Heidegger saw angst as Dasein’s response to the certainty of death, conceived existentially but corresponding to biological death. That is certainly the surest of deaths, but it is not the only possible death that Dasein can undergo. Dasein feels angst in the face of every possibility of deep change.

All things wish for perpetual life, even a mood. Even a mood fears its own death.

The more subject you are to change the more acute your angst.

*

Ideologies are attempts at artificial existential immortality.

*

I could see where the most intellectually impoverished, expired and pointless mode of consciousness could recognize its plight in Terri Schiavo.

“Even a human vegetable with no consciousness or hope of recovery deserves an iron-lung. Keep the biological mechanism alive even if it knows not what it does,” shrieks the collective intellectual vegetable with no consciousness or hope of recovery, in a desperate attempt to inhale some spirit from artificial controversy — and it has no idea at all what it is doing or why… it wants to postpone death. “Not yet!”

Republicans: give up the ghost. Unclench your hand and let go. It is ok. As Nietzsche said: “Only where there are graves are there resurrections.”

I need to go back and read Buber and see if he denied the validity of the I-It relationship.

If he did, I disagree with him. As important as I-Thou is, I-It cannot be reduced to a mere corruption of I-Thou.

*

I-It is what mediates our I-Thou relationships.

In my view I-Thou deepens in the permanently expanding transfiguration of I-It to We-It. That transfiguration is synesis.

*

I-Thou is the relationship I have with one who speaks.

I-It is that which I speak about.

If that which I speak about speaks, I must permit him to speak to me.

I must hear him and see for myself what he says about the world.

When he tells me about the world, much of what he shows me is I-It.

I must hear him as one who says something valid that may change my world.

If I accept the validity of his words, his I-It and my I-It gives way to We-It. More and more we speak out of a shared understanding and my world is drawn beyond itself.

If I deny his words validity, I withhold I-Thou from him. He is a talking, behaving object wholly contained in my world.

*

Business wishes to establish an order where leadership has no reason to hear. It already knows.

Business wants I-It resources, not human beings. It wants the predictability of physics, not the insight of conversation.

Why the dehumanizing language? Resources, utilization, overhead… At minimum it is suspicious.

*

At Auschwitz the Jews were not permitted to refer to Jewish corpses as “bodies”. They were to call them “puppets” or “shit”.

The Khmer Rouge taught the children to say to the urbanite New People: “To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss.”

And don’t forget Rwanda:

The director of the human rights organization, African Rights, Rakiya Omaar, was following the events from northern Rwanda.

“In Rwanda they referred to Tutsis as cockroaches,” explains Omaar. “They were not human beings. This is very important to understand, [there are] very close parallels to what happened in Hitler’s Germany. [They said,] ‘Don’t worry, you’re not killing humans like you. You are killing some vermin that belongs under your shoe. You’re killing cockroaches.'”

*

If you believe Nietzsche, there is also a “benevolent” form of dehumanization.

Think about the people who love the helpless and seek them out in order to serve them… Are they connecting with them as people or as objects of benevolent feeling?

Much “service” in politics, business, education, religion, charity is just another form of reduction of human beings to I-It: helpless, mute, beloved objects. Neither love nor hate affects the fact that I-It is not I-Thou.

This is why Nietzsche had no respect for pity. Often, it is just one more mode of dehumanization, but one that allows the benefactor to have his cake and eat it, too. You can exercise power over a thing, but feel like you are doing something wonderful for a “person”.

*

If you worship a man as God, proclaim the truth of his words, love him as your savior, but you don’t try to see his words as valid to you, in this time and place, within this everyday reality that you know as real haven’t you reduced him to I-It? To expect some magical end-time or after-life where the words become valid… isn’t that just a way to postpone understanding and applying until it is too late?

Worship dehumanizes. Superhumanizing deprives the object of affection of human meaning.

Exaltation is a defense against relationship.

As far as I am concerned the world divides into that which speaks and that which does not.

The spiral is the synthesis of closed circularity and open nothingness.
It has a containing form, but it can move beyond its limits without losing its form.
It overcomes limits and it preserves.
My new favorite shape: the outspiral.

