For a long time I've considered that since the advent of post-modernism Man has done away with religion, but for many of these same enlightened one, they did so prematurely. They still *need* something like religion around which to organize their lives.

This is why we have seemingly irrational socio-political movements, like woke-ism, Qanon, crypto conspiracies, etc. They are grasping, still...

This is why I really like reading Henry Miller, Celine, Houellebecq. They see that post-modernism is empty and that in destroying god figuratively, there is nowhere left to go, if you feel the need for shelter.

I believe that Hunter S. Thompson capitalized on the popularization of the possibility that a moral and perceptive human existing in modern western society, must drug themselves constantly to have a hope of remaining sane.

I'm serious; I believe all of these writers to be of a piece, philosophically, and you can probably throw Bukowski in there, too.

--Sawfish

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

From the point of view of the porous self and a tradition amenable to it, the "emancipation" that the buffered self and its culture has experienced invites ongoing experiments in finding substitutes for the forsaken reality.

It's interesting, how pervasive drugs are in American society since the 1950s. America and its allies fought a huge war, went home, and had a Reformation, a reformation of culture that would be based on managerialism and pharmaceuticals. The conservative reformation stuck with prescription drugs while the radical reformers explored harder to get drugs. At street level, the San Francisco Federal Building casts its shadow over the dealers and users. (I understand the people who work there have been told to work from home rather than having to keep negotiating street level.)

(For buffered selves such as Lovecraft, the solution is to maintain the sense of reality as a state of things amenable to the buffered self (his philosophy), but to cultivate an elaborate fantasy world known to be such but enjoyed in the imagination. I'm not aware of it if Lovecraft was very seriously interested in the possibility that aliens had visited this planet, for example, even though that is the basis of almost all of his imaginative work, certainly most of his most impressive work. This might be something to discuss on the appropriate thread.)

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From the point of view of the porous self and a
> tradition amenable to it, the "emancipation" that
> the buffered self and its culture has experienced
> invites ongoing experiments in finding substitutes
> for the forsaken reality.
>
> It's interesting, how pervasive drugs are in
> American society since the 1950s. America and its
> allies fought a huge war, went home, and had a
> Reformation, a reformation of culture that would
> be based on managerialism and pharmaceuticals.
> The conservative reformation stuck with
> prescription drugs while the radical reformers
> explored harder to get drugs. At street level,
> the San Francisco Federal Building casts its
> shadow over the dealers and users. (I understand
> the people who work there have been told to work
> from home rather than having to keep negotiating
> street level.)
>
> (For buffered selves such as Lovecraft, the
> solution is to maintain the sense of reality as a
> state of things amenable to the buffered self (his
> philosophy), but to cultivate an elaborate fantasy
> world known to be such but enjoyed in the
> imagination. I'm not aware of it if Lovecraft was
> very seriously interested in the possibility that
> aliens had visited this planet, for example, even
> though that is the basis of almost all of his
> imaginative work, certainly most of his most
> impressive work. This might be something to
> discuss on the appropriate thread.)

Actually, I could see all those authors I mentioned earlier--Miller, Celine, Bukowski, Thompson--as porous individuals trying to create a buffer from sensuality.

What do you think?

HPL I can see as buffered with the same self-assured certainty that we encounter in some many late 19th/early 20th C fiction, where a supremely buffered character--buffered by classical reason and rationality--loudly exclaim..."That *can't* be!" and quickly run away from the actual implications of an unidentifiable problem.

--Sawfish

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

Doesn't "sensuality" emerge from within the sensual person? To be sure, attractions in the outer world might evoke the innate sensuality. I don't think Taylor was getting at something like that in his porous self vs. buffered self idea.

In a porous culture such as that of the Middle Ages, sensuality was understood as a self-centered (incurvatus) self's activity, which obstructed porosity vis-a-vis the Lord. True, sensual thoughts could be stimulated by spirits inimical to human beings. A 17th-century writer, Isaac Ambrose, as interesting thoughts (I think) about good angels and devils "working with what they find" in the memory of a human being. The good angel might encourage someone to reflect on certain experiences and the devil might work with memories to construct harmful suggestions. Devils, however, could not introduce wholly new images to the human being's attention. If I'm recalling correctly.

