The Dawn of Cultural Schizophrenia (2023)
jdemeta.net
jdemeta.net
From an individual point of view, often it's a matter of being scared to take a leap of faith into one topic, or simply a matter of great distraction, particularly with vapid online spaces (HN included) and shallow entertainment, or even just a symptom of their own psychological issues. For me it has been a combination of all of them, but ultimately also just a thought: too quickly giving up and spiralling into a kind of self-hating shallow engagement when I am challenged by something.
It's true that people are now stretched over too many cultural artefacts "like butter spread on too much bread". But honestly I can't be bothered to worry about the sociocultural impact of this, I will just focus on enjoying meaning and connection in my own life. I find that pretending "the culture" doesn't exist is the only way to really enjoy it now. I just pursue exactly what I enjoy in the way I enjoy it. I've had enough of actively seeking cultural companionship, particularly online. It was ultimately distraction from living a rich life anyway.
For me, I think learning what I find meaning in, what I really enjoy, was just a part of growing up. It is an ongoing process, but it is growing.
May I ask what you meant by "rich life"?
Stated without argument, and, as far as I can see, simply false. I know this pattern from "if everything is bold, nothing is bold" (typography), where I'd agree with it (if all text is bold no single piece of text can stand out from the rest, which was originally the function of bolding text), I just don't see how it transposes to meaning. If 'meaning' is a perceived relation from 'A' to 'B', then adding another perceived relation from 'C' to 'D' does not change that in any way.
Perhaps the author's point is that when only a few things meant something, it was easier to fall into the illusion that this meaning was more than just a relation between things which are meaningless in isolation, that there was some wellspring of meaning that goes above and beyond mere relationships, into a different metaphysical plane of existence, and one could even be in communion with it in ones daily life ("actual fulfilment") by attending to a few common myths or stories or what-have-you. Alas, I would say this is just an illusion and while it might be legitimate to lament the loss of a comfortable state, you would just be fooling yourself by closing your eyes and going back to it at this point.
By the way, what is meant by "meaning" anyway? The phrase "X means Y" is clear enough, but then the things the author really seems to want to say hinge on a non-relational use of the word, e.g. "X is meaningful", "there is meaning", "signifiers of meaning", "meaning that is meaningful". I know there's a colloquial use of "meaningful" but AFAICT "X is meaningful" then means little more than "X makes me happy (and less afraid of death)". It's certainly not a unique fault of this article but it would be nice if someone were to define their key terms, for once.
So two things can have meaning and mean two different things.
thus "if everything means something, nothing means anything." is wrong because 'meaning' as a property is not enough to establish that all items have the same quality and thus the quality does not serve to distinguish and becomes, excuse the phrasing, meaningless.
Our quest for “meaning” is a quest for what is important to us that we also have some agency in.
I don't agree with this at all. Part of the properties of the connection between 'A' and 'B' are its relation to all the things that aren't connected. As soon as another two things are connected, the original connection indeed fundamentally changes. Every single time two new concepts are connected, every other connection in the world is transformed. Connections are meaningful because they denote the things that are connected, and indeed if every single connection is asserted, i.e. "everything means something", then there is no value in any connection.
It's much like saying how maths would break down if every proposition were true, since the value of maths is that some propositions are not true and that we can find which ones are and which ones aren't, although (without loss of generality) relative to some axioms.
> one could even be in communion with it in ones daily life ("actual fulfilment") by attending to a few common myths or stories or what-have-you. Alas, I would say this is just an illusion and while it might be legitimate to lament the loss of a comfortable state, you would just be fooling yourself by closing your eyes and going back to it at this point.
I'm a little perturbed by this, are you saying it's a naive illusion to derive fulfilment in your life via meaning? This seems almost like a fully nihilistic point of view. I don't see any evidence that we have passed this or should pass this. It is simply valuable to, for example, read a text and note how it connects to previously unspoken to aspects of being a human being, and receive a sense of awe and deep satisfaction from that. This is of course related to the author's central thesis, but I don't think you've given any reason for us to believe that this is gone or that this will ever be gone. That would imply that there is no longer any value in the story as a human cultural form, which is primarily something that we see ourselves in and thus connect to, and I see no evidence for this.
> It's certainly not a unique fault of this article but it would be nice if someone were to define their key terms, for once.