Modernity over-ripens into post-modernity and starts rotting as anti-modernity.

The most virulent forms of anti-modernity pose as pre-modernity: fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism is a form of mass-relativism. It originates in breakdown of tradition.  Every fundamentalism is founded on radical, alienated skepticism which dissolves all obligation to maintain ties with the dominant tradition. It no longer wishes to reach agreement with anyone outside of itself. It then invents a fictional past and believes in it. It exploits the helplessness of the past, by projecting itself over the past and making the past the history of itself. It does this in order to attain the credibility that comes from having a history. And all those who join up agree with one another, and never tire of agreeing with one another, and most of all on the fact that people outside of the group are not worth talking to because they will never understand, and don’t want to understand, etc. for various despicable reasons.

Perennialism is esoteric fundamentalism.

*

The Perennialists steal from modernity, project it onto ancient religious forms — then reject modernity ad hominem. Modernity is ignorant. Modernity doesn’t recognize that it’s discovered nothing new. It hasn’t innovated anything. We need to stop trying to innovate, and get back to the root of wisdom.

They’ve got intellection. If you disagree with them you lack intellection. If you lack intellection, there’s nothing to discuss. If there’s no discussion, there’s no way for anyone to show them their error. But there is no error, because intellection protects them from error. If you already had intellection you would know this.

There’s nothing more postmodern than rejecting contemporary conceptions of truth and returning to ancient traditions. What is truth? Go skeptical — then find your own circular system and excuse yourself from further discussion. Sit alone, wiser than hell. Postmodernism is about fragmentation of culture into a zillion little perspectives, each thinking it contains all the others.

*

The crux:

Is it that modernity hasn’t discovered anything new?

Or is it that Perennialism hasn’t discovered anything old?

*

Postmodernity is hard to define because it is not a belief one adopts but rather a cultural condition within which thinking is done, whether one accepts postmodernity as its condition or not. Postmodernists are those who believe in this condition, and they are enraging because, rightly or wrongly, they reserve the right to see postmodernity especially where postmodernity is denied.

I do believe in postmodernity, and I see Perennialism as a consequence of postmodernity. It preys specifically on those who suffer most from postmodernity and wish it to not exist.

It’s not a matter of vanity. It’s not a matter of “being too good” for something.

Some activities help you develop toward your own ideal.

Some activities lead you away from your own ideal. Too much of these activities can make you forget your ideal altogether.

The former is “edifying”. The latter is “degrading”.

*

Some people have no ideal. They have likes and dislikes and map everything they hear about “destinies” and such back to mere preference for this or that.

Such people cannot understand why everyone shouldn’t just do what’s most useful.

Useful for what? Useful why? What’s being perpetuated?

*

An esoteric maxim: “Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human.”

*

It’s a shame that we’re too tired or degraded or busy to think — because if we were to think things out, we’d take thinking more seriously and refuse to be degraded to the point where thinking is no longer possible. “Indecent haste,” Nietzsche called it.

From within this haste only haste makes sense.

That does it. I’m going to memorize James Dickey’s “For the Last Wolverine”.

In judging cultural movements, permanence is a bad standard. Precisely the best things become the worst. That does not mean they were never good.

Endurance does matter, but endurance is relative. Culture is a kind of life, and living things are born, they mature, and they die.

*

Babies are not adults in a more perfect form. They may be purer, but purity is negative perfection. (To have no other standard is not merely stunted, but outright dangerous. The Myth of the Fall that underlies the most reactionary and toxic forms of modern/post-modern “conservatism” — the notion that an embryonic natural humanity lost its value/innocence as it became cultural — is spiritually and practically harmful. Brainless faith in progress is little better. Rather than hellish catastrophes, it leads to hellish, colorless flatness. Meliorism is the transcendent synthesis: hearing the divine “quiet voice” with our all-too-human ears and owning responsibility for what one learns.)

*

Infancy is negative perfection. Maturity is positive perfection.

Potential is cheap.

Successful actualization is rare and precious.

Let’s not overvalue the embryonic, especially not as a means to deny the value of maturity.

