Please expand on this. I'm not sure what you mean. — Bitter Crank

Will Self:" In the early 1980s, and I would argue throughout the second half of the last century, the literary novel was perceived to be the prince of art forms, the cultural capstone and the apogee of creative endeavor. The capability words have when arranged sequentially to both mimic the free flow of human thought and investigate the physical expressions and interactions of thinking subjects; the way they may be shaped into a believable simulacrum of either the commonsensical world, or any number of invented ones; and the capability of the extended prose form itself, which, unlike any other art form, is able to enact self-analysis, to describe other aesthetic modes and even mimic them. All this led to a general acknowledgment: the novel was the true Wagnerian Gesamtkunstwerk."

I don't think so. Even the physical book isn't going to fade away: it's simply still so useful and handy. If one argues that the hey-day of book reading is over, that less people read books than earlier, I'm not sure about that. — ssu

One could argue about the quality of reading and about its importance.

There has always been a demographic of eager readers; it has varied over time, but it has included the educated elite who like to read; the upward aspirational immigrants who want to partake of the Anglo-American culture; ordinary educated people (not elite) who like to read, and then a few people who read for a living: book editors and reviewers. The chattering classes read because they need fresh fodder to chatter on about. — Bitter Crank

I agree with you. But the point is that literature, authors, their critics, book's reading have lost their privileged position in our culture, they do not generate and translate the most advanced meanings and values anymore.

The book, in my estimation represents a private relationship with knowledge. To engage in a private relationship one must have something that approximates to a private self. The decline of the book as such is a consequence of the decline in the relative significance of the relationship with the self, the private cultivation of the intellect for the benefit of the self alone. Increasingly human beings are public entities, with public lives external to the self — Marcus de Brun

Historically, the book not always has mediated the relationship with self. For example, for ancient Stoics and Epicureans, the spoken word of a teacher was the most important. And, one can doubt the private character of the process of the ancient “care of self.” Nevertheless, you are right that we experience the dramatic decline of the book culture, and reading cannot provide us with our own private and intimate space.

Classics are rare, because most old books don't fare well as time passes. Not a lot of people still read Chaucer, but thousands do. Far, far fewer (scores of people) read Gower, Langland, or Boccaccio. — Bitter Crank

Thousands - are not bad at all, I assumed less.

Furthermore, there are too many books to read, from the very ancient to merely old to new yesterday. There is far, far, far too much short-form writing to read, as well--fiction or factual. Too much music to listen to, too many films to see, too many web sites to visit. There are more cute cat videos than one has time to watch. — Bitter Crank

You are right - too much of everything! As far as I know, most teenagers do not read books at all.

In 2200 people are going to be looking to Gibson for 'essential insights into the nature of humankind' more than Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. — fdrake

I am quite surprised; I think that ”essential insights into the nature of humankind” have become meaningless.
“To all those who still wish to talk about man, about his reign or his liberation, to all those who still ask themselves questions about what man is in his essence, to all those who wish to take him as their starting-point in their attempts to reach the truth, to all those who, on the other hand, refer all knowledge back to the truths of man himself, to all those who refuse to formalize without anthropologizing, who refuse to mythologize without demystifying, who refuse to think without immediately thinking that it is man who is thinking, to all these warped and twisted forms of reflection we can answer only with a philosophical laugh – which means, to a certain extent, a silent one.”
― FOUCAULT MICHEL, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences

Such a conservative stance is being taken by Number2018. — fdrake

Why conservative? I would say - realistic. Do you know anybody, who is reading “Don Quixote” or “Peace and War”? I do not know. Though, very few classic novels are read by students, forced by curriculum and their teachers. Without the readers, these books will become just museum artifacts.

