Big fan of this kind of writing. Gray Mirror readers only hate it because 90% of us are the narcissists you are describing. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
It's funny - I've been thinking that there have been similarities between the two for a while now. I really enjoy what used to be known as insight porn, and I think our host has some capacity to provide it. Man I miss TLP.
To be frank, as much as I want more about Global leadership content. I will appreciate anything on this stuff you post out for the time being, for I do believe this is just as important as taking on Global leadership.
The “righteousness/subordinate vs. empathy/dominant” distinction is interesting. Reminds me of Bill Burr’s bit about Tiger Woods’s affairs and how the media-types who criticized Tiger’s conduct as reprehensible have never experienced the temptations of a billionaire celebrity. It’s easy to pursue “righteousness” when you never would have the opportunity to exercise power.
“Empathy” has become one of those corporatized words that makes my skin crawl (like “community” and “stakeholder” and “passionate” and “finding your why”). Putting empathy in the context of benefactor-client is revealing and satisfying to a me, a bitter middle-aged man.
Maybe this is a really drawn out tangent. But this is considerably more concise and probably as detailed and insightful about the workings of the human mind as 12 Rules For Life. Great stuff sir, this proves you did not just sleep/talk your way into the title of "Philosopher" ;)
"The motive of all writing and all invention of ideas would seem merely to be that of drawing a complicated line which shall definitely mark one off from the type of people one can't stand." - T. E. Hulme
FWIW, I've circled with Pete a decent amount, and in those circles (unlike bullshit circles) you can definitely say "what you're describing left me utterly bored, wanting a cigarette, and also maybe the bathroom.” Or "when I hear that, I feel gut-wrenchingly nauseated, as if I had eaten a bad pickle."
and in fact that's where it gets really good/juicy!
... although that's not to disagree even one iota that Various Incentives continually reward Leadery Foundery People for doing bullshit happy-feely circles of "empathy" or whatever, instead.
But if you circle with Pete (and I assume folks who think about this like Pete does), and you spend the whole circle saying "I'm filled with this rolling feeling in my stomach, like wave after wave of disgust or rejection" or "I'm finding my mind keeps filling with thick noxious fog, I feel so bored it's almost painful" when that's what's going on for you, then no problem getting invited back to the next one!
Fair enough! It's a good enough defense to leave your side with the last word. For what it's worth, since I'm a philosopher, I'd try it with people who do it like this (not like the video).
Circling people: you might want to try putting up more propaganda that reads like Catherine, Paul or Pete, and less like the Circling Institute homepage or a NXVIUM brochure... also, maybe get one of these "non-bullshit" circles on YouTube. I am still skeptical that meditation works better than alcohol, but how could I know?
Good analysis. Kernel, for me: (brutally and probably destructively ellipsized)
“... you like power and can be in two positions with respect to other powers: subordinate or dominant....In a subordinate position, ambition masquerades as righteousness....From a dominant position, ambitions masquerades as empathy....”
Leading to lording over other people, and which only analysis can cut through and intervene.
"Philosophically, “owning your experience” means explaining your experience from its original emotional motivation—a sound principle of narrative. By definition, we only act out of motivation. So you are not “owning” your experience, because you are not grounding your story in its motivation, from which all thoughts and acts must proceed. See how much sense this new-age garbage suddenly makes?"
It would make sense if human beings only acted from emotion and never from rational motives.
"my (honest) belief that almost every human is doing the best they can with whatever resources and experiences they have"
To literally believe this one would have to be seriously lacking in self-knowledge. I suspect Paul doesn't literally believe it - that he's just expressing his view that people aren't rational and therefore aren't responsible for what they do.
AA invented circling before the bald spheroid man did. However like Curtis explains having a clear shared goal in mind before entering the circle makes it safer for the participants. Addicts are starting out with a fucked up limbic system and using a circle to hopefully fix it.
Any "circle" enables brain washing. The circler may be better served knowing what the brainwashing is supposed to be. At best it is a chaotic journey for the participants with undefined outcomes. Take various separate groups of circlers, throw them together and what comes out? Depends on the individuals involved. At worst a smooth operator with a few confederate circlers ends up destroying a life and making a zombie (even if accidentally).
It would be very telling to hear about worst case outcomes among circling participants. I feel that certain people could be quite ruined by it. What would you call a circling addict?
Big fan of this kind of writing. Gray Mirror readers only hate it because 90% of us are the narcissists you are describing. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
I for one enjoy the TLP-posting
It's funny - I've been thinking that there have been similarities between the two for a while now. I really enjoy what used to be known as insight porn, and I think our host has some capacity to provide it. Man I miss TLP.