*

The being specific to human being is self-creative: our nature is perpetual reinvention of ourselves through the medium of cultural tradition. Consider the meaning of the term “Son of Man”. Man, by its own process, produces the next way for human beings to be. And the child someday parents a child, and that child parents a child, and so on. If you are a nerd, you’ll be interested in the fact that this is a nonlinear process, which means it is all orderly and inevitable but utterly unpredictable.

Conservatism perpetually ensures there is never a place for the new to lay its head.

(Maybe this is exactly as it ought to be.)

*

Each human being emerges from embryonic oblivion.

Humanity as a whole emerged from simian oblivion.

Our hopes always belong to now and are oriented toward the future. As we approach the future, now and the future and the past retransfigure themselves. TIME IS WEIRD.

We should have learned by now: We can not and should not go back.

It hurts like a bitch to be a human being, but it is good to be human. Let’s not try to escape being human. Let’s live it out.

Let’s decide how we want to be. We can do this. We are allowed to do this. Or, if you prefer, why not?: we are supposed to do this.

*

Embryo songs:

Erik Satie – “Embryons desséchés”

Jefferson Airplane – “Embryonic Journey”

The Rulers – “Wrong Embryo”

James Brown – “September Song”

Big Star – “September Gurls”

Simon & Garfunkel – “April Come She Will”

My most valuable ideas have always come to me in a flash. Once they come, they almost self-execute. The dialogue between concept and execution suggests what to do next.

My very worst ideas have limped into existence and have required considerably more effort to execute.

If someone measures the value of what I do in terms of how long it takes me to produce an outcome they will judge my worst work most valuable and my best work nearly worthless.

*

In order to measure value, you have to actually understand the value you are measuring. People buy results, not time.

*

An excellent article on billing by the project or by the hour: http://www.1099.com/c/ar/ta/HowToCharge_t042.html

Legend has it that Pablo Picasso was sketching in the park when a bold woman approached him. “It’s you — Picasso, the great artist! Oh, you must sketch my portrait! I insist.”

So Picasso agreed to sketch her. After studying her for a moment, he used a single pencil stroke to create her portrait. He handed the women his work of art.

“It’s perfect!” she gushed. “You managed to capture my essence with one stroke, in one moment. Thank you! How much do I owe you?”

“Five thousand dollars,” the artist replied.

“B-b-but, what?” the woman sputtered. “How could you want so much money for this picture? It only took you a second to draw it!”

To which Picasso responded, “Madame, it took me my entire life.”

*

“Every act of creation is first an act of destruction.”

“Others have seen what is and asked why. I have seen what could be and asked why not.”

“Everything you can imagine is real.”

“An idea is a point of departure and no more. As soon as you elaborate it, it becomes transformed by thought.”

“Never permit a dichotomy to rule your life, a dichotomy in which you hate what you do so you can have pleasure in your spare time. Look for a situation in which your work will give you as much happiness as your spare time.”

“Only put off until tomorrow what you are willing to die having left undone.”

“Some painters transform the sun into a yellow spot, others transform a yellow spot into the sun.”

“One does a whole painting for one peach and people think just the opposite — that particular peach is but a detail.”

“Every positive value has its price in negative terms… the genius of Einstein leads to Hiroshima.”

“There are only two types of women – goddesses and doormats.”

“Bad artists copy. Good artists steal.”

*

And somehow he was never called an asshole.

Two very different cries for help:

1. Help! We need to figure out what we ought to do!
2. Help! I need someone to execute tasks for me!

These cries belong together and should not be separated.

Some people only want to sound the second cry, neglecting to sound the first; and some people only want to answer the first cry, while neglecting the second.

“Being in this together” means
both sounding and responding
to both the first and the second cry.

*

Help! We need to figure out what we ought to do!

Is there another way to see this? — a way that is more productive and more inspiring — that really brings out what matters to all of us?

Let’s look at it from different angles.

What about this way? or, even better… this…

Yes! If we were to take this approach we’d need to do these eight steps…

[Idea semistolen from the One Minute Manager. Yes, I am reading pop-business books. It seems possible that management is the most interesting experience design problem in the world.]

