is to complain about it. In fact, I wouldn't complain about anything in my life, ever. What is the use? Yes there will be a payback for everything, but many paybacks are just self-limiting. If that's what you want, it is easy enough to get.
I am completely baffled by your statement that "signs are NOT a language in which each sign is a separate meaning," and somehow they are completely different than a spoken sound. I am kind of a hermit, so I speak very little and I write a lot. Sometimes I go seek someone out in a coffee shop (they're there every day), but other times, even for weeks I am completely alone. I don't even speak language to my dogs, just gestures.
So I have really done your experiment, (maybe a word slips in here and there), but I don't notice this "big difference". Of course all the time I am reading and writing, so I am immersed in language. I am not perplexed by the meaning of words either. I like to check with a thesaurus, I like wordhippo. True there are a hundred synonyms for each word, but with all my years, I am able to decode the different nuance of each one, and find the one that more accurately depicts what I want to say.
By now I have a firm belief which I apply to myself, (but I feel quite sure it applies to everyone to some degree or other). Within your memory and cognition apparatus you can develop an idea only so far, and then it simple re-circulates. That is where growth stops, until you find an able discussion partner, or until you write. Of course the best is to write to someone else, and not just fill folders on your computer.
When I travel substack I am mostly searching for authors. They know how to put an argument together.
It is (only) writers who can think.
With regard to others: We use to say about the coffee shop crowd, they talk every day, but it doesn't go anywhere. THERE IS NO TRACTION HERE. What's the use.
Hi, GA. Your tactics for handling info overflow is almost identical with mine. It works.
I differ commenting from complaining. I’d define complaining as an un-restful state of the mind with no conscious purpose. It’s when people pour out their reactions but don’t really want to change the underlying conditions. Like, finding victim listeners being as far as they can go. Commenting, on the other hand, is providing a view in the interest of sharing or making others aware. As it happens, we (people) don’t comment on what works, it’s a natural state and things should be like this. We comment on inadequacies and failures, on what does not provide what it should - and that’s how it should be.
Substack is an ancient design platform so time- and energy-consuming, with zero new audience / financial potential for new or beginner writers. It’s a black hole deliberately designed to engage and lock your energy, inefficient and user-unfriendly, despite that it uses free scripts for its subroutines. No complaint here.
Words carry meanings. Signs carry meanings and call to action (e.g. “stop” or traffic lights). They are not intended for dialogues or conversations. It’s a one-way communication designed to elicit specific responses. Obviously, I don’t mean ASL or other forms of human live interaction. Advanced signs embody layers of knowledge and manners of handling their recipients, like in religions. Complex signs penetrate into the mind and (de)activate somethings (e.g. mother’s fingers pointing or threateningly waving at a child). Powerplay signs are combined with tools to reinforce the message (e.g. a policeman stopping a vehicle with a baton or torch) - a tactics not found with words. Just for starters :-)
For that experiment… I found out that people don’t need to talk to you. When the speech channel is removed, they magically switch to reacting to a person and mind-reading. E.g., in a bookshop, I was asking for a book to which I pointed, but I kept straight-on eye contact with the person behind the counter, not facilitating her to choose the proper book. And she gave me the book I wanted. That was amazing.
PS. “Substack lately stated: 10's of thousands make money on this platform”. It’s an advertising bait, not information. I’d like to see the exact numbers of authors, broken down by areas of interest, seniority on Substack and in online publishing in general, number of posts they make, over how much time, and - most important - whether they built their readership from scratch or migrated to Substack along with their previous readers (including factors of time and numbers). Plus exact financial data.
This is the basic information you need to assess the potential of the platform and to decide whether you want to commit your energy to it or how much of it. If you are in business, you won’t do a thing without such data. If it were such a wonderful platform, they would happily share this information. They don’t. Guess why?
Reply to Dan from the 29th
Sometimes watching clips where the director is there commenting, on why we did this and why we did that, is interesting. There is a lot to this craft.
