But it is of course so much easier, and feels so much more comfortable, to stick with the reality model one has been taught since childhood. A dualistic model, so that you can easily choose sides. The good side vs. the bad side. Because otherwise, with an autocratic global power controlling both sides, making your democratic vote completely meaningless, life feels insecure and helpless indeed, and that becomes existentially intolerable; making denial the easiest way out.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But it is of course so much easier, and feels so
> much more comfortable, to stick with the reality
> model one has been taught since childhood. A
> dualistic model, so that you can easily choose
> sides. The good side vs. the bad side. Because
> otherwise, with an autocratic global power
> controlling both sides, making your democratic
> vote completely meaningless, life feels insecure
> and helpless indeed, and that becomes
> existentially intolerable; making denial the
> easiest way out.

FWIW, Marx had it right, so far as class struggle goes, and it is simply this: it's human nature to want what another has; and that other who has it, does not wish to share it.

It's as simple as that. The haves/have-nots. This has been going on since the days of mutual grooming under a banana tree.

Because humans, at their core, and due to evolutionary necessity, are social animals who can (but not always!) gain advantage by cooperation with others to achieve mutually beneficial goals, the haves, united in their desire to keep what they have and to further advance their position, work with others of their ilk to keep it--but bear in mind: they have often gotten their wealth (if not inherited) by arbitrarily pursuing their own optimum independent course when they perceive that it benefits them.

And being skillful enough to have accumulated a significant surplus, they can see when to unilaterally go on their own, breaking any previous agreements. They are good at this; it's a skill they developed and honed during the acquisition phase. And those with whom they made a pact are of the same basic skill set, so they know it and recognize it, being prepared to do the same when it suits them.

Out of this group of haves are individuals who were born into this type of advantage, but do not possess the skillset to expand the assets, or in some cases even retain them. Over time they lose the acquired assets to either others of their group, or to newly emerging have-nots, who in the US, at least, are free to try to enter the haves group.

Because, yep, the have-nots group basically band together for mutual protection against the haves--thus we have unions, major political parties, etc. Of the more aggressive and ambitious have-nots, there is a small percentage who try--and some succeed--in achieving entry into the lower ranks of the haves. They sometimes achieve this by purporting to defend the interests of their brother have-nots, all the while selling their influence with the have-nots to the haves (this describes most political leaders in the US) to either further exploit the have-nots in the manner of Jeff Bezos, or to inoculate themselves against future civil unrest, in the manner of George Soros/Warren Buffett.

If successful in their ruse, the latter group are thought of as "the enlightened rich", or "philanthropists".

The whole thing is a constantly churning mess, but it's the basis of free-market capitalism. There is no secret handshake, as there would be in societies with a caste system or hereditary rulers/nobility. Any scruffy street-smart player can gain entry to the bottom, a la Gatsby.

Anyway, this is how I see it in modern industrial nations. I think it would be much more advantageous to form lasting conspiracies to exploit the have-nots in hereditary systems, since truly they are/were evolving toward separate sub-species very very slowly.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 19 Jul 21 | 02:16PM by Sawfish.

Anyway, cheers! Life is not worth spending arguing. ..... I am gonna watch Lars von Trier's Melancholia any day now towards the end of the week! Aye!? If I dare! Because I fear it might make a permanent emotional depression on me. I am pretty exited about it, and already have butterflies in my stomach.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway, cheers! Life is not worth spending
> arguing. ..... I am gonna watch Lars von Trier's
> Melancholia any day now towards the end of the
> week! Aye!? If I dare! Because I fear it might
> make a permanent emotional depression on me. I am
> pretty exited about it, and already have
> butterflies in my stomach.

Not to worry!

There are potent euphoric drugs now available for just this eventuality!

:^)

Le me know what you think of Melancholia, K. It is not for everyone, but for me it had a big payoff. Very slow for a long time, you get to know a lot about a certain group of very privileged people. Don't even know anything is wrong, or could be.

Then, WHAMO...