E-books and audio books maintain reading culture, although the latter to a lesser extent. The printed book isn't "special" when compared to its electronic form, at least not in the gnostic sence. — Grey Vs Gray

Technology has made possible a more eco-friendly method of passing stories and information. While I own over four-hundred physical books and enjoy the smells, the nostalgia and textures, I also use and enjoy other mediums of acquiring information and stories. — Grey Vs Gray

It is not a matter of nostalgia, and definitely, the digital age provides us with a lot of new possibilities. The problem is that the practices of reading and writing have changed. You are right, much more people are reading nowadays, but their reading
has become fragmental and instantaneous – and the process of reading is inseparable from the way we are writing.

Global revenue for books is about 8 times more than music in 2017. — fdrake

Many writers think that serious literature is going to become extinct under the market’s pressure. Thus,
Will Self pointed out: “There is one question alone that you must ask yourself to establish whether the serious novel will still retain cultural primacy and centrality in another 20 years. This is the question: if you accept that by then the vast majority of text will be read in digital form on devices linked to the web, do you also believe that those readers will voluntarily choose to disable that connectivity? If your answer to this is no, then the death of the novel is sealed out of your own mouth

The bias we should be concerned about is the bias shared by almost every media outlet, the bias for drama. Most media is ad supported. That is, they aren't really in the news business, they're in the advertising business. Ad prices are heavily related to the size of the audience, and this pushes most media outlets towards the lowest common denominator. If it bleeds it leads, etc. — Jake

"It is important to understand that the possibilities, however, limited,
of manipulation and of the suspicion of manipulation, which
is sometimes exaggerated, and sometimes not pervasive, are a set
of problems internal to the system and that they are not an effect
generated by the mass media in the environment of their system."
It is not a bias or a kind of manipulation, it is how the media functions.

If I tell you there was a fire in a department store downtown, and the news tells you there was a fire in the department store downtown, and there was a fire in a department store downtown, and neither of us gets overtly political about it, but reports basic facts such as when and where, — Baden

There are tremendous gaps between 3 facts about “a fire in a department store downtown” – 1) when I learn it from you, 2 )when I watch news about it, and 3) the actual event of the fire – they have absolutely different cultural, anthropological and ontological status! Whatever is not mediated and reported by media does not actually exist.

the media both reflects and constructs social reality and being aware of how they do that is important in interpreting events. — Baden

So, what is actually going on when the media does report about the fire in downtown? As Luhmann pointed out: “Every selection decontextualizes and condenses particular identities which in themselves have nothing 'identical' (= substantial) about them, but merely have to be identified in the context of being reviewed for purposes of reference, of recursive use, and only for that purpose. “
Therefore, the main goal of reporting the fire by the media is just to use the actual event for involving and engaging a particular group of viewers, consuming “the breaking news “
according to the set of pre-established codes. The media localizes and structures not real socially independent autonomic groups, but socio-psychological patterns, created by its mass action. “Medium is the message.”

For a start, news reporting is obviously not purely in the realm of narrative and divorced from objective reality. That would be a better description of fiction (and even then facts usually make up part of the mix). Sometimes, for example, the facts do take centre stage and the narrative is fairly benign and aimed at providing a minimum of structure, so there's no significant bias to be concerned about. — Baden

According to Nikolas Luhmann, even when mass media look like reporting the essential news, first of all, they reproduce their own self-referential communicative machinic reality:
Even if one distinguishes different selectors in news and reporting, there is a danger of generating still much too simple an image of the way the mass media construct reality. It is true that the problem is in the selection, but the selection itself is a complex event - regardless of which criteria it follows. Every selection decontextualizes and condenses particular identities which in themselves have nothing 'identical' (= substantial) about them, but merely have to be identified in the context of being reviewed for purposes of reference, of recursive use, and only for that purpose. In other words, identity is only conferred if the intention is to return to something. But at the same time, this means there are confirmation and generalization. That which is identified is transferred into a schema or associated with a familiar schema"

One way of approaching philosophy which has been resonating with me for some time now is as a cartography - the art of map making — StreetlightX