Somebody spent millions of dollars to show you 90 minutes of excellent instructions in particular fields or in life in general? This is what I wonder about. How were these instructions woven into the plot and scenes? Every human situation (if it is judged at all), infers the values of that culture. If those values are my values, the story can have meaning for me. If those values are NOT my values, or even if I was raised with them but now have discarded them, (very consciously); that movie is rubbish for me.
Blundering values are the cause of all world conflict. No matter how skillful a movie is crafted, if it is based on stupidity, it is stupid. Even let's say, if 90% of society is stuck on resolving life through those values, they will never do it. Because it is those limited concepts that are the cause of everything they seek to resolve. Most movies are aimed at a wide audience, the wider the better to regain those millions of dollars. Therefore most movies (probably all of them), are aimed to try to make sense of a human mire. Of course they never do it, stuck in the same mire, but audiences applaud them for giving it a good try.
The net effect is that the audience is stuck ever deeper into the falsity of their life. (It is their life, so for them it is true and not false.) I learn nothing out of watching it.
If a movie, or any art form, theater or novel, can question my current values, it has promise. Even if I end up not accepting it, I have looked and questioned how I operate, and maybe I have opened a window of curiosity to look deeper into it on the next occasion.
Models of human behavior under various conditions are always tied to underlying beliefs. They have no general application outside of that belief structure. This is where all movies DO NOT relate to your life. People may communicate and interact in a stupid way. All it can do is to make you embarrassed about the base levels in your culture. It was my culture. Is it any more, can I reject it, or am I stuck in it? I think life moves on. You say thoughts, emotional reactions or behavioral scenarios are very limited and, usually, pretty much unchanging over our life.
That is not my experience at all.
Decoding behavior patterns for an adult is a categorization. It comes from obsolete past judgement points. Novelty comes only through discarding them, as best as possible and day by day. "Finding a spontaneous person ready to risk their status quo for the sake of becoming more human is a rare treat." He has discarded many categorizations.
You say a live-interaction is risky - the other person may do something unexpected, unwelcome, challenging or openly threatening your status quo. I have never met anyone who stepped out of decorum. I don't travel in hostile neighborhoods though. If anyone, it is me that asks uncomfortable questions. I don't demand any answers though.
It's a continuous negotiation of your own borderlines in order to make you more of yourself than a few minutes ago. That's well-said.
.
> the director is … commenting, on why we did this and why we did that, is interesting. There is a lot to this craft.
These are technical issues, very important to understand the imagery. More interesting are the choices made by the people (director, screenwriter, actors) and reasoning for them. This is where we can learn how the mind is preprogrammed and manipulated by the so-called common knowledge, or unverified ideas which we blindly accept and on which we rely in our life.
> If those values are my values, the story can have meaning for me. If those values are NOT my values, or even if I was raised with them but now have discarded them, (very consciously); that movie is rubbish for me.
This is a self-centered approach. It’s only half of the story. The other half is about what motivates (or possibly can motivate) other people. I’d say that it is more important, even in the survival context. Being part of the society, we need to be aware of how others operate, even if they are ruled by values foreign to us. For example, the great “Pickpocket” movie from 1959 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053168/) can be a learning tool to become aware of a certain social phenomena and, alongside, about our own vulnerabilities. In both cases, the technical aspects are as important as the understanding of the minds of the persons, both the pickpocket and you as a possible victim.
> The net effect is that the audience is stuck ever deeper into the falsity of their life.
I don’t care about what other people can learn from the movie, it’s their problem. I prefer to see the movie as a compact crash course in human relationships, including motivations, power games, control aspects, or the choices we make and how we arrive them all are manipulated into them. With this attitude, every movie is about me and every movie may be a useful contribution to my life training.
> Decoding behavior patterns for an adult is a categorization. It comes from obsolete past judgement points.
That’s true. We all do this 24/7. It’s one of the most intrinsic, prevalent processes of the mind. It never leaves us. This is why, in my view, it is so important to be aware of these processes within my own mind. There is no need, and truly there is no way to antagonize, fight, deny or get rid of it.
