All this is very insightful Hespire.

My thoughts/comments, interleaved:


Hespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree wholeheartedly, Dale. A sincere expression
> of human emotions has given way to an overreliance
> on "clever" subversion. And the art of subtle
> irony has been forgotten for snark and sarcasm.
>
> I don't watch movies or television like I used to,
> but sometimes I see glimpses of what's popular
> because of my nieces and nephews, and it seems
> that even children's entertainment is defined by
> cynicism and sarcasm. If something scary happens,
> a character has to quip about it. If something
> wondrous happens, a character has to quip about
> it. If something cliched happens, a character has
> to point out how it's cliched.

Yes. The nadir of this is the "wacky side-kick" character that seems like an obligatory part of every Disney animated feature.

>
> I'm not sure how much this affects children, but I
> notice that more kids and young folk today like to
> be snarky, especially toward subjects they might
> not fully understand. For instance, one of my
> nephews made a rather smug remark about how Heaven
> is only an illusion. I'm not a religious person,
> but I thought it would be useful for him to have a
> deeper discussion about Heaven, exploring its
> meaning, purpose, and the beautiful and
> not-so-beautiful expressions of its grandeur
> throughout human history. He stumbled a lot and
> stared at me blankly while going "Uuuuuuuhhhhh",
> and it turned out he didn't come to his conclusion
> because of deep consideration, but because he was
> following what others were snarking about at
> school or social media. From what I've seen,
> snarking doesn't demand any thought, because it
> exists to dismiss rather than analyze.

Great distinction!

It permits the snarker to gain a bit of distinction *without* putting in any positive effort. Just mouthe the right phrases, with the right intonation and facial expression.

> It's more
> like a defense from having to engage with others
> and the possibility of a challenging
> conversation.

Yes, I think this is true. I used to post to a lot of current events forums and I got into the most trouble for insisting on clarification of certain points. I now see that they were being dismissed using snark--the reader was supposed to recognize that because they were being handled in a snarky fashion, they were, by definition, beneath worthy discussion.

But I failed to recognize this and insisted on expansion/explanation, which was never expected by the snarker.

>
> It seems there's an almost neurotic fear of
> vulnerability. A fear of sincerity and honesty
> with deeper thoughts, a fear of being open to
> conversations in which one's ignorance may be
> apparent, and a fear of expressing oneself
> passionately among other people (even in spaces
> where like-minded fellows exist). And it all seems
> to boil down to a fear of rejection that will be
> immortalized on the internet. But I think this
> could result in a culture where people are too
> afraid to engage with each other in any way that
> isn't numb, boring, stupid, or extreme.
>
> Perhaps horror might be one of the few areas where
> snark and pseudo-intelligent sarcasm doesn't
> thrive, because the whole point of horror is to be
> scared out of your wits, to let go of rationality
> for the sake of primal overreactions.
>
> I suppose certain forms of fantasy fiction have a
> degree of awe and wonder as well, but as I pointed
> out earlier, this feeling is secondary to some
> kind of sociological theme, moral lesson, or
> subversive "humor". The Kalevala cherishes the
> forest in itself, but in recent media the forest
> is only as impressionable as the theme will allow.

--Sawfish

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

Like you Sawfish, I also have had some experience with those kind of forums. I have not clearly analyzed it, trying emotionally to figure out what is going on when it seems like I am being rejected. If you don't really fit into a particular social culture, it is difficult make it work.

My experience is that if you are in a gathering of people with "social consciousness", their foremost priority is their group's concord and social unity. It is much more important than the individual intellectual focus. If you say the wrong thing in such a gathering, something that is not in line with "social consciousness", something that is not considered to be of contemporary consensus, something that is politically incorrect, ... then you will never be forgiven by the group, because of their focus on conformity. The mistake cannot be repaired. Another tool such forums use is the "like button" and the gathering of "likes", which is an important focus . It is used to further strengthen the group's unity, by sticking together and supporting each other with "likes"; at the same time it is a tool for mob rule, by freezing out the unwanted. They lack priority on "poetic consciousness" and individual intellectual excellency. They are guided foremost by herd mentality. A sort of socialism attitude. It reminds me of Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron".

So, yeah, this discussion subject Dale started about the differences between social and poetic consciousness, has been quite interesting and enlightening for me. Because it is not something I otherwise have reflected much over.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 30 Aug 21 | 05:15PM by Knygatin.

Boris Karloff completely owns this scene from The Mummy. Soon the scientist sitting by the table starts laughing insanely.

Now, if I had a little more imagination, I probably would have reacted to this scene as absolutely terrifying.

Are people who practice sociological consciousness ever delighted and enlightened by experiences of nature, of wholesome life together, and books and poems from outside the social concerns that occupy them? I suppose it must happen -- but their inward habits must make that experience rare. So much human flourishing, though, can come from those sources.

I think someday some of these folks may gradually emerge from the sociological dream-world and regret so many wasted years that they can't live over and better. Some such people might be angry at the teachers who didn't give them something better.




