Going into my 58th summer, I find my interests starting to change. Not to bore you by writing about running, but I have spent the last few years measuring the time by always having another race or such on my schedule. I even planned my vacations around interesting races I saw around the country. Now I find I am less enthusiastic about getting up at 6am on what would otherwise be a precious sleep in day and dropping $50 only to discover how much slower I am than in the past. I already have more race t-shirts and finishers medals than I know what to do with. I think I'm going to scale that back this year. As you age, you should spend more time weight training anyway.
Two book reviews this week, neither of which I recommend. (How's that for encouraging you to read on?) But it's good that I am reading again. Reading is another pastime that has waned as I have aged. Same with movies -- I have so very little interest in new movies I think for the same reason. As time goes by ever faster I find the cost of wasting a couple of hours on a bad movie or a couple of days on a bad book has risen. It is a disincentive to seeking new things.
Speaking of movies, Endgame came out. Although I likely won't see it until it hits Amazon, I may get desperate enough to see it in the theatre, but not until the crowds die off. Evidently having a good pee strategy is key. At that point I'm sure I'll give you another post about the symbolic significance of Marvel book-ending my adulthood (such as it is).
[Books] Book Look: Voyage to Arcturus
[Books] Book Look: The Courage to be Disliked
[Good Links] Link Soup
Friday, May 03, 2019
[Books] Book Look: Voyage to Arcturus, by David Lindsay
This can only appeal on a single dimension, really, and that is as a curiosity. There is no coherent plot, minimal characterization, and to call the style workmanlike is to go overboard with praise.
I chose to read this for a number of reasons. Harold Bloom of The Western Canon fame claimed a lifelong obsession with it. C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien both claimed to be influenced by it. Horror writer Clive Barker called it a "masterpiece". Yet, I had never even heard of it. Also, its copyright is expired so it was free on Gutenberg.
We start with a seance and are introduced to a number of standard Edwardian British characters. One of the guests has invited a pair of strangers to join in. Then weird things start to happen which eventually end up with the two strangers and the medium taking a spaceship to Tormance, a planet circling the star Arcturus.
One of the strangers, Maskull, starts encountering the denizens of Tormance, each new encounter places Maskull in a strange new moral system. He immediately adapts to each one, his body literally transforming, as he moves seamlessly from total pacifist to murdering people with his mind, and various convoluted situations in between. I couldn't really follow the causal links because there weren't any that I could see.
In the end, Maskull appears to have come to the realization that all human morality is arbitrary, or at least no one moral system is provably better than others -- maybe. I'm not sure, and I don't think I'm supposed to be. The final actions are outright cryptic.
Should you read Voyage to Arcturus? No. It yields no particular rewards unless you have an interest in writerly techniques. It eschews most traditional qualities of good writing but does demonstrate how a reader can be drawn to see existential or spiritual concepts when confronted with an oblique, ambiguous, fantasy narrative. The tone was influential to writers mentioned above, who put it to use in more gratifying ways. Despite their praise, on its own merits, it's just a curiosity.
I chose to read this for a number of reasons. Harold Bloom of The Western Canon fame claimed a lifelong obsession with it. C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien both claimed to be influenced by it. Horror writer Clive Barker called it a "masterpiece". Yet, I had never even heard of it. Also, its copyright is expired so it was free on Gutenberg.
We start with a seance and are introduced to a number of standard Edwardian British characters. One of the guests has invited a pair of strangers to join in. Then weird things start to happen which eventually end up with the two strangers and the medium taking a spaceship to Tormance, a planet circling the star Arcturus.
One of the strangers, Maskull, starts encountering the denizens of Tormance, each new encounter places Maskull in a strange new moral system. He immediately adapts to each one, his body literally transforming, as he moves seamlessly from total pacifist to murdering people with his mind, and various convoluted situations in between. I couldn't really follow the causal links because there weren't any that I could see.
In the end, Maskull appears to have come to the realization that all human morality is arbitrary, or at least no one moral system is provably better than others -- maybe. I'm not sure, and I don't think I'm supposed to be. The final actions are outright cryptic.
Should you read Voyage to Arcturus? No. It yields no particular rewards unless you have an interest in writerly techniques. It eschews most traditional qualities of good writing but does demonstrate how a reader can be drawn to see existential or spiritual concepts when confronted with an oblique, ambiguous, fantasy narrative. The tone was influential to writers mentioned above, who put it to use in more gratifying ways. Despite their praise, on its own merits, it's just a curiosity.