How do you become aware of your own mind? Only and solely when you are challenged by external stimuli. Your mind cannot self-analyze and be honest about it. When it does, it always falls back on its own creations. This is why we feel so at ease when there is no other person around, there is no risk of being challenged beyond the mind’s self-indulging processes.
When input is provided by another person, especially in the form of criticism or contradiction, the mind can use it in a comparison with its own programming. External input is the only way we can transcend ourselves and the limitations which we use to stay where we are. External input is the basis for all learning, from classic school education, to advisors and counselors of people with responsibilities, to modern psychotherapy for everybody, not necessarily linked to any clinical problems.
In a different take, our mind always goes after new external inputs. We are simply wired this way, and there is no need to reject it. In a sense, our mental capacities are born, shaped and optimized (for the needs resulting from our preferences) in the interactions with the external world. “External world” always meaning “other people”.
Hello Dan; I see that our game of commenting on other people's videos has shut down. What was it my turn? I made a suggestion, but I attached It to a longer reply, so it didn't get noticed.
What do you think about our latest post about a theater monologue? It is a video, but this is an excerpt of the monologue. You don't have to like it. But I would love to hear your opinion.
.
Now we have an experimental proof of how badly the Substack platform is designed. We have one core article (Contradictions…) with the alleged 42 comments. Quite good, and the appearance is “Oh, they have something going on here”. Except that all these comments are made by your team and one outsider (me). Threading the comments is a total failure (it simply does not exist), so we are losing track of what is happening where and when. The failed design made you to add a reply “as if” if were another comment, which didn’t help in tracking the thought train and complicated the story.
All in all, I see the Substack as a tool which is unsuitable for conversations extending beyond two short replies. In other words, I (and you) put a lot of energy into something cognitively valuable (my subjective view), and it’s all bogged down in an unintelligible mass of words which we cannot even mind map to see what it is about.
In short, wasted energy. Nobody will read it. The article has a slight advantage of symbolic structuring, which is helpful for the reader and which allows the author to guide the reader in their process. In-depth comments, no way.
Going deeper into this dead labyrinth will blackhole energy (your and mine). We may have the feeling of mental satisfaction (which is useless, anyway) and that’s it. I am not really seeing any point to it.
Why don’t we “write” a book (or a series of books) and self-publish it instead of this dead end? It will be at least an opportunity to have financial return for our copyrighted (as the product of our minds) contributions. Obviously, if you consider all this of any value other than short-term mental entertainment :-)
I see that human perception is best when it notices contrasts, or a sudden change. What is stable (the fish in water), is just not received. So you speak the truth when you say:
How do you become aware of your own mind? Only and solely when you are challenged by external stimuli. “External world” always meaning “other people”. When input is provided by another person, especially in the form of criticism or contradiction, the mind can use it in a comparison with its own programming. External input is the only way we can transcend ourselves and the limitations which we use to stay where we are. (Do we use the limitations or do the limitations use us?)
You also say:
"The movie is a compact crash course in human relationships, including motivations, power games, control aspects, or the choices we make and how we arrive to them all and are manipulated into them."
Our latest post is a video, not a movie. There wasn't a director/actor interaction, but only a sole playwright that wrote down his own contemplation. The actor can add his interpretation, but the words are those written. The post is called "an old theater monologue, and current events".
Please see if you get any {learning} out of that one. There are a few good comments that expand upon it also.
.
On contrast and change.
That insight may be a key to unlock the mysteries of making our own life miserable. The mind perceives stillness and uniformity (absence of contrast) as danger. Maybe because it cannot exist in stillness - it’s very nature is of constant movement, preferably chaotic (see “attention span”). Uniformity renders the mind useless, which is why power-based systems enforce uniformity (clothing, behavior standards, speech control, punishing “anti”-social actions, etc.).
When everything around is monotonous and unchanging from day to day, the mind first goes crazy (“revolt”), and then adapts (“conformity”) because going with the monotonous flow means the survival. Those who “disrupt” the class are punished, even if they have good intentions and great suggestions. Protesters are called “activists” - which clearly shows that activity is a no go. Because protesters want change.