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Anyway, cheers! Life is not worth spending
> > arguing. ..... I am gonna watch Lars von Trier's
> > Melancholia any day now towards the end of the
> > week! Aye!? If I dare! Because I fear it might
> > make a permanent emotional depression on me. I am
> > pretty exited about it, and already have
> > butterflies in my stomach.
>
> Not to worry!
>
> There are potent euphoric drugs now available for
> just this eventuality!
>
> :^)
>
> Le me know what you think of Melancholia, K. It is
> not for everyone, but for me it had a big payoff.
> Very slow for a long time, you get to know a lot
> about a certain group of very privileged people.
> Don't even know anything is wrong, or could be.
>
> Then, WHAMO...


I saw Melancholia. Let me try to gather my wits. ... Some technicalities out of the way first; I see that Lars von Trier has got some more expensive camera equipment since his film The Idiots. But he is still holding the camera in his hands!! And moving it back and forth very jerkily between the characters, sometimes even changes his mind midway in movement and goes back to the same character; and he is slow on the focuser. Extremely amateurish camera work! It must be the most seasick-inducing film I have ever seen. But I am willing to believe that this was intentional, to tilt the audience out of balance. The last third of the film is more stable. I also had a mild case of food-poisoning while watching it (after having consumed canned goulash soup that was too spiced), which increased the unpleasantness. I had to pause towards the end, and finish the film the next night.

A very good movie this is. Horrible! HORRIBLE!!! Absolutely merciless. I thought, that only a complete pessimist and cynic could have made such a film. Von Trier may fit that bill. But I was pleasantly surprised, and very touched by the ending, where he introduced magic, for their mental protection.

Melancholia is the stuff of nightmares. Very much like having a bad dream, especially when the planet becomes visible and expands in the sky. Up until then the film is eerie, and it's really painful to watch all these shallow and confused individuals, pretending success, but being so clumsy, and mean and miserable.
Keifer Sutherland perhaps comes across as the most stable character. Until making his terrible calculations by the telescope; and his decisive action after. It hits you like a sledgehammer.

But when the planet finally appears, the film turns into grim magnificence. Stupendous!

A powerful film. Ultimately confronting. Existentially interesting.

If I were to have any criticism (aside from the jerky camera work), I think the film could well have been 15 or 20 minutes longer, exploring the further mental collapse of the characters. But it may be difficult to squeeze such performance out of the actors.

Knygatin Wrote:

MUCH SNIPPED...

>
>
> I saw Melancholia. Let me try to gather my wits.
> ... Some technicalities out of the way first; I
> see that Lars von Trier has got some more
> expensive camera equipment since his film The
> Idiots. But he is still holding the camera in his
> hands!! And moving it back and forth very jerkily
> between the characters, sometimes even changes his
> mind midway in movement and goes back to the same
> character; and he is slow on the focuser.
> Extremely amateurish camera work! It must be the
> most seasick-inducing film I have ever seen. But I
> am willing to believe that this was intentional,
> to tilt the audience out of balance. The last
> third of the film is more stable. I also had a
> mild case of food-poisoning while watching it
> (after having consumed canned goulash soup that
> was too spiced), which increased the
> unpleasantness. I had to pause towards the end,
> and finish the film the next night.

I missed all the camera stuff.

Often I am very observant of this stuff but the story once it got underway, was to me very compelling.

>
> A very good movie this is. Horrible! HORRIBLE!!!
> Absolutely merciless. I thought, that only a
> complete pessimist and cynic could have made such
> a film. Von Trier may fit that bill. But I was
> pleasantly surprised, and very touched by the
> ending, where he introduced magic, for their
> mental protection.

The Magic Cave was a sort of merciful misdirection for the kid huh? Gave him hope right to the ultimate end.

And once of the central ironies is that of all the characters the clinically depressed one, Dunst, had the best answer for those last few moments...

>
> Melancholia is the stuff of nightmares. Very much
> like having a bad dream, especially when the
> planet becomes visible and expands in the sky. Up
> until then the film is eerie, and it's really
> painful to watch all these shallow and confused
> individuals, pretending success, but being so
> clumsy, and mean and miserable.
> Keifer Sutherland perhaps comes across as the most
> stable character. Until making his terrible
> calculations by the telescope; and his decisive
> action after. It hits you like a sledgehammer.