[Books] Book Look: The Courage to be Disliked, Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga
Somewhere in my digital wanderings, I stumbled across the description of this book as a "serious philosophical inquiry that is a best-seller in Japan." I found instead a somewhat ham-fisted attempt to advocate for Adlerian psychology in the form of a Socratic Dialogue. Which is not necessarily such a bad thing.
There is no subtlety in the formation of this Socratic Dialogue. The two characters speaking are simply named "Youth" and "Philosopher." So, points for directness. As a literary device the problem is that the Youth is naive and feckless, as are most youths, and the Philosopher is condescending and more than a little self-satisfied, as are most philosophers. It's all a bit on-the-nose. I understand the point is the exchange of ideas and not literary quality, but even if something is just pretending to be a work fiction, poor dramatics is distracting.
In any event, it seems the key difference between Adlerian and Freudian psychologies is in determining the cause of one's feelings. A Freudian might say something like, "Your dysfunctional behavior is caused by being abused as a child." An Adlerian might say, "You've chosen to behave dysfunctionally as a reaction to being abused as a child." The plain difference is that Adler says your behavior is your choice, Freud says it is thrust upon you.
In reality these are not as different as they seem. A Freudian would probably treat your dysfunction by invoking your ego (the thing that is not the id or the superego) to rationalize your way to functional behavior. Adler would say you need to find the courage to change your behavior. Either way the prescription is to decide not to be dysfunctional, roughly speaking.
There is a certain appeal to Adler in that he offers you no easy excuse for your behavior. With Adler, you have no opportunity to wallow in victimhood and self-pity. Lord knows that sort of positivism is needed in a world where being a victim, or rather being seen as a victim, is rewarded. Increasingly we are told we are helpless before the elite and privileged. Or perhaps science is explaining how our behavior is just an expression of our genes. Adler makes you responsible for you.
Setting aside how closely it matches reality or not, as an approach to living the one life you have been given, it's probably best to pursue a positive self-empowered course, and not to design lifestyle around dwelling on assuming you're powerless. Such assumptions can be self-fulfilling.
The core concepts that the world has taken from Adler are the fodder of the standard sermons you have heard from our endless self-help sources, from Dale Carnegie to the Serenity Prayer. And there is much wisdom in it, too: self-acceptance and self-value are intertwined with finding meaning in interpersonal relationships. It's good advice if a bit vague. I feel about it the way I feel about Jordan Peterson or any number of philosophers which is that if the bulk of people in the world were to try to live this lifestyle, the world would be measurably improved.
It is not scientific. None of the Austrian founders of psychology -- Freud, Yung, Adler -- were scientific in the sense of being verifiable via experiment. There was also no conception at the time of the dominant psychology model of today which is evo-psych. It would be fascinating to read a reconciliation of Adler and evo-psych. My own bias is that Adler's exhortations work for most everyone in the developed world, where we all run around trying find happiness and meaning. For edge case personalities and folks living hand-to-mouth the detachment from the negative experiences of life is probably not as feasible. I honestly can't say I buy the idea that everyone's unhappiness is due to a lack of courage to change. Maybe most people in most circumstances, but it's hard for me to imagine living an entire life and not having a unhappiness thrust upon you at some point. I have found that large stretches of life can amount to little more than doing crap I don't want to do. I have gotten out of those situations in time, which to Adler, means I found the courage to change. I'm not so sure I didn't just luck out.
Should you read The Courage to be Disliked? Probably not. If you are familiar with the self-help genre (and most people are) you will likely encounter little new information. It is interesting to follow the attempt to translate it into a more formal philosophy, but not especially rewarding. It may anger you because it can seem uncaring and cold-hearted, but that is likely because the vocabulary used for certain concepts, such as "courage" and "inferiority", is primed for misinterpretation. At worst it will be harmless, at best you may gain a nugget of wisdom. But considering the annoying format, you're better off looking elsewhere.
There is no subtlety in the formation of this Socratic Dialogue. The two characters speaking are simply named "Youth" and "Philosopher." So, points for directness. As a literary device the problem is that the Youth is naive and feckless, as are most youths, and the Philosopher is condescending and more than a little self-satisfied, as are most philosophers. It's all a bit on-the-nose. I understand the point is the exchange of ideas and not literary quality, but even if something is just pretending to be a work fiction, poor dramatics is distracting.
