6 ms·
For me, the most powerful passage in this one is; """ The authentic human being is one of us who instinctively knows what he should not do, and, in a
by nonrandomstring 3y ago
For me, the most powerful passage in this one is;
""" The authentic human being is one of us who instinctively knows
what he should not do, and, in addition, he will balk at doing
it. He will refuse to do it, even if this brings down dread
consequences to him and to those whom he loves. This, to me, is
the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to
the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of this
resistance. Their deeds may be small, and almost always
unnoticed, unmarked by history. Their names are not remembered,
nor did these authentic humans expect their names to be
remembered. I see their authenticity in an odd way: not in
their willingness to perform great heroic deeds but in their
quiet refusals. In essence, they cannot be compelled to be what
they are not. - P.K Dick """
This underpins my selective abstinence from certain areas of
technological life. It lets me laugh at "inevitability" and
"necessity, fear no "inconvenience" or being "left behind" or "out of
the loop", and I could hardly care less that some others have a
"competitive advantage". " I simply follow my own path, using the
tools that work for me, the ones I understand, as I see fit for my own
aims. And I feel oddly happy that most of what I do, my parochial
craft, will be washed away and forgotten.
But (quietly and not that it matters), I also suspect that such an
"authentic" attitude is something the great organising Moloch machine
shits its pants in fear of, because the authentic human cannot coexist
with it and thus requires its destruction.
- jacquesm 3y agoIt's the mirror image to "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.". Unfortunately history has taught us that P.K. Dick's view is rarely the prevailing one and that even if plenty of people are exactly like that too many of them are not and they will happily do that which they instinctively know they should not do. Especially if there is money or authority involved.
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoSubtle difference, Dick's statement doesn't say that "good men should do nothing", but that "good men should refuse to do bad things". Setting boundaries, in other words.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago> Unfortunately history has taught us... the prevailing plenty of people will happily do that which they instinctively know they should not do ... if there is money or authority involved. The authentic human escapes this, for s/he does not care one jot what the "plenty" think, feel or do. Not out of callousness, indifference or individual narcissism/solipsism, or even because authenticity exists despite and outside of that frame - but that it flourishes through and in it. Sartre put is as; "One always has a choice". It's an existential truth that even if you are on your knees in front of a ditch, with a gun to your head and the choice "comply and live, or die on principle", you can always choose to die. That's the essence of choice, not a mere toss up between two picnics. And once that threshold of understanding is passed -- that _choice_ is the one thing that cannot be taken from you -- it is possible to see further into Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" and "Sickness Unto Death", in which that choice allows one to become not merely a gadfly but "an error, stubbornly and indelibly written into the text of consensual reality... one that refuses to be erased". The harder the system scratches at it the more the itch spreads. Obviously there's a lot of Christianity at the base of this, and returning to the GP, P. K. Dick is clearly immersed in that. Maybe that says Christianity is still a relevant religion in the technological age? I also find it bizarre that Nietzsche, who saw Christianity as mere bloody-minded resentment, still arrived at the same basic idea of all-too-human authenticity. So it goes deep.
- otabdeveloper4 3y ago> in the technological age Every age is a technological age. The technology (per se) of a paleolithic human is no less complex and involved that the technology of today. Technology is about process and supply chain complexity, not knowledge. The paleolithic human was short on knowledge, but their supply chains were as global, complex and fragile as the ones we have today.
- nonrandomstring 3y agoI think in 1800 you would have got away with that argument. But for me, living after 2000, when I say "technological age" I'm speaking of the Anthropocene [0]. There's a qualitative difference of systematic complexity. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- TeMPOraL 3y agoNah, Moloch loves the "authentic" humans, because they can be bullshitted into doing anything. Yes, they'll resist any direct attempts at telling them how to live their lives - but they'll do that as much to a tyrant, as to their democratic representatives, or their own community. Inertia is not a virtue - neither for an object, nor for a human. The way against "authentic" humans' resistance/reactance is something Moloch figured out long ago: take it slow, manipulate their beliefs about themselves and the world. This even scales better than tyranny. Marketers and advertisers know and use this. Politicians and activists and religious leaders know and use this. "Authentic" humans will follow their intuition off a cliff if you make them believe it'll make them feel safe, or fulfill their lust. Easy when you're also responsible for instilling fear and/or desire in them in the first place.