Dale, here is a quote from Celine:

"Not much music left inside us for life to dance to. Our youth has gone to the ends of the earth to die in the silence of the truth. And where, I ask you, can a man escape to, when he hasn't enough madness left inside him? The truth is an endless death agony. The truth is death. You have to choose: death or lies. I've never been able to kill myself.”

How might this statement fit the porous v buffered self dichotomy?

--Sawfish

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

Well, I'd say that Celine's remark fits without question into the buffered outlook. Celine writes as one who is sure that he knows what the data are, and nothing from a transcendent or mysterious realm is or might turn out to be a factor in his calculations. It's clear to him that the choice is death or fantasy to occupy his mind. That's like Lovecraft. He "knew" that the real world is "dead." He occupied much of his time with fantasy, endlessly elaborated by himself and friends, and by memories and impressions related to antiquarianism, which were related to his playful fantasy of himself as a dignified old British gentleman, a contemporary of Samuel Johnson -- and so on.

A despondent inhabitant of a porous culture might regard his feelings as influenced by some inimical spirit outside himself, or by astral influences that appear in this realm beneath the sphere of the moon as unpleasant contagions, or the like. A porous self might relate his despondent feelings to anything from a superstitious notion that some old hag has put her evil eye on him, to some quite sophisticated theological or metaphysical assessment, e.g. he might figure that his despondency is acedia, a temptation to be resisted by means provided by Holy Church, or he might take it as an indication that, though in the body he lives here in space and time, his real nature is one with the timeless and placeless, and he is actually yearning for union with the transcendent One (I suppose a Neoplatonist might take that line); or he might reason that he is feeling low because he is the reincarnation of an ancestor who did bad things, and as long as he is on the Wheel of incarnation (or seems to be!) he must suffer, etc.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you misunderstand me, Kipling. I didn't
> say "no animal has the capacity for both memory
> and the ability to evaluate their previous
> experiences, or to anticipate future results based
> upon past experiences." I would grant most, at
> least, of this.
>
> I said I know of no evidence (which leaves open
> the possibility of that evidence being provided by
> you or someone else, if it exists) that animals
> can "evaluate , including the accuracy of own
> memories." Even very small children can say, "I
> forgot." No animal, so far as anyone knows, is
> ever aware that it has forgotten anything.
>
> I know of no evidence that animals take
> responsibility for their actions -- much less take
> responsibility their thoughts. Even small
> children can, and do, do that: "I will not be
> afraid at the doctor's today." I know of no
> evidence that animals can conceptualize possible,
> different outcomes. Perhaps I will be able to
> find the note I wrote within the past few years
> about overhearing a small child reproach another
> about what could have happened because of what he
> had done -- I'm sorry that I can't be specific.
> Does any animal possess any understanding of
> contingency comparable to this?
>
> I doubt that any animal perceives "itself" as
> possessing agency. I doubt that any animal
> cautions "itself" about taking action till it has
> more information.
>
> I can't be more specific either; however, I will sound out my younger daughter on the subject. She studied wildlife biology in Maine. What about elephants, Dale? There was a rock band called Elephant's Memory, but I was thinking of George Orwell's mad elephant (his experience detailed in "Shooting An Elephant"). The beast, if you'll recall, had become homicidal , making it Orwell's responsibility to show strength by shooting it. I would ask if there was any sense of deliberative "agency" invoved in its behavior. Suicidal thoughts? Then there is Bram Stoker's story, "The Squaw", which you must have read. Not a favorite of yours I would imagine, but I had a black cat like that once!

jkh

Kipling, I'm not sure what you have in mind exactly in asking "what about elephants?"

I'd just ask that anyone interested in the discussion we were having about animals and people, would review the things I actually wrote (and I don't mean to insinuate that you didn't).

I think that my "agenda" is more that I want people to see that we are very different from animals, with the corollary that, to understand ourselves, we need a lot more than the endeavor (usually described as "science") whose agenda is to minimize or explain away those differences. We can benefit from the arts and literature -- except that a very great deal of contemporary art and writing participates in an unwholesome agenda. Incidentally, I have for years wanted to track down something I saw in the 1980s in (I thought) a British magazine that the English Department at the University of Illinois subscribed to. It was an interview with or an article about the "screaming popes" artist Francis Bacon. He said, as I remember it, that he had a sort of mystical experience, a moment of extraordinary perception about existence, once when he noticed a pile of dog feces on a sidewalk. I don't suppose anyone can help me with this...