To be frank, as much as I want more about Global leadership content. I will appreciate anything on this stuff you post out for the time being, for I do believe this is just as important as taking on Global leadership.
"Son, what are you doing in there?"
"Just reading some stern and uncompromising hardcore right-wing reaction, pops!"
"That's my boy!"
The “righteousness/subordinate vs. empathy/dominant” distinction is interesting. Reminds me of Bill Burr’s bit about Tiger Woods’s affairs and how the media-types who criticized Tiger’s conduct as reprehensible have never experienced the temptations of a billionaire celebrity. It’s easy to pursue “righteousness” when you never would have the opportunity to exercise power.
“Empathy” has become one of those corporatized words that makes my skin crawl (like “community” and “stakeholder” and “passionate” and “finding your why”). Putting empathy in the context of benefactor-client is revealing and satisfying to a me, a bitter middle-aged man.
Maybe this is a really drawn out tangent. But this is considerably more concise and probably as detailed and insightful about the workings of the human mind as 12 Rules For Life. Great stuff sir, this proves you did not just sleep/talk your way into the title of "Philosopher" ;)
I can't wait till Curtis has a date with Tom Cruise
"The motive of all writing and all invention of ideas would seem merely to be that of drawing a complicated line which shall definitely mark one off from the type of people one can't stand." - T. E. Hulme
Man I wish he would respond to some of the effortposters here with the same intensity.
please curtis, i bought in JUST before this started.
FWIW, I've circled with Pete a decent amount, and in those circles (unlike bullshit circles) you can definitely say "what you're describing left me utterly bored, wanting a cigarette, and also maybe the bathroom.” Or "when I hear that, I feel gut-wrenchingly nauseated, as if I had eaten a bad pickle."
and in fact that's where it gets really good/juicy!
... although that's not to disagree even one iota that Various Incentives continually reward Leadery Foundery People for doing bullshit happy-feely circles of "empathy" or whatever, instead.
But if you circle with Pete (and I assume folks who think about this like Pete does), and you spend the whole circle saying "I'm filled with this rolling feeling in my stomach, like wave after wave of disgust or rejection" or "I'm finding my mind keeps filling with thick noxious fog, I feel so bored it's almost painful" when that's what's going on for you, then no problem getting invited back to the next one!
Fair enough! It's a good enough defense to leave your side with the last word. For what it's worth, since I'm a philosopher, I'd try it with people who do it like this (not like the video).
Circling people: you might want to try putting up more propaganda that reads like Catherine, Paul or Pete, and less like the Circling Institute homepage or a NXVIUM brochure... also, maybe get one of these "non-bullshit" circles on YouTube. I am still skeptical that meditation works better than alcohol, but how could I know?
So I guess she dumped you, not vice versa. Sorry, man.
Good analysis. Kernel, for me: (brutally and probably destructively ellipsized)
“... you like power and can be in two positions with respect to other powers: subordinate or dominant....In a subordinate position, ambition masquerades as righteousness....From a dominant position, ambitions masquerades as empathy....”
Leading to lording over other people, and which only analysis can cut through and intervene.
"Philosophically, “owning your experience” means explaining your experience from its original emotional motivation—a sound principle of narrative. By definition, we only act out of motivation. So you are not “owning” your experience, because you are not grounding your story in its motivation, from which all thoughts and acts must proceed. See how much sense this new-age garbage suddenly makes?"
It would make sense if human beings only acted from emotion and never from rational motives.
"my (honest) belief that almost every human is doing the best they can with whatever resources and experiences they have"
To literally believe this one would have to be seriously lacking in self-knowledge. I suspect Paul doesn't literally believe it - that he's just expressing his view that people aren't rational and therefore aren't responsible for what they do.
Am I the only ones who wants more of an explication on what exactly CY's "analysis" of one's own motivations looks like? Asking for a friend.
AA invented circling before the bald spheroid man did. However like Curtis explains having a clear shared goal in mind before entering the circle makes it safer for the participants. Addicts are starting out with a fucked up limbic system and using a circle to hopefully fix it.
Any "circle" enables brain washing. The circler may be better served knowing what the brainwashing is supposed to be. At best it is a chaotic journey for the participants with undefined outcomes. Take various separate groups of circlers, throw them together and what comes out? Depends on the individuals involved. At worst a smooth operator with a few confederate circlers ends up destroying a life and making a zombie (even if accidentally).
It would be very telling to hear about worst case outcomes among circling participants. I feel that certain people could be quite ruined by it. What would you call a circling addict?