He was into heavy denial up until the kid's coat hanger device showed the inevitable.

Then he slunk off and shot himself.

>
> But when the planet finally appears, the film
> turns into grim magnificence. Stupendous!

Horrible!!!

>
> A powerful film. Ultimately confronting.
> Existentially interesting.

I hope you did not waste your time, K. I felt that with your stated tastes and all of your background postings, you might like it as an aesthetic experience.

I sure did.

>
> If I were to have any criticism (aside from the
> jerky camera work), I think the film could well
> have been 15 or 20 minutes longer, exploring the
> further mental collapse of the characters. But it
> may be difficult to squeeze such performance out
> of the actors.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you Sawfish for this recommendation. Yes, it was grim, and unpleasant, but sure worth my time, and it turned into, especially the last third of it, a highly aesthetic and sweeping artistic work.

I remember the first time the planet really became visible, easily distinct from the other stars. It was at night after dark, and the Moon and It shone parallel at about the same strength, far apart. Utterly convincing. Saturated with fate. It sent shivers up and down my spine.

And later, with the big beautiful planet swelling over the sky, the film unfolds unfalteringly.


> Sawfish wrote:
>
> "The Magic Cave was a sort of merciful misdirection for the kid huh? Gave him hope right to the ultimate end.
>
> And one of the central ironies is that of all the characters the clinically depressed one,
> Dunst, had the best answer for those last few moments..."

Yes, agree, the kid was the primary motivation for it. Dunst also had some kind of supernatural talent, and she believed in a more profound truth, underlying her grave depression (one might say she came out on the other side, and was finally redeemed), and proved it to her less secure sister by knowing the exact number of beans in the trivial glass jar game that none of the other guests had been able to guess.

> "Then he slunk off and shot himself."

Actually he stole and swallowed the full can of tablets that were meant for them all. :(

............................

Fritz Leiber wrote a novel called The Wanderer which has the same premise, but I imagine is told from a different perspective.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 27 Jul 21 | 01:24AM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you Sawfish for this recommendation. Yes, it
> was grim, and unpleasant, but sure worth my time,
> and it turned into, especially the last third of
> it, a highly aesthetic and sweeping artistic work.
>
>
> I remember the first time the planet really became
> visible, easily distinct from the other stars. It
> was at night after dark, and the Moon and It shone
> parallel at about the same strength, far apart.
> Utterly convincing. Saturated with fate. It sent
> shivers up and down my spine.
>
> And later, with the big beautiful planet swelling
> over the sky, the film unfolds unfalteringly.
>
>
> > Sawfish wrote:
> >
> > "The Magic Cave was a sort of merciful
> misdirection for the kid huh? Gave him hope right
> to the ultimate end.
> >
> > And one of the central ironies is that of all
> the characters the clinically depressed one,
> > Dunst, had the best answer for those last few
> moments..."
>
> Yes, agree, the kid was the primary motivation for
> it. Dunst also had some kind of supernatural
> talent, and she believed in a more profound truth,
> underlying her grave depression (one might say she
> came out on the other side, and was finally
> redeemed), and proved it to her less secure sister
> by knowing the exact number of beans in the
> trivial glass jar game that none of the other
> guests had been able to guess.
>
> > "Then he slunk off and shot himself."
>
> Actually he stole and swallowed the full can of
> tablets that were meant for them all. :(

See what age does? :^)

The way Von Trier handled his desperate denial ("The good scientists" and "the bad scientists", as he was explaining the news events to his son...

There is a whole lot to think about and consider--in some sense it's a metaphor for everyone's mortality in that no one gets out of it, no way. no how.

But I absolutely agree about those images of the planet, and especially as it looms HUGE in the daytime sky...

