3 ms·

>> What's the big deal? > The big deal is that you've nicely brought me back to my point. I shouldn't have omitted the sarcasm tag on that line. > By taking

>> What's the big deal? > The big deal is that you've nicely brought me back to my point. I shouldn't have omitted the sarcasm tag on that line. > By taking ... the only solution! Yeah, I know. I have to resist the urge to start a religion almost daily. I'm only saved by misanthropy: I couldn't stand to have the bobbies milling around. But that's not what Gurdjieff did. > A lesson Curtis Yarvin has learned very well. My take from the very beginning is that Yarvin is brilliant but mentally ill. I don't mean that in a derogatory way! I feel for the guy. It seemed clear (to me anyway) from his early writings about Urbit that he's a little touched. Over the years he's seemed to get a little better.

throwanem 7y ago
If Yarvin is mentally ill, then so was Gurdjieff. Both wrestle with ideas that seem to be too big for them, and both clearly struggle in so doing, or at least in making their big ideas comprehensible to those less inspired. Of Gurdjieff's work I'm comfortable saying, in paraphrase of the apocryphal Dr. Johnson, that what is worthwhile is not original, and what is original is not worthwhile. Granted that I haven't studied him deeply - but I haven't done so because, where I have looked at his work, I've found nothing that other schools of enlightenment theory haven't said better both before and after him. Robert Anton Wilson is in my estimation much more worth anyone's time, not least because he doesn't seem nearly so much to deliberately cultivate opacity. In Yarvin's case, I suppose time has yet to tell. Certainly his opinion of the status quo, with regard to tools ostensibly for communication between people, is one I share. I doubt Urbit is the solution, but as I said, time will tell.
- carapace 7y ago
  > If Yarvin is mentally ill, then so was Gurdjieff. I don't see how that follows. > Both wrestle with ideas that seem to be too big for them, and both clearly struggle in so doing, or at least in making their big ideas comprehensible to those less inspired. That's not my view FWIW. Gurdjieff was very clear when he wanted to be and also very obscure when he wanted to be, often at the same time, but always in service of his fundamental goal: Transformation of man. If you examine the notebooks of Leonardo you don't have to be able to read them nor understand every drawing to realize that you're witnessing the work of a towering genius, a mind beyond the ken of the vast majority of people not just in his own time but even far into the future. That's what I see in "Beelzebub's Tales". Of course it's obscure and hard to understand (in places): he's trying to construct and communicate a whole world view to future generations that overturns the epistemological foundations of common society. It's gonna be a challenge to "grok". > Granted that I haven't studied him deeply - but I haven't done so because, where I have looked at his work, I've found nothing that other schools of enlightenment theory haven't said better both before and after him. I don't know what to tell you. I've also studied him deeply and compared to most "other schools of enlightenment theory" he's like an adult among kindergartners. > Robert Anton Wilson is in my estimation much more worth anyone's time, not least because he doesn't seem nearly so much to deliberately cultivate opacity. I love RAW. He is ~#3 in my personal pantheon. But he once wrote a book that, by his own admission, was crammed with jokes that no one ever got. > In Yarvin's case, I suppose time has yet to tell. Certainly his opinion of the status quo, with regard to tools ostensibly for communication between people, is one I share. I doubt Urbit is the solution, but as I said, time will tell. Regardless of Urbit, I care about Yarvin and I hope he's a healthy happy person, or at least on his way.
  - bitwize 7y ago
    > That's not my view FWIW. Gurdjieff was very clear when he wanted to be and also very obscure when he wanted to be, often at the same time, but always in service of his fundamental goal: Transformation of man. I hear this Gurdjieffite dodge a lot. "He totally meant to do it that way, for reasons you and I can't fathom. It was all part of his brilliant plan, for he has assumed no less of a burden on himself than the total transformation of mankind!" They say that about his numerous scams like painting sparrows yellow and selling them as canaries. "That was just Gurdjieff testing the public, to determine who was truly worthy of receiving his teachings." No, it was a scam. For God's sakes they say that about his penchant for reckless driving -- which nearly got him killed twice! It's just proof of his Jedi reflexes which he developed through his genius and years of study. Come on, man! I won't doubt that he was a clever bloke -- as is Yarvin -- but he was a huckster. His stock in trade was getting people to think he was a unique genius with the power to bring about a new age of enlightenment. It's a testament to his intelligence that it worked, but it doesn't legitimize his claims or even put him on equal footing with Da Vinci. And no, I haven't been hanging around "the wrong Gurdjieffites". The argument that you are not allowed to criticize Gurdjieff or his Great Work without having fully oriented your brain to his cosmology and philosophy is so common that there's a Gurdjieffian slur for it. "Wiseacring" is the word Gurdjieffites use to mean "talking about things you do not and cannot understand because you are not yet as galaxy-brained as Gurdjieff was". My exposure to Gurdjieff's impenetrable web of BS and the cult of personality around him that it induced has made me suspicious of anyone who claims to be or is claimed to be a towering intellect with unique powers to change the world, especially if they are surrounded by sycophants who confuse obscurantism for genius. Yarvin rings this same alarm inside me, as does Stephen Wolfram.
    - carapace 7y ago
      I've been very careful, and I've worked very hard, and I like to think I've come a long way, but I might just be crazy. I don't think I am, but I can't rule it out. In re: the canary caper, that story comes from Gurdjieff himself, from his book. It's only assumed to be true, and autobiographical. Why did he include it? If Ouspensky couldn't fully understand Gurdjieff (as I believe) why should we expect to, who haven't the benefit of ever meeting him? I just pulled my copy of "Beelzebub's Tales" and read some passages to double check, and yeah, he's unfathomably intelligent. I actually read Wolfram's tome. The whole damn thing. (He cured me of megalomania!) To me there's no comparison. I appreciate the chance to discuss this stuff. It almost never comes up IRL. As I said, I got a lot out of Gurdjieff (or think I did), and you have made it plain that you did not. Fair enough.

