The Sunshine Hotel.

[www.imdb.com]

About one of the few actual flophouses that remained in NYC in about 2000.

Quite remarkable, but not for everyone.

Knygatin, this *might* be something you'd find rewarding. Not sure; it's no joy fest, that's for sure.

But you'll see nothing else like it, I feel.

--Sawfish

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

Thanks for the tip Sawfish. I have been to Manhattan a couple of times and felt the pulse, but it is not a place that attracts me today. First time I came to the US and Manhattan, as a young teenager, it was exciting. Much too see, great museums, T-Bone steak restaurants, and I remember the scary monster rubber masks sold in a sleazy little street-shop crammed with decadent entertainments (the masks were terrific, I was mesmerized, ogling into the shop-window; but, alas, too expensive for a little kid. So my parents had to drag me away from there. It also happened to be a "bad" neighborhood, and my mother was spit upon.).

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the tip Sawfish. I have been to
> Manhattan a couple of times and felt the pulse,
> but it is not a place that attracts me today.
> First time I came to the US and Manhattan, as a
> young teenager, it was exciting. Much too see,
> great museums, T-Bone steak restaurants, and I
> remember the scary monster rubber masks sold in a
> sleazy little street-shop crammed with decadent
> entertainments (the masks were terrific, I was
> mesmerized, ogling into the shop-window; but,
> alas, too expensive for a little kid. So my
> parents had to drag me away from there. It also
> happened to be a "bad" neighborhood, and my mother
> was spit upon.).

That's beyond toleration of any kind.

The film is not about NYC; in fact, it could be anywhere,

It is about the residents. They are not actors. It's remarkable.

But I won't bug you more about it...

--Sawfish

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

In my early 20s, when sightseeing and travelling as cheaply as possible, I once stayed a few nights at a shabby Y.M.C.A. hostel (or "hotel") in Portland, Maine. That hostel was exactly like the one described in "The Shadow Over Innsmouth", with the long dark corridor on each floor and gloomy single rooms without running water. There were a few guests who lived there permanently (I remember one guy sitting with a blank stare, all his stuff crowded around him, who left his door open onto the corridor), I thought it was kind of depressing and scary. I have often been thinking, that Lovecraft must have been there at some point, and used it for reference in the story.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my early 20s, when sightseeing and travelling
> as cheaply as possible, I once stayed a few nights
> at a shabby Y.M.C.A. hostel (or "hotel") in
> Portland, Maine. That hostel was exactly like the
> one described in "The Shadow Over Innsmouth", with
> the long dark corridor on each floor and gloomy
> single rooms without running water. There were a
> few guests who lived there permanently (I remember
> one guy sitting with a blank stare, all his stuff
> crowded around him, who left his door open onto
> the corridor), I thought it was kind of depressing
> and scary. I have often been thinking, that
> Lovecraft must have been there at some point, and
> used it for reference in the story.


Maybe the Sunshine Hotel wouldn't be such a revelation, then.

The film is simply a camera in the lobby, listening in/watching. If/when something of note happens, the filmmaker interviews whatever residents, or the manager, are there and willing to talk. Most are.

At one point he gets invited to go up into the living area.

The tenants are all kinds--some never really had a chance in life, others seems quite intelligent and observant, so much so that I suspect that this intelligent perception, combined with a sensitive nature is what caused them to become drunken relics.

All have some level of substance abuse, and it's mostly alcohol.

If true, it's similar to what I said about Hunter S. Thompson. I had a recent epiphany while watching a documentary about him is that he developed--or fell into--gonzo (complete with drugs/alcohol) in part to deal with his inability to rationalize the modern world.

I have fairly successfully rationalized the modern world, without resorting to excessive alcohol/drugs, but it's tough going sometimes, I assure you.

Anyway, the nut of Sunshine Hotel is that none of these guys were able to do that. You are observing Darwinian evolution in action: they are unfit, or only marginally fit, for the current environment.

--Sawfish

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

Thanks, Sawfish. You seem to have been quite capable at handling and adapting to the world. A practical man. Men like that usually aren't very interested in, or don't have spare time over for (with all of career, wife, family, kid, house, garden, car, scheduled social activities, etc, etc), philosophizing about those elements who fail to make it. So I find it a slightly surprising contradiction.

I can't say I have successfully rationalized the modern world. I oppose it.

Knygatin Wrote:

> I can't say I have successfully rationalized the
> modern world. I oppose it.

Are you interested in thinkers such as Guenon, Evola, &c.?

I'm aware of them, but actually they seem to me to be kind of a variant modern world troupe, notably in this very modern idea of the "esoteric plane" of the "great religions" as the same though the same on the "exoteric plane." But Mark Sedgwick's Against the Modern World was interesting. And I have sympathy with some of the things some of the Traditionalists have written. But not Schuon and his Sufism + Hinduism + "Native American fringed bikinis" for girls in his home-made ceremonies!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15 Aug 21 | 05:57PM by Dale Nelson.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks, Sawfish. You seem to have been quite
> capable at handling and adapting to the world. A
> practical man. Men like that usually aren't very
> interested in, or don't have spare time over for
> (with all of career, wife, family, kid, house,
> garden, car, scheduled social activities, etc,
> etc), philosophizing about those elements who fail
> to make it. So I find it a slightly surprising
> contradiction.
>
> I can't say I have successfully rationalized the
> modern world. I oppose it.