Deleuze and Guattari developed their theory of philosophical cartography, they radically contrasted mapping with tracing:
“Make a map, not a tracing. What distinguishes the map from the tracing is that it is entirely oriented toward an experimentation in contact with the real. For it is inaccurate to say that a tracing reproduces the map. It is instead like a photograph or X-ray that begins by selecting or isolating, by artificial means such as
colorations or other restrictive procedures, what it intends to
reproduce. The imitator always creates the model and attracts it. The
tracing has already translated the map into an image; it has already
transformed the rhizome into roots and radicles. It has organized,
stabilized, neutralized the multiplicities according to the axes of
significance and subjectivation belonging to it. It has generated,
structuralized the rhizome, and when it thinks it is reproducing
something else it is in fact only reproducing itself. That is why the
tracing is so dangerous.”

maps can be maps of all sorts of different things: terrain, air pressure, vegetation density, and so on. None of these maps are more true than the other, and maps are useful to the extent that they are used for some purpose or another — StreetlightX

Tracing is a kind of reproduction, following an already established pattern; and using and making maps can also be a kind of calcomania. Whereas the true mapping is about making oneself a part of the rhizome, taking the risk of a becoming with the unknown outcome.

One's judgment related to this project cannot be separated from one's movement generated by a creation of the new cartography, and this movement is similar to autopoietic
self-establishment of aesthetic becoming.
— Number2018

And in English? — Pseudonym

"We are not in the presence of a passively representative image, but of a vector of subjectivation. We are actually confronted by a non-discursive, pathic knowledge, which presents itself as a subjectivity that one actively meets, an absorbent subjectivity given immediately in all its complexity... This pathic subjectivity, before the object-subject relation, continues to self-actualize through energetico-spatiotemporal coordinates, in the world of language and through multiple mediations..." Guattari,
"Chaosmosis"

I fail to see how this integrates with any form of judgement. If a philosophical investigation can be considered a kind of map, no more true than any other and no less valuable than its specific utility, then how does one go about judging such an investigation? — Pseudonym

One's judgment related to this project cannot be separated from one's movement generated by a creation of the new cartography, and this movement is similar to autopoietic
self-establishment of aesthetic becoming.

I think analysing the rhetoric of the right and how it's penetrated political discourse is a different topic from discussing the intersection of political and consumer identities. — fdrake

In principle, the rhetoric of the right is inseparable
from the rhetoric of the left. And, if so, the topic of this thread should be considered in a broader context.
[quote="fdrake;209833"
The idea that all politics is done from the sole motivation of satisfying consumer identity is anathema[/quote]
It is much more complicated. Nevertheless, politics today is the politics of affect,
with numerous mimetic implications.

a strategy for influencing public discourse can become self sustaining once it has obtained sufficient attention. More attention generated means even more attention generated. — fdrake

it is difficult to transmit nuanced political analysis through the attention economy of social media, it is far less difficult to transmit a faceted perspective through the same. This is achieved by creating memetic content that contains framing devices. — fdrake

It is possible to assume that the rational and ideological modii of public discourses function just as a supportive disguise - the real goal is to mobilize a maximum public attention at this particular instant,
forming, expressing and satisfying mass desires.

What appears in shame is thus precisely the fact of being riveted to oneself, the radical impossibility of fleeing oneself to hide from oneself, the unalterably binding presence of the I to itself. ... It is, therefore, our intimacy, that is, our presence to ourselves, that is shameful." (Levinas, On Escape) — StreetlightX

It looks like Levinas's ethics does not work anymore...The relation of self to oneself has changed dramatically,
it is mediated by numerous collective apparatuses aimed at preventing one to stay with oneself...
For Primo Levi, "the shame of being a man" was a central existential meaning of life after surviving
The Holocaust; today it is almost impossible to understand it.