throwanem 7y ago

If Yarvin is mentally ill, then so was Gurdjieff. Both wrestle with ideas that seem to be too big for them, and both clearly struggle in so doing, or at least in making their big ideas comprehensible to those less inspired. Of Gurdjieff's work I'm comfortable saying, in paraphrase of the apocryphal Dr. Johnson, that what is worthwhile is not original, and what is original is not worthwhile. Granted that I haven't studied him deeply - but I haven't done so because, where I have looked at his work, I've found nothing that other schools of enlightenment theory haven't said better both before and after him. Robert Anton Wilson is in my estimation much more worth anyone's time, not least because he doesn't seem nearly so much to deliberately cultivate opacity. In Yarvin's case, I suppose time has yet to tell. Certainly his opinion of the status quo, with regard to tools ostensibly for communication between people, is one I share. I doubt Urbit is the solution, but as I said, time will tell.

carapace 7y ago
> If Yarvin is mentally ill, then so was Gurdjieff. I don't see how that follows. > Both wrestle with ideas that seem to be too big for them, and both clearly struggle in so doing, or at least in making their big ideas comprehensible to those less inspired. That's not my view FWIW. Gurdjieff was very clear when he wanted to be and also very obscure when he wanted to be, often at the same time, but always in service of his fundamental goal: Transformation of man. If you examine the notebooks of Leonardo you don't have to be able to read them nor understand every drawing to realize that you're witnessing the work of a towering genius, a mind beyond the ken of the vast majority of people not just in his own time but even far into the future. That's what I see in "Beelzebub's Tales". Of course it's obscure and hard to understand (in places): he's trying to construct and communicate a whole world view to future generations that overturns the epistemological foundations of common society. It's gonna be a challenge to "grok". > Granted that I haven't studied him deeply - but I haven't done so because, where I have looked at his work, I've found nothing that other schools of enlightenment theory haven't said better both before and after him. I don't know what to tell you. I've also studied him deeply and compared to most "other schools of enlightenment theory" he's like an adult among kindergartners. > Robert Anton Wilson is in my estimation much more worth anyone's time, not least because he doesn't seem nearly so much to deliberately cultivate opacity. I love RAW. He is ~#3 in my personal pantheon. But he once wrote a book that, by his own admission, was crammed with jokes that no one ever got. > In Yarvin's case, I suppose time has yet to tell. Certainly his opinion of the status quo, with regard to tools ostensibly for communication between people, is one I share. I doubt Urbit is the solution, but as I said, time will tell. Regardless of Urbit, I care about Yarvin and I hope he's a healthy happy person, or at least on his way.
- bitwize 7y ago
  > That's not my view FWIW. Gurdjieff was very clear when he wanted to be and also very obscure when he wanted to be, often at the same time, but always in service of his fundamental goal: Transformation of man. I hear this Gurdjieffite dodge a lot. "He totally meant to do it that way, for reasons you and I can't fathom. It was all part of his brilliant plan, for he has assumed no less of a burden on himself than the total transformation of mankind!" They say that about his numerous scams like painting sparrows yellow and selling them as canaries. "That was just Gurdjieff testing the public, to determine who was truly worthy of receiving his teachings." No, it was a scam. For God's sakes they say that about his penchant for reckless driving -- which nearly got him killed twice! It's just proof of his Jedi reflexes which he developed through his genius and years of study. Come on, man! I won't doubt that he was a clever bloke -- as is Yarvin -- but he was a huckster. His stock in trade was getting people to think he was a unique genius with the power to bring about a new age of enlightenment. It's a testament to his intelligence that it worked, but it doesn't legitimize his claims or even put him on equal footing with Da Vinci. And no, I haven't been hanging around "the wrong Gurdjieffites". The argument that you are not allowed to criticize Gurdjieff or his Great Work without having fully oriented your brain to his cosmology and philosophy is so common that there's a Gurdjieffian slur for it. "Wiseacring" is the word Gurdjieffites use to mean "talking about things you do not and cannot understand because you are not yet as galaxy-brained as Gurdjieff was". My exposure to Gurdjieff's impenetrable web of BS and the cult of personality around him that it induced has made me suspicious of anyone who claims to be or is claimed to be a towering intellect with unique powers to change the world, especially if they are surrounded by sycophants who confuse obscurantism for genius. Yarvin rings this same alarm inside me, as does Stephen Wolfram.
  - carapace 7y ago
    I've been very careful, and I've worked very hard, and I like to think I've come a long way, but I might just be crazy. I don't think I am, but I can't rule it out. In re: the canary caper, that story comes from Gurdjieff himself, from his book. It's only assumed to be true, and autobiographical. Why did he include it? If Ouspensky couldn't fully understand Gurdjieff (as I believe) why should we expect to, who haven't the benefit of ever meeting him? I just pulled my copy of "Beelzebub's Tales" and read some passages to double check, and yeah, he's unfathomably intelligent. I actually read Wolfram's tome. The whole damn thing. (He cured me of megalomania!) To me there's no comparison. I appreciate the chance to discuss this stuff. It almost never comes up IRL. As I said, I got a lot out of Gurdjieff (or think I did), and you have made it plain that you did not. Fair enough.