I hate to bring up this distinction but I think this is a continental vs. analytical philosophy thing. In analytical philosophy it is often as you describe: terms are clearly defined and manipulated. In so-called "continental philosophy" usually one just starts with a vague feeling of a term and tries to somehow draw some kind of elaboration of it from what it felt by us when we say it. Therefore it's not really possible to develop the terms a priori, the clarity of them is usually arrived at through the mental movements made in the essay.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39089447 - but your example shows how every thing has a connection, but each connection is different. So if every node on the graph has the same edge that edge is meaningless, but just because every node has an edge does not invalidate the use of edges.
Finally, I'm not talking about these connections ontologically. I'm not asserting they actually exist and that we discover them. I'm just saying that when they are felt to be universal (i.e. "schizophrenic") then they lose meaning. That is, making connections between different concepts is only meaningful if you don't think every single concept is connected in every way. For example, finding out that the halting problem and gravitational waves are connected wouldn't mean much if you already knew they were because you live in a cultural space where every single connection is assumed and expected, and even worse you even knew already that gravitational waves and tarot were connected a priori, or my lunch and gravitational waves, etc. We live in a cultural space where people really do automatically believe that tarot and gravitational waves must be somehow fully connected.
Not necessarily, but every edge has a value, and when we have so many edges to explore, it becomes difficult to assign value correctly to them - to know which connections are relevant and which aren’t, which connections express actual relationships and which are nothing more than coincidences, artifacts of a limited connection space.
I think "every single connection is asserted" would equate to "everything means everything". "Everything means something" would be rather: "for every thing, a connection from that thing to another thing (but not every other thing) is asserted". And in that case, there is no loss of value in the connections that are there.
Similarly I would say that "some propositions are not true" is also a statement about the meaning of propositions. A relation of negation is also a relation.
That said I do agree that e.g. when we have a relation from A to B, adding a relation from B to C also can be said to change the meaning of A/the connection from A to B. I was perhaps over-simplifying.
>I'm a little perturbed by this [...]
"Illusion" does not have to mean "completely worthless and fake", it can also mean simply "different than initially thought". I'm certainly not as nihilistic as you may fear, if only because I also still like to read texts, and apparently derive value from it :)
> analytical vs. continental
I'm aware, I'm not against the continental style when done well, but that doesn't mean an analytical-style reaction to a continental-style argument can't be productive. In this case I had the feeling that two separate uses of the word "meaning" were being conflated without justification, and shining some light on that would show where the argument went wrong. Or: I had the feeling that the author was unaware of the conflation of two separate uses of the word "meaning" in the general culture he is critiquing, and might find some answers to his questions by being more aware of these distinctive uses. Or: the general culture itself is not aware of conflating these two uses and this is the phenomenon that might be analyzed in response to the worries raised in TFA.
I focus instead on the prefix, "any", "every", and "no" thing. so whether it's a thing, or a place (any, every, and no where) becomes less central to my consideration.
everywhere includes places such as nowhere, hence I say that "every~" includes "no~"
"any~" is neither "every~" nor "no~", so "any" implies "some" place or thing or whatever.
> On the other hand we have schizophrenia, a relationality so unkept than anything and everything is packed full of meaning, connections are drawn between everything, and existence is pure pattern and relation. But, if everything means something, nothing means anything.
Words have meaning--they're supposed to. But some things aren't intended to bear meaning. Your word choice, for example, is likely not intended to bear any deeper meaning beyond that of the sentence as a whole. But I can read any amount of meaning into your word choice if I want. Maybe you use three words in a row that seem familiar or particularly elegant. So I google them, and they pop up in Das Capital! This would be, of course, entirely meaningless. But if everything has meaning, then your decision to use these words can't be mere coincidence! Suddenly I'm thinking my god, bondarchuk isn't just making an argument about cultural schizophrenia, he's carrying the war against capitalism onto the internet!
This is actually surprisingly common in the culture--just think of the prevalence of specious 'dog whistle' accusations, which allow journalists to say, with a straight face, that while politician X might be saying something perfectly harmless, or even something that you agree with, they're secretly signaling terrible things to their terrible supporters!