In any event, it seems the key difference between Adlerian and Freudian psychologies is in determining the cause of one's feelings. A Freudian might say something like, "Your dysfunctional behavior is caused by being abused as a child." An Adlerian might say, "You've chosen to behave dysfunctionally as a reaction to being abused as a child." The plain difference is that Adler says your behavior is your choice, Freud says it is thrust upon you.
In reality these are not as different as they seem. A Freudian would probably treat your dysfunction by invoking your ego (the thing that is not the id or the superego) to rationalize your way to functional behavior. Adler would say you need to find the courage to change your behavior. Either way the prescription is to decide not to be dysfunctional, roughly speaking.
There is a certain appeal to Adler in that he offers you no easy excuse for your behavior. With Adler, you have no opportunity to wallow in victimhood and self-pity. Lord knows that sort of positivism is needed in a world where being a victim, or rather being seen as a victim, is rewarded. Increasingly we are told we are helpless before the elite and privileged. Or perhaps science is explaining how our behavior is just an expression of our genes. Adler makes you responsible for you.
Setting aside how closely it matches reality or not, as an approach to living the one life you have been given, it's probably best to pursue a positive self-empowered course, and not to design lifestyle around dwelling on assuming you're powerless. Such assumptions can be self-fulfilling.
The core concepts that the world has taken from Adler are the fodder of the standard sermons you have heard from our endless self-help sources, from Dale Carnegie to the Serenity Prayer. And there is much wisdom in it, too: self-acceptance and self-value are intertwined with finding meaning in interpersonal relationships. It's good advice if a bit vague. I feel about it the way I feel about Jordan Peterson or any number of philosophers which is that if the bulk of people in the world were to try to live this lifestyle, the world would be measurably improved.
It is not scientific. None of the Austrian founders of psychology -- Freud, Yung, Adler -- were scientific in the sense of being verifiable via experiment. There was also no conception at the time of the dominant psychology model of today which is evo-psych. It would be fascinating to read a reconciliation of Adler and evo-psych. My own bias is that Adler's exhortations work for most everyone in the developed world, where we all run around trying find happiness and meaning. For edge case personalities and folks living hand-to-mouth the detachment from the negative experiences of life is probably not as feasible. I honestly can't say I buy the idea that everyone's unhappiness is due to a lack of courage to change. Maybe most people in most circumstances, but it's hard for me to imagine living an entire life and not having a unhappiness thrust upon you at some point. I have found that large stretches of life can amount to little more than doing crap I don't want to do. I have gotten out of those situations in time, which to Adler, means I found the courage to change. I'm not so sure I didn't just luck out.
Should you read The Courage to be Disliked? Probably not. If you are familiar with the self-help genre (and most people are) you will likely encounter little new information. It is interesting to follow the attempt to translate it into a more formal philosophy, but not especially rewarding. It may anger you because it can seem uncaring and cold-hearted, but that is likely because the vocabulary used for certain concepts, such as "courage" and "inferiority", is primed for misinterpretation. At worst it will be harmless, at best you may gain a nugget of wisdom. But considering the annoying format, you're better off looking elsewhere.
[Good Links] Link Soup
This is an amazing analysis of social media, from Eugene Wei. He looks into the heart of social media from an entrepreneurial perspective and comes to the understanding the success or failure in SM is dependent on how well it facilitates creation and distribution of status. Tom Wolfe would be proud.
The lost world of 20 years ago. When he got to discussing the glorious, decentralized blogosphere we used to have versus the twitter/facebook/instagram monoculture of today, it got misty in here.
Most of what you read on the internet is written by insane people. Sort of. But never ever mistake social media for reality. In fact, never ever mistake any media for reality.
If you are of a certain age (probably over 50) and have a bit of a twisted sense of humor, you'll appreciate Cris Shapan's satirical ads and book covers. More here. I can't find a central repository (which would be a great Cris Shapan book title).
Nathan Pyle's comic strip, Strange Planet, is utterly delightful.
The lost world of 20 years ago. When he got to discussing the glorious, decentralized blogosphere we used to have versus the twitter/facebook/instagram monoculture of today, it got misty in here.
Most of what you read on the internet is written by insane people. Sort of. But never ever mistake social media for reality. In fact, never ever mistake any media for reality.
If you are of a certain age (probably over 50) and have a bit of a twisted sense of humor, you'll appreciate Cris Shapan's satirical ads and book covers. More here. I can't find a central repository (which would be a great Cris Shapan book title).
Nathan Pyle's comic strip, Strange Planet, is utterly delightful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)