- nonrandomstring 3y agoAh, but the Authentic Human knows that the Moloch knows that.... all the way down....
- TeMPOraL 3y agoUnfortunately, most humans don't seem to have a good idea of how feedback loops work, they get stuck focusing on a single leg of them "they hurt me, I must get my revenge" instead of noticing the other leg and self-reinforcing nature of the phenomenon "I get my revenge, they feel hurt and now hurt me to get their revenge, ad infinitum". And Moloch is a personification of a large system of feedback loops. That's to say - most humans - and therefore, most "authentic" humans - have trouble recognizing Moloch is a thing in the first place. (FWIW, I don't think it's an issue of capabilities, but rather, of education. Some basics of feedback control should be covered in elementary education, instead of specialized university degrees.)
- nonrandomstring 3y agoIt's a good take, and I appreciate that depth of thought. One reason we teach Meadows as one component of intellectual self-defence. https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=19 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=19 But you're right, the ability to see how a great network of systems and subsystems, all trying to make things better, can add up to a lethal "trap" with its own perverse intelligence (I quite like the Adam Curtis slant) is elusive.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y agoThis becomes Phildickian, when e.g. the "tyrant" is a doorknob. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7444685-the-door-refused-to-open-it-said-five-cents-please https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7444685-the-door-refused-to... Bear in mind that this was written in 1969. Smart doorknobs were not a thing then, but PKD went right to the "pay per use", a robot programmed to lawfully exploit the common guy, situation.
- otabdeveloper4 3y ago> instinctively Humans don't have instincts. That's what separates us from the other, lower animals. P.S. Urges, drives and desires aren't instincts. P.P.S. Technically not true, the human being has a couple instincts related to breastfeeding, but they are supposed to disappear after a couple months in a healthy human baby.
- mhaberl 3y agoWikipedia states that you are not correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct#In_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct#In_humans
- otabdeveloper4 3y agoWikipedia is wrong. Feelings aren't instinct. (Feeling disgusted or sexually aroused or aggressive isn't an instinct.) Instincts, by definition, are complex behavior. (Think birds building nests; nobody teaches them to do that, they are born with that knowledge.)
- HenryBemis 3y agoSexual arousal is part of the procreation mechanism, and thus I (not a psychologist) will classify it as instinct. I can think of many different feelings as instinct. When I see my gf crying, I don't 'think' to hug her, I instinctively hug her. When your friend walks two steps ahead of you and falls down, you don't stop to think and feel, you instinctively grab them.
- otabdeveloper4 3y agoAn instinct is complex, unlearned behavior. Sexual arousal is neither complex nor behavior. It is a simple hormonal state. You're using a colloqual meaning of "instinctive" that is unscientific and wrong.
- mhaberl 3y agoEncyclopedia Britannica [1] also doesn't agree with you. > ...it is taken to include the possibility that humans too can be governed by instinct But that's far from being the only source that defines 'instinct' in a way that doesn't align with what you're proposing. Humans do have instincts. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/instinct/Instinct-as-behaviour https://www.britannica.com/topic/instinct/Instinct-as-behavi...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- glitchc 3y agoThe "authentic human" sounds like the No True Scotman's Fallacy. One person's authentic may not match another's, yet both are equally authentic. As a case in point, consider vegetarians. Are those who eat animals somehow "inauthentic", even if they agree on every other aspect with other authentic individuals?
- prometheus76 3y agoIs authenticity externally determined, or internally determined? Is there an external objective or universal standard of authenticity, or is it more of an internal integrity or trueness to one's self-determined values? Or a blend of both?
- glitchc 3y agoIf it is internally determined, then an objective measure cannot be known to exist. That's the contention I have with the author's thesis, as the author is assuming external/objective authenticity. As an example, consider Hannibal Lecter: Certainly authentic to his self-determined values, yet not compatible with the author's view of authenticity, and would be considered a "bad person" by the rest of humanity.
- breuleux 3y agoThe great organizing Moloch is really just natural selection, when you think about it. It doesn't particularly care about life or happiness, but at the same time life wouldn't exist without it. I wouldn't say it is afraid of anything, even metaphorically, because it is the very process by which anything prevails over anything else. We only call this process Moloch because we have trouble accepting its amorality.