I would love to know the number of people who, when asked why they vote red/blue, give one of these schizo-narratives in their answer. I think the number would be shocking, and far, far higher than is required to determine the outcome of a given election.
It has me deeply concerned about the long-term viability of our political process.
There's a second side to this, the "STOP NOTICING THINGS" demand, where people use obvious dogwhistles and then act angry and astonished when someone outside their intended group knows what they said. They think they can use sheer outrage to wave off evidence that they just said something horrible, and likely get their followers riled up because an outsider is accusing their hero of doing the thing the followers like that hero for doing.
And it is a demand, not an argument, because it's a power struggle: Who has enough power to decide the framing here? This, I'm certain, is one reason some people went absolutely nuts over Postmodernism: Postmodernism, correctly understood, is all about noticing and questioning the various frames that guide interpretation, and it's easier to control a narrative when nobody is allowed to question those frames.
(Of course, a larger number of people hate "Postmodernism" because they use it as a snarl term to mean "Absolutely Everything I Hate" and who wouldn't hate that?)
One of the American right's most treasured patterns is precisely this: to engage in relentless obvious dog-whistling and nodding and "plausibly denial" celebration cultivation and signaling around ugly and reprehensible beliefs and intentions, which are not (yet) openly stated,
and then to clutch pearls and bluster.
And the cowed, coopted, and largely pwned, so-called MSM "meekly" backs away and as desired, forever couches egregious behavior, statements, and dog-whislting in weak tea language such as "allegedly" or convoluted passive language which declines to state the obvious.
Me I will always look hard and close at why someone is incensed about this pattern being called out. The most typical answer, unremarkably, is that it's because they are aware they are complicit, yet they are still uncomfortable with that being in the air and light.
“On the other hand we have schizophrenia, a relationality so unkept than anything and everything is packed full of meaning, connections are drawn between everything, and existence is pure pattern and relation.”
^ that’s mania. Mania exists on the opposite side of the spectrum of depression, which is why we usually call it “manic-depression” when someone has mood swings. I’m fine with creating new definitions and using whatever words you want to use, but by using the word schizophrenia, we lose a connection to mood swings that I think is more representative of our cultural reality right now. We’re not all manic. Some of us are depressed, and some of us shift between the two.
I think ALL of us shift between the two. or rather I'd say that we all experience a combination of both over our lives
when people shift between opposite states way too fast, from a big and deep depression to a high excited manic state that's called bipolar disorder. but normal people can and indeed are (is what I'm saying) expected to experience both extreme but possibly shifiting between extremes over the course of many weeks or even months, rather than a few minutes like in bipolar patients
Not correcting anything parent said, just adding information.
~1/3 of bipolar people fall into the category you are describing – rapid-cycling bipolar.
for the rest, the cycles are months long, whether manic, euthymic, or depressed, and often following seasonal patterns.
clinical bipolar disorder vs. the ups and downs of human life are quite different. it's difficult to understand unless you have seen a loved one suffer it, or have been afflicted with it yourself.
This is why depression, a lack of meaning, is described as the other side of the coin of mania: because mania is an overload of meaning.
This is also not a good definition of schizophrenia at all. Schizophrenics are people who, in extreme cases, can experience full-blown hallucinations. Meaning and connections don’t create literal hallucinations.
the only difference is, one can recover from manic psychosis
But, the core features for schizophrenia seem to be disturbed perception (hallucination), beliefs (delusion), and thought processes (abnormal reasoning, speech, and behavior). These can range from subtle or extreme over the life of the patient. The experience of these may lead to agitation, but mania often presents the other way around. The increasing energy seems to precede the other psychotic symptoms.
There are two other common conditions which also have many of the same symptoms, but not in the same pattern. Delirium is often a temporary condition when someone is sick or injured. Dementia is a terminal, degenerative condition. Sometimes a patient can have all of these: a lifetime of schizophrenia shifting into dementia in old age, punctuated with bouts of delirium due to infections etc. The differences may be recognizable and help with treatment plans, but the symptoms can all blur together. One way doctors try to distinguish them is by noting the timing of symptoms.
Western Culture is firmly in the "one story" paradigm, and reaching the terminal state.
"Too many stories = schizo" seems like a defense/cope from someone in the popular "one story" camp. I say this because the author doesn't really substantiate it with examples, or explain how/when the culture transitioned from "many" to "too many".