I wondered if anyone here has had a teacher -- an "official" teacher or an "unofficial" one -- who seemed to have deep roots in "poetic consciousness." I had two such, which is extraordinary "fortune" indeed.

Such "teachers" could include not just people in classrooms but, for example, a bookseller who seemed to get the books you needed maybe without having to be asked... maybe books you didn't know existed....

I should say, though, that if someone wants to respond to what I just wrote, perhaps the thread on poetic consciousness vs. sociological consciousness thread would be a good place for it, making it easier for someone to find later on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 30 Aug 21 | 05:48PM by Dale Nelson.

That person would be *you*, Dale.

No kiddin', and THANKS!

--Sawfish

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

Knygatin Wrote:

> ...this discussion subject ...
> about the differences between social and poetic
> consciousness

I've been reading a book that's very much an introduction to Plato. I was thinking about that Greek "know thyself" -- Γνώθι Σεαυτόν gnothi seauton. (I had to look that up.) "Sociological consciousness" focuses, to use Plato's terms, on the visible, tangible world of "becoming," of constant change, about which we can have only opinions. Specifically, it focuses on the human dimension that way. That can have some limited usefulness. But here's the thing" sociological consciousness assumes that the transitory and sensory is all there is. What, then, should the "agenda" be? "Progress"! "Progress," always and endlessly, and not towards a specified goal, but just always "progress" towards "social justice," etc. But it seems they never say just what "social justice" would look like. And, of course, if they did, one of two problems would arise. Either they would specify an achievable goal, after which the dedication to "progress" would not be needed; or they would be forthright about their Utopia -- which would almost certainly be a Marxist one that most people do not believe in and do not want and in the name of which the most gross barbarities have been committed. But in any event their notion of the human is too narrow.

Poetic consciousness is often more receptive to the multi-dimensional and to the transcendent. Not all people who think, feel, and imagine from within "poetic consciousness" possess religious belief or a spiritual sensibility, but they are more ready than people under the sway of sociological consciousness to allow the possibility of aspects of the human that elude quantification, social reform, etc.

You can (skip the ads!) watch this clip with a leading exponent of sociological consciousness. Ibram Kendi sees the job of religion as social justice reform -- i.e. the agenda set out in his books. He contrasts his idea of what religion should be with a caricature of traditional religion that omits (for example) the worship of God and that misses the point about mission.

[www.youtube.com]

In contrast to this notion, think of Bach. Most of his music was written for church services.

Plato is a rigorous thinker and he stays within poetic consciousness. His mind is wider than Kendi's appears to be. Plato would allow the limited validity of "sociology," I suppose, but his thought encompasses far more. Anyone here ever read him? There's a mistaken idea that Plato might be hard to read. Well, maybe you shouldn't start with Cratylus, which was a bit much for yours truly (it's about rhetoric). But he can be a really good read. That again is a topic for a different thread!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31 Aug 21 | 09:16AM by Dale Nelson.

Here's something that came to mind this morning that might actually fit this thread.

I don't think T. S. Eliot's 1930 essay "Baudelaire" is available online. Anyway, I only want to take some words out of context and ask if they are relevant to this thread.

Eliot wrote that Baudelaire was "concerned...with the real problem of good and evil." Baudelaire lived in a time and a country (France) characterized by "bustle, programmes, platforms, scientific progress, humanitarianism and revolutions which improved nothing." But he "perceived that what really matters is Sin and Redemption. ...the recognition of the reality of Sin is a New Life; and the possibility of damnation is so immense a relief in a world of electoral reform, plebiscites, sex reform and dress reform, that damnation itself is an immediate form of salvation -- of salvation from the ennui of modern life, because it at last gives some significance to living."

That's an expression of sociological consciousness vs. poetic consciousness.

But is what Eliot wrote a clue to the meaning -- occasionally -- of the horror genre? Are people reading the books and watching the movies because they are bored by modern society, represented in my previous message by Ibram Kendi, but, note, also by Donald Trump? Do the movies give a sort of bogus sense of value to, interest in, living, because their gruesome threats are so ghastly?

(I don't watch these movies as a rule, though I liked A Quiet Place and look forward to seeing the sequel.)

I'm not advocating horror books and movies, but I wonder if there is, sometimes, something going on in this milieu that makes a kind of sense. It certainly has staying power, doesn't it? Modern horror must be 50 years old or more. That doesn't make it good, worthy, noble. But maybe it's significant as a symptom. Probably a symptom of more than one thing.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31 Aug 21 | 09:49AM by Dale Nelson.

Quote:

DN
Plato is a rigorous thinker and he stays within poetic consciousness. His mind is wider than Kendi's appears to be.

If I may interject here my considered opinion, the difference between Plato and Kendi can be easily understood in this way...

Plato starts with an observation of phenomena and examines them to come up with what he considers to be a sound and logical explanation which he then classifies as "truth".