The challenge is to transcend our own desires and ask why it is that we desire what we do. We are not the authors of our own desires. We desire things - but why? Why do we desire to live as opposed to die? Could desire be a form of manipulation, in the same way that pain and fear manipulate us into certain courses of action? — darthbarracuda

“Our desires” are part of us as social beings in our society. It is not a form of manipulation, we desire things not because we are victims of commercials or brainwashing. For example innovations, desires to have a better product or service are reciprocal, shared by producers and customers. After been taken up by media and numerous experts, the desire starts looking as familiar and natural. If we want to transcendent, we need to escape or to stay alone, cutting off some social connections.

the problem of what is consciousness or how is it that you are conscious. This seems to only answer the question of where consciousness come from. My understanding of emergent theories is that they explain how consciousness can arise in a purely physical environment. — Hanover

Daniel Stern' in his book "The Interpersonal World of the Infant" proposed the following stages of a child development: the sequence of the Senses of the Self - they include the Sense of an Emergent Self (birth‐2 months of age); Sense of Core Self (2–6 months); Sense of Subjective Self (7–15 months); Sense of a Verbal Self (15 months on). These Selves are different kinds of conciseness coexisting in an adult's mind as heterogenic components of one complex assemblage.

The thought or belief of hunger, thirst, or physical pain isn't the same thing as experiencing actual hunger, thirst, or physical pain — TranscendedRealms

Is that possible for a conscious individual to experience actual hunger, thirst, or physical pain without thinking about them?

But lose the paranoia, dude, penis amputation is not a mass movement. — unenlightened

If most of these operations got support and provided by a variety of publicly funded medical institutions,(which is impossible without previous intensive research) and many individuals considering the possibility of this operations get publicly funded guidance and support
(which is possible just in the presence of numerous qualified and trained staff), and all related issues
may become (I am not sure about it) a part of the mandatory school curriculum - how would you call it?

One resists identification with an alternative identification; — unenlightened

You may think that "an alternative identification" is your private enterprise; yet, it should be examined if it is really a private one. Almost any identification nowadays is a way of getting involved into a socio-political
mass movement.

So the craziness of the trans-gender is perhaps rather a sane response to the craziness of society, and 'we' had best try and accommodate them within our social constructs. — unenlightened

You are absolutely right! It is impossible to understand the whole phenomenon as isolated from what is going on in the society. So many institutions and organizations, backed by mass-media are leading all the process of creating new self-identification of a transgender. Numerous talented young people see the
goal of their life in changing a gender and the whole movement is represented as a kind of revolution of nowadays. Yet, this "revolution" does not challenge any basic principles of our society.

:smile: :lol:

Of course it is an important distinction to make in others. And even more important to make in oneself. — unenlightened

Absolutely! I try not to judge others, the most important for me to find out if I am authentic myself.
This problem related to our values (Do we still have them?), and about our lives (Can we change anything in our lives? Can we even pose a problem of a proper life nowadays?)

This book is really difficult. Adorno tried to make points related to the situation in Germany in 1960s, and, particularly tried to show that so-called "authenticity" is the phenomenon of mass-culture societies, but it was established in works of Heidegger, Jaspers, and others.

Adorno wrote a book “Jargon of Authenticity,” analyzing the phenomenon and its implications for our societies.
"While the
jargon of authenticity overflows with the pretense of deep human
emotion, it is just as standardized as the world that
it officially negates; the reason for this lies partly in its
mass success, partly in the fact that it posits its message
automatically, through its mere nature. The jargon affirms
the reliability of the universal by means of the
distinction of having a bourgeois origin , a distinction
which is itself authorized by the universal. Its tone of
approved selectivity seems to come from the person
himself. The greater advantage in all this is that of
good references . It makes no difference what the voice
that resonates in, this way says ; it is signing a social
contract."

I'm inclined to go with Kant: treat others not as means ONLY but ALSO as ends in themselves. — gurugeorge

I understand your position and your advice. Yet, the problem with authenticity is that it replaces possible ethics in relations with the other. Levinas founded his ethics with the exception of looking at other’s eyes, and nowadays direct (and authentic) eye contact has become a cultural norm serving the business. From one side, it is so convenient, from another it almost eliminates ethics dimensions.

I've always thought Sartre was gratuitously judgemental about that waiter. — andrewk

Maybe Sartre's waiter is more authentic, his reactions are not finally determined yet.