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man has exceptionally acute hearing

The blind king utilizes him as his super-ear. Whenever his majesty needs help hearing the very quietest sounds he assigns the one-eyed man to the task of listening.

What she wants to say, she has no words for. Her words are so open, ambiguous, indeterminate and vague that they could mean anything.

He only says what can be communicated. His words are so univocal, unambiguous, specific and defined that they can mean nothing of importance.

*

He wants her to communicate clearly. Like a clockmaker he carefully disassembles her sentences, gently cleans the parts, applies a light coat of fine oil, and reassembles them. He establishes definitions, places the elements in syllogistic order, and he sets the meaning in smooth humming motion.

In the end he has helped her speak very clearly, and it has nothing to do with what she needed to say.

*

Her language suffers from indiscipline. She tries to carry the significance of everything at once and communicates nothing.

His language suffers from discipline. He says only what can be communicated with perfect reliability and so he says nothing of significance.

*

She errs toward infinity.

He errs  toward zero.

A concrete example of dialectic:

One person insists he is looking at a vase (thesis). The other insists he is looking at two faces (antithesis). In talking to one another, each party realizes together that both are seeing an optical illusion (synthesis), which is a kind of being whose essence is to accommodate apparently contradictory but valid ways of seeing.

The deeper understanding of the synthesis comprehends both views as valid-as-far-as-they-go (each can now see either a vase or two faces), but it also sees the incompleteness of each view as it excludes the other.

The assertion that the image is of a vase, and the assertion that the image is of two faces — these assertions are at the same ontological (being) level. The manner in which the image is (the “being” of the picture) is the same in each case: depiction of a thing. The assertion that the image is an optical illusion, however, is ontologically deeper. The being of an illusion is different in kind from the being of a depiction of a thing, and it accommodates both its own being and the being of depiction and holds them in relation to one another.

*

It’s a lot easier to help someone see an optical illusion if he’s seen one before. We can appeal to his own prior experience.

Imagine how a description of “seeing” an optical illusion would sound to someone who has never seen an optical illusion. “You are going to turn this vase into a pair of faces? Are you some kind of sorcerer?”

They’re “ontologically blind”, which means they simply have no place in their thinking for the optical illusion’s mode of being. If they try to explain it to themselves or to others it will be described in terms of what they do already know. They’ll use “ontic” terms — the manner of existence that physical objects have.

Until they figure out what you’re trying to show them, they’ve got several options:

1. They can miss the possibility that they might not understand yet, and simply declare your claim — as they misunderstand it — to be false or true.
2. They can reduce what you are saying to something they do grasp, and consider the matter settled. (It’s some sort of poetic expression, or a vague moral lesson of some kind, a truth refracted through an unfamiliar culture, an uncannily resonant hallucination, etc.)
3. They can admit they don’t know what you’re talking about and not worry about it.
4. They can admit they don’t know what you’re talking about, but let their non-understanding bother them until they see for themselves what you mean.

The situation we are in, if we wish to live dialectically: We are aware that are constantly falling into attitude #2, but if we stay aware of that fact, we can find our way back to attitude #4.

*

A moral dialectic:

Thesis: One should maintain his psychic constancy, and be someone to himself and others (or to put it negatively, one should resist akrasia, moral incontinence).

Antithesis: One should be responsive to the voices of others, which means to be open to change (or to put it negatively, one should avoid ideology and hubris).

Synthesis: One should be prepared to dialectically deepen.

This means to pursue authentic understanding of others by extending oneself to them. Rather than simply shift one’s perspective, one retains his perspective, but learns to see it from an ever-broadening vantage that includes the perspectives of others. One “can go” over to the validity of the other, and one can go back over to where he was, but his perspective also moves vertically, and sees the whole landscape of differing perspective from an overview. The lower perspectives are seen as valid from within (“emic”), but are also interrelated from without (“etic”) within a greater emic view. This greater emic view will certainly someday be grasped from an etic view when it is dialectically surpassed and grasped from without, but until that day, it is universally true. This fact does not transport us into infinitude, it only places us in relation with it, and shows us that we are in blessed, eternally-futile pursuit, and it is this futility that is immortality.