It just now dawned on me when I realized, deeply, that I would need to find the nooks and crannies in the rotten piece of cheese in which we live: it was after my daughter was born. By what seems now like instinct, I felt that I had to optimize her chances for life, when she became an adult, as she now is. I felt that ideologues and rebels don't do a very good job of this because they tend to raise their progeny, by modeling and perhaps even by explicit advice, to struggle against the machine, as a matter of principal.

Practically speaking, if indeed their kids do this, it is likely their only course, having not mastered the little nuances of how to survive and prosper in the "real world".

They can become embittered idealists.It is the only path realistically open to them, because of the way their parents prepared them,

Contrast this with a kid who was raised to see and take advantage of these nuances. They have two choices: either continue along this path of looking for, and utilizing, the angles (so to speak); or repudiate this and go entirely on principal. Be an idealist.

They are prepared to do either, and have the skills to do either.

Basically, all along I showed her the ropes, all the while saying that you can do this to people who you don't care about, and you can also have a close group of friends/family among whom you can practice the highest principals without being beaten to a pulp, as you most certainly would if you hold to the highest principals in general society.

Two sets of rules, basically; two moral codes--or rather, one code to be used for the in-group, and a largely amoral approach for everyone else.

It's what I evolved to.

I'll see if this works, or not...

--Sawfish

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

---this very modern idea of the "esoteric plane" of the "great religions" as the same, though DIFFERENT on the "exoteric plane.----

Yet again I must apologize for my failure to proofread a message before sending it. If you all were as bad about that as I am, I'd probably stop visiting ED.

Sawfish, it sounds to me like you have acted very wisely with your daughter's upbringing.

I have seen many children of boomers who have been brought up to become spoiled and shouting left-wing idealists getting themselves involved in criminal social activities and ultimately personal misery.

Perhaps there is a little rebel or idealist inside you, that you have managed to firmly curb and harness for necessary reasons. But surely, you are not simply a worldly materialist, with all your interests in literature, film, art, and philosophy.



Dale, I am not familiar with the thinkers you named. By now you should all know my opinions. I don't like modernity, its intentional spreading of confusion and de-constructiveness, a society corrupted and controlled by capitalists. I am more conservative in my values, much like yourself, emanating from Natural laws and principles. Although, being a conservative today is not enough - an outright revolution is required to remove the decadence.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... spoiled and shouting left-wing idealists ...
>
> ... a society corrupted and controlled by capitalists. ...

If those two sound like contradictions, they are really not. They are happily married. Because the top capitalists (not ordinary struggling mortal businessmen), those at the top of the pyramid, the "all-seeing eye", feed off both sides, both left and right. The left and right division of society, is far below their level, they profit from the division. Splitting society and the people increases their own power over the nation. The left-wingers shouting in the streets serve the top capitalists without even knowing it. And those on the right side isolate themselves in bourgeois living, consuming, instead of being loyal and standing up to the wellbeing of the whole of the nation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16 Aug 21 | 03:25AM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ... spoiled and shouting left-wing idealists
> ...
> >
> > ... a society corrupted and controlled by
> capitalists. ...
>
> If those two sound like contradictions, they are
> really not. They are happily married. Because the
> top capitalists (not ordinary struggling mortal
> businessmen), those at the top of the pyramid, the
> "all-seeing eye", feed off both sides, both left
> and right. The left and right division of society,
> is far below their level, they profit from the
> division.

Something we agree on, K.

The actual division in the US is not left/right, it's top/bottom.

The left/right factions are sorta like the chariot racing factions in Constantinople. They profess to hate each other, but have much in common, *EXCEPT* which team they have sworn their undying loyalty to.

Fast forward to now... It's only a bit more complex. Now the factions back a sorta of economic religion of one form or other (free-market vs collectivism) and various declarations of moral preferences. Social justice vs personal responsibility.

Under it all they have little agency. They cast ballots every so often to give them illusion of power. The people they are voting for, for the most part, take their newly won political power and peddle to moneyed interests who will back them financially in return for favored treatment.

This is why large corporations tend to back both sides financially in a toss-up election, where there is no incumbent. They are demonstrating that they are prepared to back whoever wins with cash in the future.

The actual work of the elected officials is to make it easier for corporations to make and retain money. Every now and then, around election time, they posture a bit about helping the common man (or now, some historically oppressed faction), but this is mainly to attract votes, and nothing much will happen except promises and excuse-making.

And really: who *needs* their help? If I'm just left alone, I have every confidence that I'll do OK, at least. Just provide infrastructure, national defense, civil police/fire, and not a lot else more.

> Splitting society and the people
> increases their own power over the nation. The
> left-wingers shouting in the streets serve the top
> capitalists without even knowing it. And those on
> the right side isolate themselves in bourgeois
> living, consuming, instead of being loyal and
> standing up to the wellbeing of the whole of the
> nation.

We are in fairly close agreement except that I don't see the moneyed faction as a near-hereditary, highly exclusive private social club. I see it as a turbulent mix of those solidly in power, those seeking to enter, and those scrabbling to stay in.

--Sawfish

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

Yep S., I wholeheartedly agree with all of that!

What I see coming next (and this has already been openly proposed in terms of "The Great Reset" and various "equal rights" outbursts), is a change in direction toward more socialism, in which the mentioned top capitalists will seek to get at the considerable private fortunes accumulated that the open market society has made possible over recent decades.