>
> ............................
>
> Fritz Leiber wrote a novel called The Wanderer
> which has the same premise, but I imagine is told
> from a different perspective.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> See what age does? :^)

Or ideas. Ever since childhood I have unconsciously manipulated interpretations of certain experiences.

Shooting himself would have been bad enough, ... what he did was unacceptable. But when pressure becomes heavy enough, humans may descend to insect levels.

>
> The way Von Trier handled his desperate denial
> ("The good scientists" and "the bad scientists",
> as he was explaining the news events to his
> son...

Yes, emotional denial. At the same time he wasn't quite certain of the outcome (the planet moved in circles around the Sun, at times coming closer to the Earth, or moving away), until his final observation and calculations by the telescope confirmed the unavoidable. And then ..., completely unfit to cope with it.

>
> There is a whole lot to think about and
> consider--in some sense it's a metaphor for
> everyone's mortality in that no one gets out of
> it, no way. no how.

A very effective metaphor indeed.

>
> But I absolutely agree about those images of the
> planet, and especially as it looms HUGE in the
> daytime sky...

In Nature Beauty and Terror are happily married.

Knygatin Wrote:

MUCH SNIPPED...

> >
> > But I absolutely agree about those images of
> the
> > planet, and especially as it looms HUGE in the
> > daytime sky...
>
> In Nature Beauty and Terror are happily married.

True enough.

Why, I recall meeting some girls when I qas younger that were *so* beautiful that they "scared* me... ;^)

Here's a funny observation about truly beautiful young women that I came to well too late to do me much good: while *we* see them in comparison to other eligible young women, and judge them to be staggering, up until their mid 20-early 30s, they see themselves often, as normal. This is to say they still see themselves as a somewhat evolved gangling adolescent, maybe with braces.

Of course this is not all but more than one might think.

Their niche does not include comparing other females, as young men do when judging desirable dates. But because they are sooo outstanding they intimidate many young men, myself included, and they are sometimes not approached very often (fear of rejection by the males), or only clumsily, and so are quite responsive to just a "normal" approach.

Odd stuff, confirmed by a very good friend who was a sort of hardcore LA womanizer until his mid-40s.

Oh, yeah... OT, huh? :^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > > Knygatin Wrote:
> > >
> > > In Nature Beauty and Terror are happily married.
>
>
> True enough.
>
> Why, I recall meeting some girls when I was
> younger that were *so* beautiful that they
> "scared* me... ;^)
>

Have you seen the Orchid Mantis? Enchanting creature! I have a wonderful orchid in my collection, with exactly the same colors and shimmering texture.


> Here's a funny observation about truly beautiful
> young women that I came to well too late to do me
> much good: while *we* see them in comparison to
> other eligible young women, and judge them to be
> staggering, up until their mid 20-early 30s, they
> see themselves often, as normal. This is to say
> they still see themselves as a somewhat evolved
> gangling adolescent, maybe with braces.
>
> Of course this is not all but more than one might
> think.
>
> Their niche does not include comparing other
> females, as young men do when judging desirable
> dates. But because they are sooo outstanding they
> intimidate many young men, myself included, and
> they are sometimes not approached very often (fear
> of rejection by the males), or only clumsily, and
> so are quite responsive to just a "normal"
> approach.
>
>

It varies, slightly. Beautiful women can actually be very goofy, which you wouldn't have believed at first sight. Some who are extremely beautiful, can carry themselves with pride, but once you get to know them, the surface façade and posture flounders. With age (both men and women), most of us, get a little more calcified and difficult to tilt. Not all, some remain children.