From Nietzsche’s Gay Science:

The golden watchword. — Many chains have been laid upon man so that he should no longer behave like an animal: and he has in truth become gentler, more spiritual, more joyful, more reflective than any animal is. Now, however, he suffers from having worn his chains for so long, from being deprived for so long of clean air and free movement: — these chains, however, I shall never cease from repeating, are those heavy and pregnant errors contained in the conceptions of morality, religion and metaphysics. Only when this sickness from one’s chains has also been overcome will the first great goal have truly been attained: the separation of man from the animals. — We stand now in the midst of our work of removing these chains, and we need to proceed with the greatest caution. Only the ennobled man may be given freedom of the spirit; to him alone does alleviation of life draw near and salve his wounds; only he may say that he lives for the sake of joy and for the sake of no further goal; and in any other mouth his motto would be perilous: Peace all around me and goodwill to all things closest to me. — With this motto for individuals he recalls an ancient great and moving saying intended for all which has remained hanging over all mankind as a sign and motto by which anyone shall perish who inscribes it on his banner too soon — by which Christianity perished. The time has, it seems, still not yet come when all men are to share the experience of those shepherds who saw the heavens brighten above them and heard the words: “On earth peace, good will toward men.” — It is still the age of the individual.

Every misunderstanding, by definition, feels like an understanding. To argue that you do not misunderstand in the basis of the fact that you do have an understanding, only demonstrates that you are unaware of what understanding involves.

*

To look someone in the eye and tell them, despite their protests that you have misunderstood, that you do in fact understand them: this is despicable. The more powerful you are the more able you are to avoid being confronted with this fact. The powerful can enlist yes-men to reinforce their delusions of comprehensive mastery.

*

Some people are at their worst when they are weak. They lack the strength to live up to — or sometimes even to remember — their own ideal.

Other people are at their worst when they are strong. They lack the constraints necessary to bring them into line with any persistent ideal. Such people have never known a reason to be principled except to avoid punishment. Escaping the possibility of punishment is tantamount to escaping obligation.

*

It takes a long time for people who have been unfree to realize that freedom is neither anarchy nor is it holding the power to enslave.

Being free means being free for one’s own responsibility.

Being responsible means to be able to respond to one’s situation.

To be able to respond to one’s situation requires that one understand it.

To understand one’s situation is to recognize that every situation involves both objects and other people.

To recognize that every situation involves both objects and other people, requires that one know the difference between I-It relationships and I-Thou relationships.

Far too few people in positions of power know anything other than I-It.

I-Thou means: “You can change my world if I hear you.”

*

The mania for quantification, scientificality, objectivity and its consequent objectivist reductionism of human beings to resources to utilize in order to meet one’s own objectives… this is the consequence of a species of intellectual vulgarity.

So far, the field of User Experience has allowed itself to be utilized as a tool for behavioral manipulation. At the heart of User Experience, though, is a principle opposed to this use: that a person should be understood and related to not as an It object but as Thou. The techniques of User Experience are further along than its self-awareness, which is a good thing. Sometimes ignorance serves as a protective shell. The seeds have been planted, now they can grow and establish themselves. The flowers and the fruit will come. Gradually, as more and more businesses learn that genuine human relationships with customers and with employees (that is, I-Thou relationships) work better than I-It manipulations that seek to simulate humanity, a different class of business leader will emerge.

At first, the shift will be strictly utilitarian, but I hope eventually we will acquire a taste for it, and I look forward to the day when we look back and shudder at this time of technical control, misguided servile work ethics, neglect of community and children, and the ugly, meaningless and stressful work lives so many accepted as normal.

We will be amazed that we treated workers and students for depression rather than treating workplaces and schools for depressingness. “It was so obvious that it was the workplace that was mentally ill. Why didn’t people see this?”

(This is my practical “metastatic expectation.” It’s not a prediction, but an ideal to pursue.)

If one knows knowledge only as a kind of mastery, one misses the most important dimension of knowledge: the knowledge of how to recognize and relate to what exceeds and masters us. The condition manifests in the conception of knowledge in terms of theories and methods, and nothing beyond that. When one is mastered by this conception of knowledge, one is always unaware of it.