Things are different when the controlling party adds changes. In a monotonous and boring environment, any activity which breaks the routine is welcome. This is why wars are spaced: first soldiers are turned mind-dead in a mentally boring and physically exhaustive training, and when they are made sufficiently conformist (see the term of mandatory military service), they will do whatever change is proposed (see all major conflicts in the 20th centuiry: Korea, Vietnam, Middle East) without even asking “Why are we attacking peasants?”
So change and contrast are ok, but only when they are enforced by the controllers. As a low-level initiative, they are labeled “revolution”, “anarchy”, “threat to democracy”, and so on. I don’t mean political aspects - when we see these processes within the playground of the mind, we start to understand that we, the society, are doomed as a group and nothing positive will ever come within the social setting. Those who want to improve the social life will be ostracized, punished or eliminated (unless they join the controllers). Is it the reason why all VIPs say that the prison system does not fulfill its assumed role, yet literally no-one makes any changes to it in order to actually re-educate the inmates into a civil and socially contributive ways?
The mind, the tool to perceive contrast and change, and the greatest enemy of contrast and change.
And the most dangerous mind to the mind itself is the writing mind - because it spins theories whose sole purpose is to self-affirm its status quo. This is why mind-destroying books are long and monotonous, practically impossible to read with commitment (Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, marketing handbooks, social studies, psychological treatises, etc.). For the same reason, user manuals for useless software (organizational, CRM, CSR, HR, etc.) are long, badly structured and impossible to implement. The mind will cast its shadow wherever it can.
“…contradictions are verbal constructs…”
What about non-verbal people? There is some communication between them and verbal people, but we don’t really know how it operates. Things are easily explainable once we drag non-verbal people into the verbal world, but this is violence - we simply impose our constraints on them.
If they are not verbal, do they experience contradictions? Contradictions of what?
What about non-verbal animals? We may start with dogs and cats, which we “think” we know (really?). How do they process contradictions?
One angle to examine, is that we are all non-verbal people. Whatever is non-verbal about our nature is operating right now. I can think of a lot of things like balance and orientation, and the sensation of being in an environment, and in touch with other beings, heat and cold, pain, so many things. This is without going into "paranormal" reports. But since we tend to describe in words, everything that we give a distinction to, the words obscure the raw nature of it. So it is hard to consider it.
Verbal beings set the culture. Non verbal beings mimic that culture, and find ways to survive within it. A good mimicker probably models all the verbal parts, as well as their non verbal essence. How do dogs process contradictions? What would that be? The wife pets the dog and the husband beats the dog. Is that a contradiction? I don't think the dog is confused by it. He prefers the wife, and runs away from the husband.
My basic message is that contradictions are a (verbal) creation attached to the verbal structure of your society. You are making up the contradictions, along with the stereotypes of behavior in that "reality". Even though you have to make due to live in that society, I am indicating you don't have to suffer-through its contradictions. Just make them up differently for you. (And learn to deal with those who are still holding on to them tightly.)
Deaf and mute people are verbal. They are taught the meaning of finger signs and know sign-language. It must be the same for them. More mentally handicapped people mimic what it takes to get through each day.
I'll ask you; what is a contradiction for a non verbal being? What is an example?
I always like to hear your take on it. Thanks
.
Hi, GA. It’s so amazing that we can consider and reconsider our being here and share these views with another. Maybe even find some resonance. Maybe even put this resonance to some use. Maybe even make one’s life felt more fulfilling as a result.
Your observation - we are all non-verbal - is so crucial to understand literally everything we experience.
The internet has brought in another factor: we all have a very strong potential to be anti-social, after we become verbal. We feel so ok with reacting to dead random dots on the screen.
Your next observation - the sensory self-deprivation - is a huge stimulated development we are witnessing.
The wife/husband/dog triangle is not a nice example of contradiction, as the stimuli come from different sources. The dog certainly examines and reconsiders what is happening, just like all animals. It’s obviously in a different dimension (for the lack of a better word), so we do not have access to it. Just a quick impression.