To the extent that authenticity means anything to me, it is relaxation, — andrewk

What about reflection? Most likely, a true authenticity lives in the thought.

It is the gift that very few people have of being able to just act without constantly judging themselves or wondering what others think of them. — andrewk

It is almost impossible. So-called "authenticity" is like an imperative: we must live and judge ourselves
according to dominating "authentic" norms.

An authentic asshole is invariably full of shit; the project is to be fake - to fake humanity. — unenlightened

I am a tremendous faker, the best faker you have ever seen, I'm so tremendously talented at faking that everyone thinks I'm authentic, except those who are pretending not to be impressed, and they really think I'm authentic, they just don't like what I authentically am, which they believe, by the way. So everyone thinks I'm authentic, and I even believe it myself. And that's what authenticity is - a convincing fake. — unenlightened

So, if you do not believe in authenticity, why are you still a part of the game?
How can we differentiate between fake and authentic?

The problem of authenticity is not just about curious cultural observations or one’s pretension for looking original and unusual. It has much more implications. Nowadays, many groups of people (for example transgenders) try to support their claims for the legitimacy of their new self-identification by appealing to the authenticity of their feelings.

Levinas founded his ethics on the relation with the Other, and one of the essential elements was looking directly at the Other’s eyes. For Levinas, it was the most challenging moral test – to open yourself toward the other world. In North America, the direct eye contact has become a cultural norm. In general, don’t we encounter
a situation, where the slogan “Be Yourself” has become a tool for imposing dominating cultural standards? And, at the same time, real authenticity, related to becoming and therefore invisible, is pushed aside?

Authenticity is more of a process than an established condition — Bitter Crank

I agree with you.

One has to know someone quite well to know whether they are being authentic or not. One can't even automatically assume authenticity for ones self without some self-examination. — Bitter Crank

It is a kind of automatic reaction when one identifies something as not natural, not usual.

Could you explain your interest in Descartes?

I just want to add to your observation that during his suspension and doubt,
Descartes was actually also supported somehow by his belief in the existence of the world as a whole,
not just a few separate things in front of him.

My point is that Descartes's meditation and doubt reflected not just his intellectual way of being, but also the existential-being-in the world. He was not a philosopher of his chamber, of his ivory tower.

Descartes's knowledge was unaffected because all during his meditation, his chamber continued to project its reality into him -- it never ceased to act on him in sensible ways: scattering light into his eyes, pressing up on his bottom, holding his manuscript in place as he wrote. His awareness of this dynamic presence, of this intelligibility, was him knowing that he was in his chamber, and it was unaffected by his suspension of belief. — Dfpolis

Don't you think that Descartes's awareness was supported not only by a simple physical presence of the things in his room but also, more broadly, by rootedness of the things in the world?

it seems that within our own sphere, our 'hyletic nucleus,' we are absolutely incapable of expressing to anyone else, specifically and superlatively, meaning.
Is this the case?
Am I thus alone to my own experiences after all? — Blue Lux

If we consider the full continuum of the space opened by loneliness, it is possible to find in the one of its borders death – related existential experiences. Blanchot argued that relation to death creates one of the foundations of our human conditions: “Death, in the human perspective, is not a given, it must be achieved. It is a task, one, which we take up actively, one which becomes the source of our activity and mastery. Man dies, that is nothing. But man is, starting from his death. He ties himself tight to his death with a tie of which he is the judge. He makes his death; he makes himself mortal and in this way gives himself the power of a maker and gives to what he makes its meaning and its truth. The decision to be without being is possibility itself: the possibility of death.” (”The Space of Literature”) So, after all, we are not alone, even it looks like we are isolated in our closed sphere. Loneliness is a way of approaching the impersonal and atemporal.

The truth was never guaranteed to be consoling to our feelings. The truth is the truth and how we feel about it is another matter entirely. — Harry Hindu

You can not separate the truth from the feelings on this topic. It is not about mathematical proof. Feelings, magnified by mass-media, can help to promote political decisions, and further to mobilize
sufficient expertise in different fields to support and fabricate a desirable "truth".