Kendi starts from already knowing the "truth", and seeks phenomena to support it.

In Plato's case, he does not know the truth before examination--the truth is what's left after all other explanations fall away. Kendi presumes to know the truth at the outset, and selectively culls information for only those bits that seem to support his original version of the truth.

--Sawfish

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

I haven't read any of Kendi's books. I hope they are better than the video clip & so on would lead one to expect them to be.

Plato sought the good, the true, the beautiful: reality. Socrates, in Plato's dialogues, used cross-examination (the elenchus) to clear away the inadequate notions of his interlocutors. They would come to a point of aporia, of being nonplused, and ready to learn better. Sometimes Socrates humbly confessed he was still seeking a satisfactory understanding of things, but at least he'd reduced untruth. He was unyielding in the beliefs that this kind of examined life, raising us from constant focusing on "becoming," was the only worthy one for a man, and that a man should conform himself to, or align himself with, the truth as much as he could. Plato offered "myths" -- possible stories -- to help us further along the way to the vision of reality (Being).

I don't want to be unfair to Kendi, but I wonder if he doesn't hold to a notion that there are no objective truth and beauty to be sought by means of an ascent of the mind; "truth" and "beauty" he might hold to be "social constructions" such as we've talked about here elsewhere. He might not recognize Being, just "becoming."

Without a real understanding of the true and the beautiful, or at least a yearning for the vision thereof, one might be -- perhaps Kendi is -- just left with a strong desire to impose one's notion of the good, by the reform of society. But such social reforms would lack both metaphysical integrity and a clear sight of human nature. Kendi might believe that, if "society" is reformed as he wants it to be, people will either fall in line or that they will be marginalized and kind of cease to exist. Oddly, here Kendi might actually be fairly close to Plato. I think Plato had some sense of human fallenness, but much of the time he seems to think that people do evil from ignorance -- remove ignorance and they won't do evil; likewise, Kendi may think that, if "society" is reformed the way he wants it to be (which might be an open-ended, continuous "progress" thing -- I don't know), people, even white, sexually normal people would be reformed too, e.g. as the children are educated in woke schools, as laws enforce woke principles, as entertainment communicates woke norms, etc. I don't know how democratic Kendi is prepared to be if the demos doesn't go along with diversity, equity, inclusion as the wokesters define them,

Plato's thought has religious overtones or foreshadowings, and "Woke" is a religion. But I don't see Kendi -- from the little I know of him -- as a sage, a philosopher. He might say that he never said he was one. But if (as I suspect) he holds to the idea of social constructivism that is so prevalent in schools of education now, he is in fact an adherent of a philosophy.

I wanted to respond to your comment, Sawfish, but if we're going to discuss this further, what say you: shall we take it elsewhere, away from a thread about horror movies?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31 Aug 21 | 04:20PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale, you can read Kendi any time you want on The Atlantic website.

It doesn't take long to see what he's all about, how he thinks and reasons. First, he tells you to ignore your own perceptions and evaluations as incorrect, and substitute his in their place.

To him, everything is about numbers; inequity is demonstrated by variations in percentages. The simple fact that percentage of home ownership differs by racial group is proof of racism.

--Sawfish

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

Sounds like "sociological consciousness," all right.

Those of you who watch horror movies -- how do you feel after the movie is over? Exhilarated, like you might feel after a roller-coaster ride? Or -- ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31 Aug 21 | 05:27PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds like "sociological consciousness," all
> right.
>
> Those of you who watch horror movies -- how do you
> feel after the movie is over? Exhilarated, like
> you might feel after a roller-coaster ride? Or --
> ?


Naturally, it depends on the nature of the film.

But yes, some make me feel exhilarated.

--Sawfish

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

For example...?

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For example...?


Carnival of Souls. Not exhilaration, but more subtle, more profound.

Eerie, yes; scary, no.

If you haven't seen this, it is a very impressive low budget film (B&W) from the 60s.
I can recall about 25 years ago the film reviewer for NPR "rediscovered" it and it had a sort of second life. Contemporary to the original Night of the Living Dead, and with a comparable budget, but so much more to take away for later.

Me, I saw it one Saturday night on Creature Features in the Bay Area, probably around 1966. I remember those old quasi camp shows where a color host presented a scary movie at aboyt 11:30 PM on local braodcast TV. I really liked those shows.

[en.wikipedia.org]

In my opinion, it's worth watching. It has poetic consciousness at its core, I believe.

--Sawfish

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

I've seen Carnival of Souls twice and think well of it too. Yes indeed, poetic consciousness.

I remember a Creature Features -- I think that was the title -- from San Francisco, with host Bob Wilkins. I've looked on YouTube but not found the intro with the music that I remember, which was a deliciously incongruous high school marching band type of recording. Wilkins was fun to watch with his advice that the programming on a competitor channel would be better. I don't remember watching the movies themselves -- e.g. Agent for H.A.R.M.. I must've watched a few, though.