IME people described as "schizo" often have a "one story" worldview of the world, i.e. believing strongly that their views are Truth, but struggle to form a cohesive "one story" and go crazy. In contrast, a "many stories" person is detached from owning the Truth and can better cope with contradictions and differing worldviews.
Our minds filter reality for survival. But, we over-use our minds. Too much stuff in the cache, and not enough stuff going to dev/null/. Living in the technological society we do today requires more and more attention on various things.
If you just turn off your mind for a while and stop overclocking, this isn't such a huge issue. Easier said than done. I try to meditate, and I feel it helps, but it's difficult.
And you don't need a story to navigate it either. A story (map, theory, etc) is just one (immensely popular) way.
Maybe our deep concern with stories is the issue. Like a man who puts his head in a sack and then complains about the dark
Sure, we can just simply live, and we must, indeed, actually just exist in this world, but it's hard to interpret your comment as anything other than "just stop the mind", which to me doesn't seem particularly productive. You haven't really argued that it's limiting to be deeply concerned with stories, you just say that it's blinding but haven't justified why.
Is it also blinding when a man is deeply concerned with the physical act of eating, or with the act of walking?
The mind only looks big when your nose is buried in it. And when your nose is buried in it all you see is mind stuff, stories become central, and mind-related problems look like mountains.
It's a tempest in a teapot situation.
(Also, it's limiting to be deeply concerned with stories because doing so concentrates your attention into stories and mind, rendering all else dim to invisible. It's that trick of perspective. And then when everybody you know is doing the same thing and that's all that anybody talks about, then reality becomes just a story)
That's bold.
A million monks, mystics, meditators, artists and hallucinogen enthusiasts might argue otherwise. But arguments probably wouldn't make a dent.
Ultimately, I can't think of a less bold claim than "we can't leave our own minds"
I’d also reject the idea that the proliferation of stories really overloads people because stories follow their own physics (that I’d quarter-jokingly call pataphysics) and so constrained they recycle a limited repertoire of patterns. principles and archetypes and even if the details of the stories become a blur, one internalizes the structure.
This is a growing problem because it's real and modern understanding is backwards.
I am curious as to what purpose you went to your uni library for. Medical research? Curiosity? What writings did you find? Why is it a problem that people use schizophrenia in conversation and writing? Not all discussion is medical research, and is certainly not held to those standards.
The commenter below, mentioning “truth-seeking” would need to define what they mean by truth. Is this capital T truth that applies to everyone or lowercase truth that applies to the specific and differing lenses we use?
Reforming the whole media system to not incentivise engagement. Let Facebook become a place where one shares family pictures with close relatives. Reward the YouTuber who produces infrequent 2-hour long videos that talk about philosophical ideas.
YouTube Longs.
Think kahnemans system 1/system 2 or the difference in reaction time of the (electrical)nervous system and the (chemical)endocrine system.
Culture generation happens along both time frames.
Engament metric driven social media and news media are all system 1. Reaction times ate fast. There is no system 2. It's still evolving.
So current Culture generation doesn't exhibit system 2 fall back when required.
I don't see how stories sharing some common structure (what does that even mean? rise-and-fall combinations?) makes it impossible to become overloaded by them.
I do agree with your second point though, especially when this is proven by the prevalence of the holy "algorithm".
"On the other hand, we can become so lost in language games themselves that the grounded connection of language to the cultural meaning system is lost, and we end up desperately spewing out word-salads in a frantic attempt to find that lost connection. The former problem of living Becker linked to states of depression, while the latter he linked to schizophrenia."
To some extent, I liked the article, even agree mostly, but itself also tends towards the 'word salad'.
Does this mean anything "":On the one hand, then, we have ‘depression’ as an understanding of a relationality that is so locked into a singular frame of reference that any sense of sovereignty is usurped by the self-imposed dogma of the system itself, leading to both the former ignorance Greer writes of and a personal form of melancholic depression. On the other hand we have schizophrenia, a relationality so unkept than anything and everything is packed full of meaning, connections are drawn between everything, and existence is pure pattern and relation. But, if everything means something, nothing means anything. Meanings needs limits, yet can’t be dogmatically limited. Meaning, then, needs equilibrium.""