Your third paragraph makes me think that “contradictions” may be an equivalent of how each one perceives the environment and handles it to make it further on.
What happens when contradictions cease and disappear? When the person is at ease with what is happening?
Are contradictions external to us or do we create them, or a mix of the two? If we create them, why? What for? What is their purpose - or, why do we need them?
By verbal, I understand word-related and sound-related. A word is a set of sounds transliterated. Those deaf and mute seem to be unable to live in words, even when hearing others. They resort to symbols, which are not verbal. That’s probably another mystery which we want to cover up with “knowing”, but we are unable to know what is happening in a mind which cannot experience fragmented information, aka words. Just a thought.
If I were to define, a contradiction would be a situation (person, group) in which energies are not aligned. First thought.
Now, this was a great inspiration. Thank you.
I like the Substack platform, and if there are any limitations, they don't effect me (yet). I like the history part of it too. If I go back and read something I wrote, most often I feel it is still relevant to how I think. I remember you saying you felt confined by the old posts. I was shocked when I saw that you deleted all of them. I had really liked some of your thinking. I did not categorize you by them either.
Now I guess that you read 40 other sites and comment there. Thanks for coming to wnt. You could also make a "Note" with every comment, by checking the little box. But you don't. So I don't see your full "breath" (your wideness).
Here I try to select topics that can be tested in daily life. (You say resonance, and put that resonance to use.) Global-Advances chose this topic.
What happens when contradictions disappear? Yes, we are at ease about that issue, and that is an empowerment. (But I think we will quickly find another contradiction). {Are Contradictions external or self-created}; They're external in the sense that they are part of the greater cultural belief system. That's how I look at it, but each culture is a man-made artifact. You can't single-handedly change the culture, but you can see through it, that it is artificial.
Needed, but not determinant.
What is their purpose? A good way to discuss that is to list a few prominent contradictions, and examine them. Are they still true in every language system? You say it's where energies are not aligned.
(When I hear "verbal", I think of linguistic. Signs are a language in which each sign is a separate meaning, like a spoken word. I don't know why a coded sound would be different than a coded symbol?) We gain so much information even through hieroglyphics.
Thanks
.
Great to hear you again.
> I was shocked when I saw that you deleted all of them.
Only a few. But that’s a nice reminder. I should be more active.
> Now I guess that you read 40 other sites and comment there.
This is where I see the huge shortcoming of this platform. Finding an article, pretty easy. Except the one feature missing: a useful TOC for the relevant author’s articles. You have to scroll down by bits to the oldest article and then navigate up and down. Absolutely unprofessional and counterproductive, disrespectful of authors - extremely limiting your exposure and keeping readers in the blind of what you have done. After 4 years, unforgivable.
A bigger bad thing is that finding information in comments is almost unbearable. Many times comments feature better information than articles, but you need half an hour to go through say 300 comments to a good article. No “Save all comments as…” and “Save article as…” - after 4 years, unforgivable.
A huge shortcoming is the lack of a TOC of the whole platform broken down into areas of interest.
So, I don’t see any reason to push the platform upwards and build its brand value while I get nothing in return except collapsing my time in a black hole.
> I think we will quickly find another contradiction
Oh yes, we are good at this :-)
> Are they [contradictions] still true in every language system?
I recommend an interesting exercise. Choose any of your normal working days. Do whatever you normally do. But - do not speak. Pretend that you cannot speak. Not a word, not a single onomatopoeia. Only gestures. No exceptions. 24 hours. For real, not to test anybody. Become numb for 24 hours and experience. You will soon appreciate (hopefully) how useless language is.
> Signs are a language in which each sign is a separate meaning, like a spoken word.
No, no. Absolutely no.
> why a coded sound would be different than a coded symbol?
Check any dictionary. We are putting a lot of effort to explain the meaning of one word with three dozens of other words. What a waste of time. The result? People pretending to be adult and pretending to have what it takes to manage other people hire consultants, advisers, spokespeople, representatives, lawyers, editors, reviewers and more to “communicate” whatever they want. And their audience see them through in an instant and accurately and precisely respond: “Liars”.