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kipling, I'm not sure what you have in mind
> exactly in asking "what about elephants?"
>
> I'd just ask that anyone interested in the
> discussion we were having about animals and
> people, would review the things I actually wrote
> (and I don't mean to insinuate that you didn't).
>
>
> I did, and you made the following statements: "I doubt that any animal perceives 'itself' as possessing agency. I doubt that any animal cautions 'itself' about taking action till it has more information." What I was suggesting you to consider about the elephant is that animal's well-researched cognitive abilities. Either you don't know or weren't interested, but elephants are one of the few animals known to have self-awareness; specifically, Sawfish's speculation about dogs seeing their reflection in a mirror has been tested. A dog may bark at his reflection, but the elephant can recognize himself. It is considered the fourth most intelligent animal behind the Orangutan, the Bottlenose Dolphin, and the Chimpanzee. The elephant brain has three times as many neurons as the human brain. Elephants have the ability to identify languages, use tools, shoe empathy and grieve for their dead, mimic human voices, and recognize close companions after long periods of separation (20 years in one case). It is even claimed that a young male elephant showed "deductive reasoning skills equivalent to those of a 4-year-old" human. Elephants remember long routes to watering sites used in former years after they are forced away from sites they have been using, and "possessing agency", have switched to these alternative sites because they have contingency awareness, perceiving an imminent or ongoing threat to their survival in their present location. So, your use of devious phrases such as, "so far as anyone knows" (obviously you don't know what experts know) very clearly shows your confirmation bias, as Sawfish also recognized.

Here is the link for my source: baanchang2022@gmail.com

jkh

Kipling, let's just have the discussion focus on the original topic, OK? You seem to be pressing for an admission from me of being mistaken, of looking for confirmation of my biases, etc., i.e. to put me on the defensive. Why would that specifically be important for this discussion? If it isn't, let's just focus on the subject and leave out the personalities. I'm not interested in pushing you about yours.

Sure, the exploration of the porous self vs. buffered self idea has bearing on the lives of each of us. Myself, I understand existence to be such that "porosity" allows for, so to say, greater human flourishing than the culture of the buffered self. Others, such as a good friend of mine (now 86), are persuaded that the prevalent buffered culture is superior over against the now-minority porous counter-cultures (there are more than one). In a face to face conversation we could talk these things over. Irritation rather than enhanced conversation and "iron sharpening iron" seem likely to develop in the relatively impersonal context of a discussion board.

Lately, we were discussing specifically the traditional hierarchy of being as kind of a side trail from the main porous-buffered matter. Would you throw out that hierarchy or modify it -- ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16 Aug 23 | 12:22PM by Dale Nelson.

Kipling, the link you sent appears to be someone's email address.

"The elephant brain has three times as many neurons as the human brain."

This

[www.theguardian.com]

probably has implications regarding the importance of the quantity of neurons.

However, I'm not too interested in typed conversation with someone who describes me as using "devious" expressions. If someone is in error, it might be possible that he's honestly in error. But "devious" means "dishonest." You are out of line.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kipling, let's just have the discussion focus on
> the original topic, OK? You seem to be pressing
> for an admission from me of being mistaken, of
> looking for confirmation of my biases, etc., i.e.
> to put me on the defensive. Why would that
> specifically be important for this discussion? If
> it isn't, let's just focus on the subject and
> leave out the personalities. I'm not interested
> in pushing you about yours.
>
> Sure, the exploration of the porous self vs.
> buffered self idea has bearing on the lives of
> each of us. Myself, I understand existence to be
> such that "porosity" allows for, so to say,
> greater human flourishing than the culture of the
> buffered self. Others, such as a good friend of
> mine (now 86), are persuaded that the prevalent
> buffered culture is superior over against the
> now-minority porous counter-cultures (there are
> more than one). In a face to face conversation we
> could talk these things over. Irritation rather
> than enhanced conversation and "iron sharpening
> iron" seem likely to develop in the relatively
> impersonal context of a discussion board.
>
> Lately, we were discussing specifically the
> traditional hierarchy of being as kind of a side
> trail from the main porous-buffered matter. Would
> you throw out that hierarchy or modify it -- ?

