On this blessed feast day we remember Walter the Orange, who was martyred by foids for telling them that their stated and revealed preferences are nowhere near alike. Some agentic lads preserved his bones and legend has it that the man who rubs them will become irresistible to every pretty Jewess he encounters.
Amazing that #2 has so much credence across the ideological spectrum. What a depressingly deterministic way to look at life (and easily disproved). There's truth in it, of course, but as with all such maximalist pronouncements, examples to the contrary are numerous. Perhaps my main objection is to "No one" - I don't think I would have had such a negative reaction if a less totalizing word were used. Anyway, hard to summon the interest in reading the rest after seeing that particular point so far at the top. But I shall soldier on!
I'm a 68 year old woman with a bachelor's degree from a decent Midwest university lo those many years ago. I just read this whole post because it's pouring rain and I didn't have anything else to do. It took a long time for me to read it and would have taken even longer if I'd stopped to look up all the whatever's I didn't have a meaning for like "w/e", "LARP", "foid", and "entirely and intractably distinct and mutually opaque phenomenological worlds". This last was especially confounding as I can read the words but can't figure out what the hell you're trying to say. Do you mean that men & women see things differently and that neither really understands how the other sees things? If that's what you mean...well, duh. Everybody already knows that.
Is this post SUPPOSED to make sense to me? Are my 30-something friends going around thinking about this in the back of their minds all the time? Do my grandsons need to understand it? Because tbh (ha!) about the only thing I recognized from my world was Martin Luther nailing his theses to the church door.
I guess I'll keep trying because some of the things Anuradha says make SOME sense to me, anyway, like expecting women (and men too, I presume) to take personal accountability for their actions no matter the outcome. I think that's how things are supposed to be when you're a grownup.
Most people are not meant to understand these things.
In the past, that is why we had *traditions*. Traditions are actionable workarounds to problems that you aren't going to be able to explain the nature of to most people. Example: most people won't understand why polygamy is destabilizing to large societies. You can't sit down most kids and explain to them all the reasons why it is better for society for them to get married - most of them won't truly be able to internalize it and then act on it. Instead, you institute *socially enforced monogamy* as a tradition. When a kid goes "what am I supposed to do?" The older folks just say "do this, because that's the way it's supposed to be done, because that's the way grandpa did it and it worked for them so you just do that and it will work for you". That's way easier to do than to try to teach every dummy the complex equation.
This is what people like Dave Greene mean when they call for a return to tradition. They're not calling for us to go back to the old ways of doing things (precisely), they are calling for us to return to a way of embodied wisdom based on alignment with best practices vs the left-brained liberal autist way of trying to make everybody a scientist when really most of us are just chimps with machineguns.
>least so far it feels like Walt’s Intern is the only one I’ve met who’s actually good at public speaking.
Nigga I can
But your true strongsuit is writing
On this blessed feast day we remember Walter the Orange, who was martyred by foids for telling them that their stated and revealed preferences are nowhere near alike. Some agentic lads preserved his bones and legend has it that the man who rubs them will become irresistible to every pretty Jewess he encounters.
W shout out 🥹
Beautiful ending as well.
But unfortunately at this stage, Eve is theoretical (for zoomer guys)
I think I might technically be a WASP
Amazing that #2 has so much credence across the ideological spectrum. What a depressingly deterministic way to look at life (and easily disproved). There's truth in it, of course, but as with all such maximalist pronouncements, examples to the contrary are numerous. Perhaps my main objection is to "No one" - I don't think I would have had such a negative reaction if a less totalizing word were used. Anyway, hard to summon the interest in reading the rest after seeing that particular point so far at the top. But I shall soldier on!
I'm a 68 year old woman with a bachelor's degree from a decent Midwest university lo those many years ago. I just read this whole post because it's pouring rain and I didn't have anything else to do. It took a long time for me to read it and would have taken even longer if I'd stopped to look up all the whatever's I didn't have a meaning for like "w/e", "LARP", "foid", and "entirely and intractably distinct and mutually opaque phenomenological worlds". This last was especially confounding as I can read the words but can't figure out what the hell you're trying to say. Do you mean that men & women see things differently and that neither really understands how the other sees things? If that's what you mean...well, duh. Everybody already knows that.
Is this post SUPPOSED to make sense to me? Are my 30-something friends going around thinking about this in the back of their minds all the time? Do my grandsons need to understand it? Because tbh (ha!) about the only thing I recognized from my world was Martin Luther nailing his theses to the church door.
I guess I'll keep trying because some of the things Anuradha says make SOME sense to me, anyway, like expecting women (and men too, I presume) to take personal accountability for their actions no matter the outcome. I think that's how things are supposed to be when you're a grownup.
I'm going to take a nap now.
Most people are not meant to understand these things.
In the past, that is why we had *traditions*. Traditions are actionable workarounds to problems that you aren't going to be able to explain the nature of to most people. Example: most people won't understand why polygamy is destabilizing to large societies. You can't sit down most kids and explain to them all the reasons why it is better for society for them to get married - most of them won't truly be able to internalize it and then act on it. Instead, you institute *socially enforced monogamy* as a tradition. When a kid goes "what am I supposed to do?" The older folks just say "do this, because that's the way it's supposed to be done, because that's the way grandpa did it and it worked for them so you just do that and it will work for you". That's way easier to do than to try to teach every dummy the complex equation.
This is what people like Dave Greene mean when they call for a return to tradition. They're not calling for us to go back to the old ways of doing things (precisely), they are calling for us to return to a way of embodied wisdom based on alignment with best practices vs the left-brained liberal autist way of trying to make everybody a scientist when really most of us are just chimps with machineguns.
6 and 7 just confirm that nature was cruel in making me a woman.