Have a great day, Dan
Hi Dan, here's a proposal for you. When we are talking together we are attempting to share what is important for us, for our way of looking at it. About the 40 sites that you follow; you said:
"Finding an article is pretty easy". I assume it will be meaningful for you.
How about bringing a good article here (the link), and we can both read it and express what are the good parts (for us), and where it might come up short.
This will be a good way to get to know each other. Thanks
.
Hi WNT, your proposal has been haunting me a bit. Since I see Substack as a big, highly compartmentalized pre-programmed echo chamber, I would like to avoid its limitations. Here is an alternative to consider, for you and all your colleagues in your team effort(s).
Why don’t we pick a movie to comment on?
Advantages: 1) Not “optimized” for Substack, 2) More universal in appeal, 3) Easily relatable owing to the visual context, 4) Provided in a “pure” form, without pre-selected terminology, 5) Limited text layer = concise, enforceable dialogs focused on conveying the message, 6) Extremely easy to convert into practical life lessons = superb benefit for all readers.
I find TV series very valuable for this purpose. It’s easy to choose a 2-3-minute part of a particular episode which is self-contained and does not need viewing the whole season or complete series.
I mean real movies, with real people, and with realistic scenarios which may happen to everyone. This would eliminate horrors, sci-fi, superhero stories, animation, etc. Of the remaining genres, action / criminal are probably the best material due to the constraints imposed on the action and the messages. Comedies are great for quick-witted interactions. Personal transformation series are also nice due to the development of the presented figures.
Regards, Dan
Sound like a date :-)
Ah, that will be a waste of time, yours and mine. For one, I don’t really care about what is interesting for other readers - this caring being an impossible task. Everyone has their interests and tracks what they need (or think that need) most. Two, I don’t feel any need to change the perception of other readers. Three, blowing up publicity for a random article for free? No way. Four, we change over time (hopefully), so what appears to be great now, tomorrow will be ancient and forgotten (hopefully, again).
And the most important part, I find it much more constructive to share my unsolicited insights than to apply for “contests” tethered to some predefined material. Mostly because after the first reading, the material is already half-dead: I absorbed what was appealing to me, discarded what I subjectively am not interested in. I love my first impressions, always working perfect (for me). More thorough analyses take time, effort and research, and I like doing it when commissioned and set up under commercial terms. Which is to say that if you (your group or team) are planning commercial publications, and for some reason you find the idea of my (commercial) contribution interesting, let’s play.
All of the above is about my preferences, not about rejecting you. I appreciate your proposal, it may be an interesting cross-examination of various ideas. For now, my biases are too precious to me :-) Maybe some time in the future?
Unlike free Q&As which we exercise here. I like this format a lot.
Hi Dan, By the way TOC is said to be the abbreviation for 109 phrases. Like total organic carbon, test operators console, toxic organic compound, television operating center, traction owners club, tightness of chest, triumph (the car) owners club, training operations center, technical oversight center.
When I happen upon an article with loads of comments, I don't read them. I am not drawn to people's opinions. If it is a military site or current events, I don't bother at all, but if it is somewhat life affirmative and philosophic, I go through the commenters and hover over each one. If the blurb on their site name is at all coherent, I open them in a new tab. Maybe I'll find 20, and I start to open their sites. I go immediately to the About Page and see if they have written any "credo". Then I go to Archive and see what is their latest. If I go down 4 or 5 I usually find something to read. (Hopefully it is not too long.)
I check how it was received with the comments and the likes, and then I read it. If it says anything, I'm sure that there will be something to comment on. If it is good, I will read another one. I am not worried about "all their brilliant articles", because I am not an information hound. I only care if they will respond to my comment. Usually my comment is the most insightful and provocative, because others don't take the trouble to analyze everything you said. Then we will dialog about it.
Most don't want to get tied up in discussions, because they believe making more and more posts is the key to growing their site. (They may have 1,000 subscribers now, but only four comments; or maybe more). Usually nobody dares to say anything that adds to the topic.