For me, perhaps a part of the problem is that it's hard to imagine a truly buffered self as being pervious to the problems faced daily. I'd suggest that the porous self is in frequent anxiety, and that this is balanced off by experiencing the sublime. I see the buffered self as the opposite: it's largely impervious to daily problems largely because it thinks it has an adequate and more importantly a *definitive* answer to these problems. But they tend to lack access to the transcendent.

I'll state right now that I think it would be very hard to find relatively pure examples of the porous and buffered selves, and I'd say that maybe it's easier to find pure porous than pure buffered, and in the case of buffered selves, this is because they almost invariably keep a sort of "hedge". THey are often self-described agnostics, and they will follow certain forms "just for good measure".

And yet they would purport to be fully engaged modern and enlightened 21st C individuals. They'd readily deny God, and anything they see as superstition. If you explained buffered vs porous (and pivotally, they accepted the existence of this model) they'd probably self-identify as buffered--with a bit of smug pride too, I'd say.

How do you see this, Dale?

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish, probably the majority of modern Western people -- who have buffered selves -- would not use "buffered" to describe themselves because their beliefs preclude the existence of things from which they are buffered. They would say they are quite open to experience, open to and value new discoveries, etc. But the assumptions prevalent in their culture, which they accept as true, would rule out the agencies and meanings that porous cultures allow.

Thus, if someone has an epiphanic experience (through falling in love, or through a religious experience, or through a drug, etc.), the mainstream takes it that these are (they must be) explicable in terms of what we already understand, about body chemistry, emotional and imaginative suggestibility, and so on. An overly simplistic way of putting the difference between the porous outlook and the buffered outlook is that the porous allows for miracle, while for the buffered, this category is not allowed, and is one that has done a tremendous amount of mischief in keeping people ignorant, and even under the thumbs of oppressors (priests and so on).

Among our authors here at ED, Machen and Blackwood would allow for miracle ("miracle" if you prefer), and, so, with all their really important differences of belief, would have porous selves and identify with minority groups (not ethnic minorities, but cultural minorities), while, I take it, Lovecraft would definitely be (in Taylor's terms) a buffered self with a strong desire to influence other people to join him in this, hence his long letters. But Lovecraft would not accept Taylor's terminology. He would probably say there are people who agree with him, and then there are people who do not; those people are unscientific and either regrettably ignorant or deplorably dishonest with themselves.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish, probably the majority of modern Western
> people -- who have buffered selves -- would not
> use "buffered" to describe themselves because
> their beliefs preclude the existence of things
> from which they are buffered. They would say they
> are quite open to experience, open to and value
> new discoveries, etc. But the assumptions
> prevalent in their culture, which they accept as
> true, would rule out the agencies and meanings
> that porous cultures allow.

I suggest that this is why we're having troubles: we persist in using Taylor's terminology to describe types of "self" while those same "selves" do not recognize either term as used.

So let's not quibble about whether they'd call themselves buffered or enlightened, or...

Same for the porous selves. We--you and I and other participants--know what's meant by the terms, or rather in what circumstance to use them--so when I say that someone would self-label as buffered, this means they'd use whatever term they affix for the traits we're discussing as "buffered".

This could be "enlightened", "hip", "well-informed", "woke", etc. and these are as I understand the terms "buffered".

Also, we talk about porous/buffered selves and porous/buffered cultures. This is not good because without further definition it seems to disallow a porous self existing in a buffered culture. So we need further clarification on that point--can a culture be hybrid (roughly 50-50); can it be majority porous/buffered?

>
> Thus, if someone has an epiphanic experience
> (through falling in love, or through a religious
> experience, or through a drug, etc.), the
> mainstream takes it that these are (they must be)
> explicable in terms of what we already understand,
> about body chemistry, emotional and imaginative
> suggestibility, and so on.

I maintain that selves who'd self-label as "enlightened", or "worldly" (therefore buffered, as I understand it) might make an exception for legitimate deeply felt emotions. I think you're far too ready to see unadultered examples of either "self"--as you describe them they're little more than caricatures--and I'm beginning to wonder if Taylor's model is not too hopelessly and artificially constrained to actually make any sense in the real world--and by this I mean to either a porous or a buffered culture.