I think all entities manifested and trapped in a body, no matter how beautiful, being isolated within their own shell, sooner or later tend to reveal themselves as being goofy. There is no escape from it.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > > Knygatin Wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In Nature Beauty and Terror are happily
> married.
> >
> >
> > True enough.
> >
> > Why, I recall meeting some girls when I was
> > younger that were *so* beautiful that they
> > "scared* me... ;^)
> >
>
> Have you seen the Orchid Mantis? Enchanting
> creature! I have a wonderful orchid in my
> collection, with exactly the same colors and
> shimmering texture.
>
>
> > Here's a funny observation about truly
> beautiful
> > young women that I came to well too late to do
> me
> > much good: while *we* see them in comparison to
> > other eligible young women, and judge them to
> be
> > staggering, up until their mid 20-early 30s,
> they
> > see themselves often, as normal. This is to say
> > they still see themselves as a somewhat evolved
> > gangling adolescent, maybe with braces.
> >
> > Of course this is not all but more than one
> might
> > think.
> >
> > Their niche does not include comparing other
> > females, as young men do when judging desirable
> > dates. But because they are sooo outstanding
> they
> > intimidate many young men, myself included, and
> > they are sometimes not approached very often
> (fear
> > of rejection by the males), or only clumsily,
> and
> > so are quite responsive to just a "normal"
> > approach.
> >
> >
>
> It varies, slightly. Beautiful women can actually
> be very goofy, which you wouldn't have believed at
> first sight. Some who are extremely beautiful, can
> carry themselves with pride, but once you get to
> know them, the surface façade and posture
> flounders. With age (both men and women), most of
> us, get a little more calcified and difficult to
> tilt. Not all, some remain children.
>
> I think all entities manifested and trapped in a
> body, no matter how beautiful, being isolated
> within their own shell, sooner or later tend to
> reveal themselves as being goofy. There is no
> escape from it.

You're now talking about broader appeal and I tend to concur with what you've said.

Mainly I was speaking of overt physical female beauty and how in a western democratic society they are perceived as difficult to approach.

Not so in an authoritarian tribal patriarchy. You simply buy 'em.

;^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I grieve and miss the happy short illusion created by those born in the 1940s- early 50s. They created the Grand Illusion and most delicious Self-deceit, this Temporary Window of pretended happiness in history, right after WW2. A brief Golden moment. Children in the 40s, growing up in the 50s and 60s, they tasted the short Best part of the Industrial Age, full of Hope and Confidence, and naive humanitarian Ideals. Born with Pluto in Leo, being perhaps the best musicians and visual artists ever, with incredible intuitive artistic force, wholly free of the self-consciousness we see in sophisticated art/film today. My favorite decade was the 70s, since I was a little kid then, and I idealized it long after. The "hippie-decade" (don't remember much of the 60s, since I was too young then), the 70s was really the sunset of this Golden period, with the greatest music, art, and movies, created, with the greatest intuitive authority; Neil Young, Corben, ... This generation were Masters of passionate Illusion! In the 80s the decline definitely started. The 90s were a free fall of cynicism, irony, kitschy back-reflections, and all of that brief Golden period was then lost. The 2000s and 2010s were a living nightmare of intentional Deception. And the next step is Totalitarianism.

What perplexes me is how most of that baby boom generation don't seem to value or miss the privileged time they grew up in, or grieve the loss of it (I miss it more than they do, even though I only got to taste the last few reflections of it); but instead they actually welcome the present destructive nightmare anarchy changes. They still hold onto those naive hippie ideals of World socialism, even though it has proven again and again not to work, not for society, native culture, nor for Nature or the environment.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 29 Jul 21 | 06:42PM by Knygatin.

Avoosl Wuthoqquan Wrote (in A good weird/horror/sci-fi book to recommend):
-------------------------------------------------------
> Respectfully, there is nothing socialist or
> Marxist about today’s divisive identity-politics
> bullsh*t. It is absolutely not about equality; it
> is about resentment, and I can assure you there is
> nothing orchestrated, calculated, systematic or
> genuinely purpose-driven about it either.
>
>

Rothschild

I don't even know how to begin telling you, how completely buttf*cked we are by the ruling elite, and how big the scale of it is.

(Just a small detail in this, recent uncovered EU documents reveal that mass vaccination, and obligatory vaccination passports for all Europeans (and of course, eventually for all Americans), were planned already in 2018 for implementation in 2022, two years before the (intentionally planted) Covid-19 outbreak. ... Perhaps you need to have read George Orwell's 1984 to begin to understand.)


Evelyn Rothschild

The Money Masters documentary is a major eye-opener.