Substack lately stated: 10's of thousands make money on this platform, 100's of thousands express their views, and millions read it. That means 10% hit the jackpot, (which may be $5 a week?)
I don't see any reason to read a platform if all that comes to your mind is to complain about it. In fact, I wouldn't complain about anything in my life, ever. What is the use? Yes there will be a payback for everything, but many paybacks are just self-limiting. If that's what you want, it is easy enough to get.
I am completely baffled by your statement that "signs are NOT a language in which each sign is a separate meaning," and somehow they are completely different than a spoken sound. I am kind of a hermit, so I speak very little and I write a lot. Sometimes I go seek someone out in a coffee shop (they're there every day), but other times, even for weeks I am completely alone. I don't even speak language to my dogs, just gestures.
So I have really done your experiment, (maybe a word slips in here and there), but I don't notice this "big difference". Of course all the time I am reading and writing, so I am immersed in language. I am not perplexed by the meaning of words either. I like to check with a thesaurus, I like wordhippo. True there are a hundred synonyms for each word, but with all my years, I am able to decode the different nuance of each one, and find the one that more accurately depicts what I want to say.
By now I have a firm belief which I apply to myself, (but I feel quite sure it applies to everyone to some degree or other). Within your memory and cognition apparatus you can develop an idea only so far, and then it simple re-circulates. That is where growth stops, until you find an able discussion partner, or until you write. Of course the best is to write to someone else, and not just fill folders on your computer.
When I travel substack I am mostly searching for authors. They know how to put an argument together.
It is (only) writers who can think.
With regard to others: We use to say about the coffee shop crowd, they talk every day, but it doesn't go anywhere. THERE IS NO TRACTION HERE. What's the use.
.
Hi, GA. Your tactics for handling info overflow is almost identical with mine. It works.
I differ commenting from complaining. I’d define complaining as an un-restful state of the mind with no conscious purpose. It’s when people pour out their reactions but don’t really want to change the underlying conditions. Like, finding victim listeners being as far as they can go. Commenting, on the other hand, is providing a view in the interest of sharing or making others aware. As it happens, we (people) don’t comment on what works, it’s a natural state and things should be like this. We comment on inadequacies and failures, on what does not provide what it should - and that’s how it should be.
Substack is an ancient design platform so time- and energy-consuming, with zero new audience / financial potential for new or beginner writers. It’s a black hole deliberately designed to engage and lock your energy, inefficient and user-unfriendly, despite that it uses free scripts for its subroutines. No complaint here.
Words carry meanings. Signs carry meanings and call to action (e.g. “stop” or traffic lights). They are not intended for dialogues or conversations. It’s a one-way communication designed to elicit specific responses. Obviously, I don’t mean ASL or other forms of human live interaction. Advanced signs embody layers of knowledge and manners of handling their recipients, like in religions. Complex signs penetrate into the mind and (de)activate somethings (e.g. mother’s fingers pointing or threateningly waving at a child). Powerplay signs are combined with tools to reinforce the message (e.g. a policeman stopping a vehicle with a baton or torch) - a tactics not found with words. Just for starters :-)
For that experiment… I found out that people don’t need to talk to you. When the speech channel is removed, they magically switch to reacting to a person and mind-reading. E.g., in a bookshop, I was asking for a book to which I pointed, but I kept straight-on eye contact with the person behind the counter, not facilitating her to choose the proper book. And she gave me the book I wanted. That was amazing.
PS. “Substack lately stated: 10's of thousands make money on this platform”. It’s an advertising bait, not information. I’d like to see the exact numbers of authors, broken down by areas of interest, seniority on Substack and in online publishing in general, number of posts they make, over how much time, and - most important - whether they built their readership from scratch or migrated to Substack along with their previous readers (including factors of time and numbers). Plus exact financial data.
This is the basic information you need to assess the potential of the platform and to decide whether you want to commit your energy to it or how much of it. If you are in business, you won’t do a thing without such data. If it were such a wonderful platform, they would happily share this information. They don’t. Guess why?