It is like he found a few identifiable traits/tendencies and is trying to come up with a Grand Unified Theory of sociology. I'm afraid that it's not going to be that simple.

> An overly simplistic
> way of putting the difference between the porous
> outlook and the buffered outlook is that the
> porous allows for miracle,

I am probably buffered, in Taylor's terminology, but here's a real, current story.

We have three cats. In Feb of 2021 one was diagnosed with feline lymphoma and we were advised to make preparations for as gentle a euthanasia as available and that this would be needed within weeks, and maybe 2 months at the most. As of this date he's still alive with no apparent ill effect; he was seen last spring by a different vet who confirmed the diagnosis and prognosis, recognized that the earlier prognosis had not come to pass, and had no explanation for it.

So is this a miracle? If it's not a miracle, note well that neither we, nor the vet, has made any attempt at explaining his good fortune in terms of materialistic science. So we just filed it away under "we just don't know".

According to my understanding there is no room in the buffered model for this kind of nonsense. So, are we (me, my wife, my daughter, and two vets) porous of buffered selves?

> while for the buffered,
> this category is not allowed, and is one that has
> done a tremendous amount of mischief in keeping
> people ignorant, and even under the thumbs of
> oppressors (priests and so on).

All right, when a buffered self sees behaviors/traits/social phenomena that make no sense to him, AND he sees no answers in science or rationality, how does he attempt to resolve this?


>
> Among our authors here at ED, Machen and Blackwood
> would allow for miracle ("miracle" if you prefer),
> and, so, with all their really important
> differences of belief, would have porous selves
> and identify with minority groups (not ethnic
> minorities, but cultural minorities), while, I
> take it, Lovecraft would definitely be (in
> Taylor's terms) a buffered self with a strong
> desire to influence other people to join him in
> this, hence his long letters. But Lovecraft would
> not accept Taylor's terminology.

I a beginning to see Taylor's terminology, and his assumptions, to be very, very inflexible.

> He would
> probably say there are people who agree with him,
> and then there are people who do not; those people
> are unscientific and either regrettably ignorant
> or deplorably dishonest with themselves.

If you want to suppose that the buffered self is like an educated person in a gothic novel, who, on seeing the pin-pricks in the neck, after hearing about vampires from an ethnologist, shakes his head and says "No, it couldn't be that, old man," sure. But in my life I've met very few people like that and have mostly encountered this type in contrived fiction.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish wrote, "I'd suggest that the porous self is in frequent anxiety, and that this is balanced off by experiencing the sublime. I see the buffered self as the opposite: it's largely impervious to daily problems largely because it thinks it has an adequate and more importantly a *definitive* answer to these problems. But they tend to lack access to the transcendent."

I mean to comment on the issue of anxiety. Yes, I am sure you're right about some porous societies, at least, being very anxious. Phenomena we would treat as due to microbes, they might experience as effected by dissatisfied ancestors, hostile spirits, etc. Indigenous people whom enlightened folk such as ourselves would not want to be disturbed by Western missionaries, may actually find profound relief when they adopt the new faith and no longer worry about the dead, etc.

From what I know, there was quite a bit of variation -- as far as we can tell -- between various porous-self societies as regards anxiety. I have the impression that the ancient Egyptians may have been relatively cheery folk.

A curious thing is that modern society, favoring the buffered self, is so troubled by anxiety. The more this society becomes itself (under the managerial regime discussed by N. S. Lyons), the more, it seems, anxiety is a problem, so that you have a great many young people, especially girls, who experience racking anxiety that their grandmothers would not have undergone. You have the phenomenon of well-fed, decently-treated, physically healthy young people finding nothing better to do with their lives than kill themselves. It's bizarre.

The buffered culture of the modern West may be dying out, and "porosity" returning. The "New Age movement" that you will be well acquainted with in the Pacific Northwest is an indication of this. "Satanist" motifs sell apparel and music. And so on. Children of buffered parents are seeking some kind of porosity.

Let me return to your later comments later.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16 Aug 23 | 03:56PM by Dale Nelson.